[Senate Hearing 106-921]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 106-921

                DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELAT- 
            ED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

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

                                HEARINGS

                                before a

                          SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

            COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                       ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                   on

                      H.R. 4475, 5394 and S. 2720

 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND 
RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001, AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

                               __________

                      Department of Transportation
            National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
                       Nondepartmental witnesses
                      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
62-808                     WASHINGTON : 2001


_______________________________________________________________________
            For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 
                                 20402


                      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             FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana                BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
                   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
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    PATTY MURRAY, Washington

                                 Staff

                             Wally Burnett
                             Joyce C. Rose
                              Paul Doerrer
                        Peter Rogoff (Minority)


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                       Tuesday, December 14, 1999
    Oversight Hearing on Alaska Aviation Issues for the 21st Century

                                                                   Page
Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration....     1
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................     1

                       Thursday, February 3, 2000
      Joint Oversight Hearing on Modernizing the Federal Aviation 
                Administration: Challenges and Solutions

Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration....    77
Department of Transportation: Office of Inspector General........    77
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   153

                      Thursday, February 10, 2000

Department of Transportation: Office of the Secretary............   181

                      Thursday, February 24, 2000
   Department of Transportation Safety Initiatives--Fiscal Year 2001

Department of Transportation: U.S. Coast Guard...................   259
Department of Transportation: National Highway Traffic Safety 
  Administration.................................................   259
Department of Transportation: Research and Special Programs 
  Administration.................................................   259
Department of Transportation: Federal Railroad Administration....   259

                        Thursday, March 9, 2000
Oversight Hearing on Department of Transportation Programs--Fiscal Year 
                                  2001

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).................   339
Department of Transportation: Office of Inspector General........   339
Department of Transportation.....................................   339

                        Tuesday, March 28, 2000
Oversight Hearing on Department of Transportation Programs--Fiscal Year 
                            2001--Continuing

Department of Transportation.....................................   381

                         Tuesday, April 4, 2000
   Implementing the Driver's Privacy Protection Act Express Consent 
                              Requirement

Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   405

                         Tuesday, July 25, 2000
       Oversight Hearing on Aviation Consumer Service and Delays

Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration....   459
Department of Transportation: Office of Inspector General........   459
Nondepartmental witness..........................................   493

                      Wednesday, September 6, 2000
  Oversight Hearing on the Firestone ATX and Wilderness AT Tire Recall

Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   513

                      Tuesday, September 12, 2000
          Oversight Hearing on Freight Rail Competition Issues

Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   585
Surface Transportation Board.....................................   653

    Material Submitted by Agencies Not Appearing For Formal Hearings

Department of Transportation:
    Office of the Secretary......................................   677
    Federal Aviation Administration..............................   713
    Federal Highway Administration...............................   807
    National Railroad Passenger Corporation......................   966
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration..................   999
    Federal Railroad Administration..............................  1040
    Federal Transit Administration...............................  1117
    Research and Special Programs Administration.................  1207
    U.S. Coast Guard.............................................  1264
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...............  1315
    Surface Transportation Board.................................  1377
Nondepartmental witnesses:
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues........  1395
    Research and Special Programs Administration issues..........  1401
    U.S. Coast Guard issues......................................  1404
    Miscellaneous issues.........................................  1416
    Federal Transit Administration issues........................  1425
    Federal Aviation Administration issues.......................  1470
    Federal Highway Administration issues........................  1490
    Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak issues............  1502

 
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2000

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1999

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, at 2 p.m., in the Z.J. Loussac 
Library, Assembly Chamber, Anchorage, AL, Hon. Ted Stevens 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Stevens.
    Also present: Representative Don Young.

    OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ALASKA AVIATION ISSUES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

STATEMENT OF PATRICK N. POE, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, 
            ALASKA REGION

                       NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

STATEMENT OF:
        PAUL BOWERS, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIRECTOR, 
            STATEWIDE AVIATION
        MORTON V. PLUMB, JR., DIRECTOR, ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
        JAMES D. LABELLE, CHIEF, ALASKA OFFICE, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 
            SAFETY BOARD
        RICHARD HARDING, PRESIDENT, PENINSULA AIRWAYS
        TOM WARDLEIGH, PRESIDENT, ALASKA AVIATION SAFETY FOUNDATION
        FELIX MAGUIRE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA AIRMEN'S ASSOCIATION
        KEN ACTON, AVIATION CONSULTANT


                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS


    Senator Stevens. Thank you, Congressman Young, for joining 
us. I know that you have a great interest in aviation also. I 
am sort of singing to the choir, but we all know that no other 
State is more dependent on aviation than Alaska is, with 70 
percent of our communities accessible only by air. Alaskans 
count on aircraft to deliver supplies, food and medicine. They 
are crucial to evacuation of the ill and injured.
    And I think the people that live in the Lower 48 have a 
hard time grasping the concept that we use aircraft as they use 
almost every other form of transportation--cars, buses, and 
trucks. Aircraft cover the whole spectrum of transportation.
    And I am pleased to see you here, Tom. This summer, Tom 
Wardleigh took me back 50 years and helped me renew my pilot's 
license and helped me get a float plane license, so it is good 
to see you here, my friend. As president of the Alaska Aviation 
Safety Foundation, I know you are deeply committed to the goals 
that we are trying to pursue here.
    I chair the Senate Appropriations Committee, and I am also 
on the Aviation Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee. 
Very soon, my good friend and colleague here, Congressman Don 
Young, will chair the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee. This will give us, I think, the first time in 
history where we have such a complete coverage of all of the 
facets of the legislative process of our national government 
that affect aviation. The two of us, like all of you, are 
deeply committed to improving aviation safety in Alaska.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    I have a longer opening statement, incidentally, to print 
in the record, but that is my opening statement for today. I 
want to thank all of you for coming and give Congressman Young 
a chance to make an opening statement if he wishes to make one.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens

    Good afternoon everyone. I'm pleased to see such a fine panel 
representing Alaska aviation today. As you know, we're here to discuss 
aviation issues facing us in the new millennium. Your complete prepared 
statements will be made part of the record, each of you will get five 
minutes to summarize your statements, and then we should have some time 
left over for questions.
    Let me begin by stating the obvious: There is not another state in 
the Union more dependent on aviation for its way of life than Alaska. 
Let me repeat that--There is no other state in the Union more dependent 
on aviation than Alaska.
    More than 70 percent of our 300 plus communities are accessible 
only by air. Alaskans in those communities count on aircraft to deliver 
mail, supplies, food, and medicine. When someone in a remote village 
becomes too ill to be treated locally, evacuation by air becomes a 
matter of life or death. People who live in the lower 48 have a hard 
time grasping that concept. They don't understand that we use small 
airplanes like they use buses and taxis. They have highways--we use 
skyways. Alaska has the highest per capita aircraft ownership in the 
country. In relation to its population, Alaska has more flights, by 
far, than any other state. Frank, Don and I spend a lot of time trying 
to convince our colleagues that Alaska requires special consideration 
when it comes to aviation legislation and funding. We've been fairly 
successful in that endeavor--but we cannot afford to stop educating 
others on the special reliance Alaska has on aviation.
    Flying is an inherently dangerous occupation made relatively safe 
through technology innovations, the world's best air traffic control 
system and, most important, well-trained, experienced pilots. For safe 
air transport, we need excellence in all three areas--the machine, the 
pilot, and ground support.
    We need to redouble our efforts to procure and deploy safety 
enhancing equipment and weather reporting capabilities. We have some of 
the roughest terrain and weather in North America. The vast majority of 
our low altitude airspace is not radar monitored. Most of our 
intrastate air traffic takes place below 10,000 feet. And the planes we 
fly are, on average, older than most planes flown in the lower 48. Does 
this mean we cannot improve aviation safety in Alaska? The answer is, 
``No.'' We can--and must--continue to improve aviation safety. Every 
one of us participating in this hearing today can make a positive 
impact on aviation safety.
    That is why we're here today--to talk about where we want to be 
ten, twenty,, or even a hundred years from now. All of you work in the 
aviation community every day. Some of you, like me, are licensed 
pilots--so your commitment to improving how we fly in Alaska is 
personal. I see my good friend Tom Wardleigh at the witness table. He 
helped me get my float plane license last summer. As president of the 
Alaskan Aviation Safety Foundation, Tom is deeply committed to 
improving aviation safety.
    I chair the Senate Appropriations Committee and sit on the Aviation 
Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee. Soon, Congressman Young 
will chair the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 
Senator Murkowski chairs Energy and Natural Resources. All of us are 
deeply committed to improving aviation safety in Alaska. Most states 
have a heck of a lot more than three legislators fighting for their 
interests. But I'll tell you, when Frank, Don and I get together--the 
``three amigos'' can more than hold our own in pursuing Alaska's 
interests.
    We can fight the broad aviation policy battles in Washington--
making sure our government recognizes and honors Alaska's unique 
aviation needs. We can also work to maximize federal funding for Alaska 
aviation. But nothing we do can really make a difference without the 
mutual cooperation and commitment of the people in this room and 
throughout the aviation community in Alaska.
    Safety improvements are not borne of increased regulation. Some 
people in this room, maybe on this panel, may not agree with me on 
this. But I know, personally, that Alaska has some of the finest pilots 
in the world. Our job is to provide the best possible environment for 
them to practice their essential profession.
    I hope our discussion here today is a step toward improving that 
environment and the air transportation system that is so critical to 
Alaska's future.

                      STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG

    Mr. Young. Thank you, Senator, and I have a written 
statement that will be submitted for the record, without 
objection. My interest, as the Senator has mentioned before, is 
the safety factor, but also the capability of our Alaskans to 
travel without a great deal of hindrance, to arrive at their 
destinations on time, and to make sure that we will be able to 
improve the capability of the FAA and the runways, the lighting 
system, navigation systems, and to make it safe and practical 
for every Alaskan that participates in air transportation.
    It is my vision that we will improve these airports, that 
we will be able to solve many of these problems in the future. 
I will say that there are many different feelings about this 
issue. Everyone seeks safety. I know that, and there are some 
who believe that we are doing everything possible.
    The air transportation industry, which employs over 10,000 
people in this State, is one of the largest employers in the 
State of Alaska. We want to allow the aviation industry, to 
continue growing and improving service without any undue 
hardships, and yet do it safely. It is going to be my goal to 
see that this will be achieved.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Thank you, Senator, for having this hearing. I think it 
will be important. We have two panels, I believe, and we will 
hear from the expertise in that field, and with that I am ready 
to do business.
    [The statement follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Congressman Don Young

    Chairman Stevens--thank you for the opportunity to participate in 
this hearing. I'll keep my remarks brief.
    Every Alaskan knows aviation plays a major role in Alaska. Without 
a major road system only 100 of Alaska's 300 communities can be served 
by road. With over 1,100 airstrips and airports and more than 9,700 
registered aircraft and 10,605 pilots, it is easy to understand how 
vital aviation is to Alaska. Further, because of Alaska's distinct 
geographic location between Europe and Asia, Anchorage International 
Airport lands more freight than any other airport in the nation. 
Fairbanks International is also becoming a player in the cargo arena. 
It is also a well recognized fact that Alaska's air transport industry 
provides over 10,000 aviation related jobs.
    The average Alaskan flies nine times a year, compared to the 
average American, who flies twice a year. This brings me to an issue I 
have a great interest in----aviation safety. According to the General 
Accounting Office, the number of people using the airways will grow to 
over a billion by 2002. With that many people in the air, it is crucial 
that we continue to modernize our air traffic control systems. In 
Alaska that means making the investment at small, rural airports with 
the installation of runway lighting, runway lengthening and paving, 
accurate weather reporting and modern communications systems.
    Nationally, the U.S. Air Traffic Control System remains one of the 
top systems in the world. Unfortunately, the FAA's current 
modernization program has experienced cost overruns and schedule 
slippages which have caused delays with implementation. Congress will 
address this and other issues when it returns next year.
    Although there are other equally important issues, I want to 
conclude my statement with the subject of funding. The resources to 
upgrade safety and make airport improvements exists.
    How much is actually needed and how to spend taxpayers money are 
issues that Congress will need to resolve next year. It is my position 
that all Americans deserve safe and affordable air travel, and that 
taxpayers are provided with a healthy return on their investment.
    Thank you Senator Stevens for the opportunity to speak on these 
important issues and I look forward to hearing the testimony of the 
witnesses.

    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. My staff has prepared 
a short handout for all of you. I do not know if you have got a 
copy of it, but I want to point out the statement that is in 
there that last month I met with Linda Rosenstock, who is 
Director of the National Institute of Safety and Health, and 
the Director of the Alaska Office, George Conway, to discuss 
ways to enhance aviation safety in Alaska.
    Linda has agreed to focus on recommendations of Jim Hall 
from the National Transportation Safety Board. He came here 
last August to help us find ways to improve aviation safety, 
and he brought back a series of recommendations, including a 
proposal for an industry-guided initiative to reduce accidents 
and fatalities, focusing on voluntary compliance.
    Congress has agreed to my request to make additional 
resources available to Dr. Rosenstock, as well as the FAA and 
NTSB, to further the study, so we look forward to the witnesses 
today telling us what they think about that study, and what we 
ought to do to concentrate our total efforts on aviation 
safety.
    [The information follows:]

                           Alaska's Aviators

    As a lifelong pilot, safety has always been number one on my flight 
checklist, both in the cockpit and in the Congress. In August, Jim 
Hall, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, came to 
Alaska to find ways to improve aviation safety in Alaska. He came back 
to Washington with recommendations including a proposal for an 
industry-guided initiative to reduce accidents and fatalities focusing 
on voluntary compliance rather than new government regulations.
    Below is a short summary of some of the safety initiatives Congress 
funded this year along with other projects of interest to the aviation 
industry in our state.
    If you have questions about any of these provisions, you may call 
my chief of staff, Mitch Rose, at 202-224-3004 or any of my Alaska 
offices located in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Ketchikan, Wasilla, and Kenai. 
My Washington office is open until 7:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time 
(3:00 p.m. Alaska Standard Time) for your convenience.

                       AVIATION SAFETY INITIATIVE

    Last month I met with Linda Rosenstock, Director of the National 
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the director of the 
Alaska office, George Conway, to discuss ways to enhance aviation 
safety in Alaska.
    She agreed to focus on the recommendations of Jim Hall and to 
pursue a voluntary effort with Alaska's air carriers, pilots, and taxi 
services. A similar approach has dramatically reduced accidents in the 
fishing and logging industries and has all but eliminated occupational 
fatalities in what were the two most dangerous occupations in the 
nation. Congress agreed to my request to make additional resources 
available to Dr. Rosenstock as well as to the FAA and the NTSB.

                              MIKE-IN-HAND

    Many remote village airports have no automated weather reporting 
equipment or FAA weather personnel. As a result, pilots must rely on 
dated weather forecasts rather than real-time field observations.
    Under a new federal program called ``Mike-in-hand,'' any airport 
with regular, part time, or contract employees will be able to report 
weather conditions directly to inbound pilots via VHF radio. At my 
request, sufficient funds were provided to acquire the necessary 
equipment, train personnel, and initiate the program.

                         MOUNTAIN PASS CAMERAS

    At last year's mini-conference, a number of pilots indicated that 
remote video cameras were a valuable flight tool.
    Through a new NTSB-recommended initiative, cameras will now be 
placed in dangerous mountain passes where weather conditions change 
rapidly. The cameras will provide real-time color weather pictures to 
pilots who can make the decision on whether to fly through a pass 
without having to go in to take a look. This will reduce the risks that 
pilots face.

                     ST. GEORGE INSTRUMENT LANDING

    No longer will pilots be locked out of St. George Island for weeks 
at a time because weather is below NDB minimums. By the end of next 
year, the FAA will finally have an ILS in place at St. George. Congress 
agreed to fund the plan this year.

                   AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING SYSTEM

    Funding was provided to continue this project.

                        JUNEAU WEATHER RESEARCH

    Additional funding was made available at my request to continue 
weather research on turbulence and wind shear at Juneau International 
Airport. This project is a continuation of a multi-year effort 
initiated in response to several weather related mishaps in Juneau.

                            ALASKA CAPSTONE

    This program, which will install state of the art cockpit upgrades 
for participating aircraft, along with airport, communication and GPS 
modernization throughout the Bethel region, is the test bed for the 
entire nation. When fully operational, CAPSTONE will be an integrated, 
nonradar, low-altitude, IFIR airspace designed to bring Alaska's 
airports into the 21st century.

        ALASKAN NAS INTERFACILITY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (ANICS)

    Congress fully funded this project which integrates interagency 
communications throughout Alaska.

    Senator Stevens. Our first panel this morning--this 
afternoon. You know--if it's Tuesday it's Anchorage, right--is 
Pat Poe, Director of the Alaska Region, Paul Bowers, the 
Director of Statewide Aviation for the Alaska Department of 
Transportation, Mort Plumb, Director of Anchorage International 
Airport, and Jim LaBelle of the National Transportation Safety 
Board. Gentlemen, you are at your liberty to see who goes 
first. Do you want to toss a coin, or proceed in the order I 
read them? It is all right with me, whatever you want to do.
    Thank you for taking the time to be with us. We are, 
incidentally, going to take this record back. This is an 
official hearing, and it will be reported to the Appropriations 
Committee and be part of our consideration of the legislative 
package for aviation early next year.
    So Pat, do you want to go first?

                          STATEMENT OF PAT POE

    Mr. Poe. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator, Congressman, ladies 
and gentlemen.
    At the outset, let me respond, Senator, to your question 
about my reaction and the FAA reaction to the proposed 
collective effort of NIOSH, the NTSB and the National Weather 
Service. I think that study in the background upon which it is 
based is absolutely excellent. We are eager and more than ready 
to participate. We have done two other studies earlier, that 
lend some relationship and support to that, and I think this 
will be an excellent building block.
    If I might just a moment, I was told the light was going to 
be on. It would give me an indication of when I should talk, 
and there is no light, so I am not sure if I am ahead of my 
time.
    Senator Stevens. Well, I decided that you all have been 
asked to talk about 5 minutes, but I was not going to ring the 
bell on you, so we turned off the light. Let me make a 
correction on this hand-out of ours. It is George Conway, not 
George Newman, and I apologize for that.
    But we do hope you will keep it about 5 minutes, but I do 
not think the time we have that the people are here to listen 
to it. We want to hear your views about what we can do to 
assist you to improve aviation safety. That is really our 
target today.
    Mr. Poe. Great. Thank you, Senator. Well, let me say this, 
that in the few minutes that I have I am going to focus on some 
of the new initiatives, the things that are being done in 
Alaska. As I think all of you know, we have had a consistently 
high accident rate, and if we expect something different, I 
think we have to do something different.

                            Capstone project

    I want to point out that the items which I will cover are 
really a product of two things, one, cooperation with our 
industry, and second the direct support that we enjoy and get 
from our congressional delegation. The first of the items is 
the Capstone project, which concentrates in the Yukon-Kuskokwim 
Delta in the Bethel area, a radius of 200 miles, and we are 
equipping at Government expense a total of 150 aircraft.
    Those aircraft will have, within their cockpits, for the 
pilot, information as to the moving map of the terrain. It will 
change colors if the pilot does not have the altitude to clear 
the obstacle. It will also show the targeting, the position of 
other similarly equipped aircraft, and in phase 2 of Capstone 
it is possible to uplink radar images so that you will see all 
aircraft, not just those that are Capstone-equipped.
    It also will uplink weather information. As the aircraft 
moves, it will downlink its position and potentially in the 
future be an aid to air traffic control. We have done Indian 
testing. It takes the generated downlink and through satellite 
brought it into the Anchorage Center, and it appears on the 
screen just as though it were a radar-generated target. In the 
event that there is a mishap, the ability to immediately 
initiate a very successful and timely search and rescue is made 
possible by the ground tracking capability associated with this 
technology.
    The University of Alaska here at Anchorage, under contract 
to the FAA, is doing the training. The first beta training 
class was conducted the week of December 7. They will also do 
an evaluation covering 3 years, totally independently of the 
FAA to determine the beneficial impact of the Capstone project.
    If I might say, I think we've come a long way in the 1 year 
since we first got the appropriation, and it is a project that 
has been made possible by the very close support of the 
industry.

                            WEATHER CAMERAS

    I want to talk briefly, too, as to the Alaska weather 
cameras. I notice this is covered in some of the other 
information. We have cameras up and operational, four of which 
belong to the University of Alaska Fairbanks. It was a part of 
the doctoral program effort. They have asked that we take those 
cameras, and the reality of the situation, why we are studying 
it, certainly we will.
    With the $1.7 million that has been appropriated this year, 
it is feasible by the end of this coming calendar year we will 
have 25 of these cameras operational. They give you the ability 
to go on the Internet and see a clear day picture and a current 
day picture and give the pilot the added information as to 
whether this is the right time to fly, or perhaps not. It also 
has an archiving capability, so we can look to see if the 
weather is worsening or getting better.
    The bottom line for all of that is, it is intended to help 
the pilot make the best possible decision. The user community 
has identified a total of 50 sites at which they would like to 
have weather cameras.
    Another program in which I personally am more than 
enthusiastic about, for which the FAA cannot take any credit, 
is the training of the Alaska Native community to be the future 
commercial pilots for the State of Alaska. Yute Air, Will 
Johnson, head division, worked with the Association of Villager 
Council Presidents, and the Kuskokwim Tribal College at the 
University of Alaska here at Anchorage.
    Students from 14 villages are going through training. Seven 
of them have their private pilots licenses, and they are now 
going on to their commercial licenses. There is a grant from 
the State that is going to continue that program. The FAA 
presented an award to the president of the Association of 
Village Council Presidents for that initiative.

                            Alaska airports

    In terms of airports, we have a good story there, and it is 
a good story that belongs collectively to all of the airport 
sponsors as well as the FAA Airport Division. If you go back to 
about 1990, the AIP grants were about $50 million. For the past 
2 years it exceeded $80 million. During this decade, $3 to $4 
billion have gone toward improvement, and working with the 
community, the Airports Division has developed a regional 
airport plan.
    I do not want to leave without acknowledging the ongoing 
infrastructure effort. A great many of the people of the FAA in 
the State of Alaska worked daily to keep the current systems as 
active and robust and growing as is possible. An example of 
that might be that every year we initiate about 120 new 
projects. In 1997, we have 40 weather-reporting sensor 
stations. Today, we have 87, more than doubled.
    With 17 days left until the year 2000, I am pleased to 
report that in June the FAA was judged to be Y2K-compliant. I 
want to acknowledge the close relationship we have enjoyed with 
the State, and also with the DOT, which has declared the 
airports under its control Y2K-compliant. Certainly we are 
going to have a lot of people working over New Year's, and I 
will be one of them, just to be there, just in case, but we 
have a high confidence that comes from working together.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    So in closing, this is the end of my first year in the 
State of Alaska, and it has been terrific. It is a warm 
community. There are no bashful pilots in the State of Alaska, 
so you certainly get to know their thoughts quickly.
    With that, that concludes my statement. Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Patrick N. Poe

    Senator Stevens and Congressman Young. Good Afternoon. I am Patrick 
Poe, the Federal Aviation Administration's (``FAA'') Regional 
Administrator for the Alaskan Region. I appreciate the opportunity to 
appear before you today to discuss the status of aviation in Alaska and 
the many efforts that are under way to improve service to the 10,000 
Alaskan pilots, the thousands of passengers and people of Alaska who 
depend upon aviation.
    In my first year as Regional Administrator, I have attended many 
public meetings and have had numerous conversations with Alaskans 
across the state. I know that the people here are well informed about 
the FAA and our basic mission. As Administrator Garvey has repeatedly 
stated, our first priority is safety. Within Alaska, aviation remains 
the primary, and in some areas the sole, means of transportation. 
Increasing the level of safety in Alaska is critically important. We 
have recently undertaken a number of initiatives to improve the level 
of safe operations within Alaska. These initiatives include the 
Capstone program, the Alaska weather camera project, and the investment 
of millions of dollars from the Airport Improvement Program (``AIP'') 
to improve and develop Alaska's aviation infrastructure. In addition, 
we have undertaken a number of initiatives that will place Alaska in 
the forefront of aerospace in the 21st century, most notably, the 
licensing of the first commercial space launches at Kodiak.
    As I stated above, safety remains our top priority. Here in Alaska, 
we are cognizant of the unique weather and terrain that poses greater 
challenges to aviation. Indeed, for the past decade, there has been one 
accident every other day. And there has been an aviation-related 
fatality every nine days. We were sadly reminded of this by the crash 
last Tuesday of a plane departing from Bethel where all six persons on 
board were killed. In light of these statistics, the FAA developed the 
Capstone project. Capstone is an effort to use new technology to 
improve safe operations and substantially reduce the number of 
accidents. Under a contract with UPS Aviation Technologies, the 
Capstone project will equip up to 150 aircraft with government-
furnished Global Positioning System based avionics. Coupled with a 
ground system of weather observation equipment, Capstone will provide 
pilots with terrain data and position reports of similarly-equipped 
aircraft. Capstone will increase the number of airports served by an 
instrument approach. We believe that by equipping commercial aircraft 
in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, an area in western Alaska not covered by 
radar that was selected for the test, we can make a substantial 
reduction in accidents.
    It is important to note that the Capstone project reflects a real 
partnership between the FAA and the aviation industry within Alaska. We 
have had industry user participation throughout the entire design of 
the project. In addition to UPS Aviation Technologies, we are 
partnering with the University of Alaska, which is conducting pilot 
training in the use of the new equipment, and will conduct baseline 
research for use in measuring project results.
    Another exciting program that is up and running this year is the 
Alaska Weather Cam project. This project places video cameras at bush 
airstrips and other remote locations to provide real time views of 
landing areas and mountain passes. To date the cameras are in operation 
at ten locations, four of which were initiated by the University of 
Alaska at Fairbanks. These cameras offer multiple views at each 
location, and compare a clear day picture with current conditions. 
Views are archived for later viewing and to track trends. Pilots can 
access the views of the landing areas and mountain passes through the 
FAA's Internet site. Additional funding will permit us to expand the 
program and install more cameras next year. In the meantime, we are 
exploring how to better use the visual information in our Flight 
Service Stations and are considering such issues as liability for 
interpreting the data to pilots, who ultimately have to make the 
decision to fly or not.
    The Capstone and weather camera initiatives demonstrate that the 
Alaskan Region is a leader in demonstrating how to use new technologies 
to improve safety and develop greater efficiencies in the system to 
take aviation into the 21st century. But that leadership is not limited 
to commercial aviation. As I noted above, the Alaskan Region is Kodiak 
launch facility. Kodiak is the first commercial space launch facility 
to operate outside of a Federal facility. To date there have been two 
launches and more are anticipated in 2000.
    Leading aviation into the 21st century is not limited to 
improvements in the operational aspects of aviation. The Alaska Region 
has made tremendous strides in our outreach to the Alaska Native 
community to educate the community about aviation and to increase 
awareness of the employment opportunities in the aviation industry here 
in Alaska. Our aviation education program delivers information and 
material to village schools as remote as Tununak. We support the 
cooperative effort of the Kuskokwim Tribal College, Yute Air and the 
University of Alaska to train Alaskans as pilots.
    This outreach activity ties in with our safety initiatives because 
we believe that people who live here and understand the geography and 
climatic conditions will make better pilots in the long run. At 
present, Alaska does not produce enough of its own pilots to staff the 
industry so carriers must hire pilots from the lower 48. Very often, 
those pilots work a few years here in Alaska, build hours and leave, 
and the cycle starts over again. As a result of this summer's program, 
seven Alaskan Natives obtained their pilot's licenses and several are 
working toward commercial ratings. I was very pleased to be able to 
personally, recognize the work of one of the sponsors of the program, 
the Association of Village Council Presidents, at this year's Alaska 
Federation of Natives convention.
    In addition to improving safety in the air, the FAA's Airport 
Improvement Program is critical to improving the airport infrastructure 
throughout Alaska. The AIP program, which was funded for fiscal year 
1999 at $1.95 billion, provides funding to communities nationwide for 
critical infrastructure projects. Since 1990, annual AIP grants to 
Alaska have increased from approximately $50 million to $80 million. 
While some may not understand why Alaska should garner such amounts, 
you here know that we are a young state just developing the airport 
infrastructure that is essential for both air commerce and aviation 
safety. Our Airports Division, working with the sponsors such as the 
State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 
developed a regional airports plan that addresses the needs for 
expanded runways, lighting and safety features. One of the most 
significant projects is the expansion and renovation of Anchorage 
International Airport. We were able to support the project with a 
letter of intent (``LOI'') for future federal funding in the amount of 
$48 million that enabled the State to proceed with bonding.
    The AIP program is just one aspect of the investment FAA continues 
to make in terms of navigation aids, communications systems and other 
facilities. Our construction program includes approximately 120 
projects annually. Overall the region's total budget last year 
including AIP grants, construction, personnel and operating costs 
equaled $270 million.
    Finally, I would like to note that we are now just 17 days away 
from the Year 2000. As you know, the FAA systems were deemed compliant 
in June. We in the Alaska Region want to take this opportunity to 
express our appreciation for the cooperation of the State of Alaska and 
other governmental agencies and businesses with whom we have conducted 
Y2K exercises and discussed contingency plans. I assure you that the 
Region will be monitoring events December 30 through January 2 with 
additional personnel on the job.
    In closing, I wish to thank each of you for your support of the FAA 
in Alaska. Our challenge here is very different from that of the agency 
in other regions of the country. We know that Alaskans are especially 
dependent upon aviation and we are committed to maintaining the best 
and safest system we can in partnership with the aviation community. I 
look forward to working with you on these and future projects within 
Alaska.
    This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer 
any questions that you may have.

    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Paul, do you want to 
go next?

                        STATEMENT OF PAUL BOWERS

    Mr. Bowers. Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, and thank 
you for the opportunity to address this forum on Alaska 
aviation issues. There are three primary points I would like to 
speak to. The first one is the deficiencies in our rural Alaska 
airport system.
    As you noted, we have an extensive aviation program here 
that is very dependent, that the communities are very dependent 
on for transportation. But unlike the rest of the country, 
where the airport infrastructure is relatively mature, where 
well-established, long, lighted, paved runways are commonplace, 
Alaska has a relatively immature airport infrastructure, where 
ours are typically rough-surfaced, short, and unlighted. That 
creates a bit of a problem when the State is so dependent upon 
them.
    Of the 286 publicly owned, publicly used airports, the DOT 
operates 262 of them. Of them, 177 are gravel-surfaced, 43 are 
paved, 42 are float facilities. Of these, 94 are 3,000 foot in 
length or less, and 42 are less than 2,000 foot. IFR-capable 
airports are also in short supply, with only 61 of the 262 IFR 
capable.
    Basically the needs for airport development have far 
surpassed funding. Even though we have done exceedingly well 
with AIP funds in recent years, we have needs that far exceed 
the supply. Historic AIP levels still leave unaddressed 
approximately $265 million in the next 5 years alone of 
infrastructure that is not being met with the current AIP 
level.
    The second point I would like to note is the FAA national 
focus on airport safety area improvements, which we believe is 
detrimental to the runway infrastructure improvements that are 
actually needed. Briefly, the issue here is the FAA on a 
national basis prioritizes and allocates AIP dollars for 
improvements to safety areas, that area that is immediately 
adjacent to the runway that is brought to grade, free of 
obstructions, and the purpose of which is to reduce the risk to 
aircraft in the event of undershoot, or overrun, or some other 
unplanned excursion from the runway. The relative beneficial 
use perspective is important here in that the runway is used 
each and every time for take-off and landing, whereas the 
safety area is potentially utilized only if there is a problem, 
and often those problems develop from the runway surface 
itself.
    In the lower 48, where we have got a well-established 
runway system, a national safety area priority policy does, 
indeed, make sense. We believe it does not make sense in 
Alaska, where so many of our airport runways are substandard. 
That is the real problem that needs to be addressed here, and 
we believe this national policy uses up precious AIP dollars 
that could and should first be used to actually improve the 
runway surface. We believe this well-meaning but misdirected 
national priority system needs to be changed, and we would like 
some relief from that.
    The third issue is that DOT supports the 5-year aviation 
strategic plan that was developed by the Alaska Aviation 
Coordination Council. That is an ad hoc group of aviation 
interests, period, that outlined fiscal year 200 through 2004 
infrastructure deficiencies and needs and an associated 
resolution methodology.
    The key elements of that that DOT supports are that public 
owned and used airports should be a minimum of 300 feet in 
length, if practical, with lights, and have at least some 
minimal shelter for passengers from inclement weather, that 
airports with scheduled service should have an all-weather 
approach and landing capability, that collection and 
dissemination of weather information should be available State-
wide, and that so-called CNS, communication, navigation and 
surveillance capability, should also be State-wide. That, as 
Pat Poe noted, would support sufficient routing, traffic, and 
train avoidance, real-time flight locating, and enhanced search 
and rescue.
    And finally, site-specific operational needs should be 
addressed, like video cameras and other nontraditional systems 
to relay mountain pass information and visibility information, 
for example.
    Finally, we note that a lot of the accidents are caused 
between airports, and that lack of weather data and a lack of 
communication capability is the real problem. For example, 
there is no official weather west of Bethel, and 
coincidentally, or not coincidentally, that is a high accident 
area of the State. The strategic plan, which is a derivative of 
the Capstone program, addresses these issues.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    DOT also supports expansion of the Capstone program on a 
State-wide basis, and with those issues, improving our rural 
airport system, applying FAA or AIP funding to runway 
improvements first, and supporting the Alaska aviation 
strategic plan I think will go a long way toward reducing our 
accident rate and making safer aviation in Alaska.
    Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Paul Bowers

    This paper on Alaskan Aviation Issues is submitted as backup to 
verbal testimony of Paul Bowers, A.A.E., Director, Statewide Aviation, 
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), State of 
Alaska, before Senator Ted Stevens' Congressional Hearing re Alaskan 
Aviation Issues for the 21st Century, Loussac Library, Anchorage, AK, 
December 14, 1999. Issues are set forth as follows:
Deficiencies in Rural Alaska Airport Infrastructure
    Unlike the other 49 states, where airport infrastructure is 
``mature'', with well established, long, paved, lighted runways being 
commonplace, Alaska has a relatively immature airport infrastructure. 
Here gravel surfaced, short, unlighted airport runways are the norm. 
Ironically, this is where aviation and an airport system are vitally 
important. This is because our rural airport system effectively becomes 
our rural road system, as geographically some 90 percent of Alaska is 
inaccessible by road, which affects about 30 percent of the state 
population that has no year round means of community ingress or egress 
except by air. That means no emergency medical, no commerce, no 
transportation link to the rest of the state or the world, except by 
air. And often that air service is via short, unlighted gravel surface 
runways.
    Specifically, our Alaskan airport infrastructure consists of 286 
publicly owned, public use airports, of which the State DOT&PF operates 
262. Of these, 177 are gravel surfaces, 43 are paved, and 42 are 
seaplane basins. 94 airports are less than 3,000 feet in length (and of 
these, 42 are less than 2000 feet in length!). Most (237 of 262) are 
non-certificated (meaning they do not meet national airport FAR 139 
certification standards that include Airport Rescue and Firefighting 
[ARFF] equipment and trained personnel; an emergency response plan; and 
maintenance standards). Additionally, Navaids are limited; only 61 of 
262 state airports are equipped to support Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) 
usage.
    Airport Development money is the missing ingredient to improve this 
airport infrastructure situation. Historically, the Airport Improvement 
Program (AIP--which is presently awaiting Congressional action) has 
provided approximately one half of our continuing airport 
infrastructure needs. However, that level still leaves airport 
development needs of approximately $265 million over the next five 
years unaddressed. Specific infrastructure deficiencies are defined and 
attached as part of the below referenced Five Year Plan.

FAA NATIONAL PRIORITY FOCUSES ON AIRPORT SAFETY AREA IMPROVEMENTS, TO 
        THE RESULTANT DETRIMENT OF ALASKA AIRPORT RUNWAY IMPROVEMENTS

    FAA follows a national policy of prioritizing and allocating AIP 
dollars for development of airport safety areas whenever any runway 
development or improvement is undertaken. (The ``Safety Area'' is that 
area surrounding the runway on the sides and ends that is brought to 
grade and free of obstructions, the purpose of which is to reduce risks 
to aircraft in the event of an undershoot, overrun, or other unplanned 
excursion from the runway). A relative use perspective is important 
here: the runway is used for each takeoff and landing, whereas the 
safety area is potentially utilized only when the pilot using the 
runway develops a problem, often resulting from activity on the 
runway.)
    In the lower 48 where well established runways are commonplace, 
this national safety-area-priority policy makes sense. However, it does 
not make sense in Alaska, where so many of our airport runways are 
substandard (typically rough surfaced, too short, and unlighted, with 
minimal navaids), which is the real airport problem that needs 
addressing. If the runway length and width were up to reasonable 
standards, there would likely be less need for the safety area. Please 
note the DOT&PF is not opposed to Safety Area development. Rather it is 
a question of timing: DOT&PF fully supports safety area development 
after the primary issue of fixing poor condition runways is addressed. 
This FAA national policy uses up precious AIP dollars that could, and 
should, be used first to actually improve the runway surface. We need 
specific relief from this well meaning but mis-directed national 
prioritization policy.

Support for the Five Year Aviation Strategic Plan
    The Alaska Aviation Coordination Council, an ad-hoc group of 
Alaskan aviation interests, has prepared a statement of fiscal year 
2000 through 2004 Alaska Aviation infrastructure deficiencies and 
needs, with associated resolution methodology. The key elements of that 
plan DOT&PF supports are:
  --Publicly owned and used airports should be a minimum of 3, 300 feet 
        in length, with runway lights, and have at least a minimal 
        shelter for passengers from inclement weather.
  --Airports with scheduled air service should have an ``all weather'' 
        approach and landing capability.
  --Statewide availability of weather information systems (collection 
        and dissemination).
  --Communications, navigation and surveillance (so-called CNS) 
        capability should be available state-wide to support efficient 
        routing, traffic and terrain avoidance, real time flight 
        locating, and enhanced search and rescue. CNS will include both 
        Automated Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) data link 
        and strategically placed radar in the Bethel area.
    Statewide availability of Flight Information data that addresses 
site specific operational needs, such as Video Cameras and other Non-
traditional systems (i.e., relay of mountain pass visibility 
information, VASI in lieu of PAPI light systems, etc.).
    The intent of this Strategic Plan is to improve aviation safety in 
Alaska and literally bring Alaskan aviation into the 21st century. 
While doing so, it is important to note that the majority of aircraft 
accidents happen during phases of flight other than takeoff or landing. 
If this is to be remedied, the problems causing the accidents needs to 
be addressed.
    A recurrent causal theme in Alaskan aviation accidents is lack of 
weather data and/or lack of communication capability to validate pilot 
decisions (for example, there is no official weather west of Bethel!). 
Both of these issues are addressed in the Strategic Plan, which in part 
is an outgrowth of the FAA Capston program now underway in the Yukon-
Kuskokwim area.
    Capstone is a widely supported effort will gain ten much needed 
AWOS (Automated Weather Observation Station) installations, and 
Capstone avionics installations will enable weather and communication 
info transmission to so equipped aircraft, as well as positional 
awareness and aircraft tracking capability for Search and Rescue 
purposes. DOT&PF supports expansion of the Capstone program statewide.

Bald Eagles/Aircraft Hazards
    Bald eagles nests on airport property near or within the approach 
and departure ends of runways create safety hazards for both the 
aircraft and the eagles. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 
1940 prevents airports and the Fish and Wildlife Service from removing 
these hazards. Furthermore some nests are in or near trees that violate 
FAA height restrictions, but the trees cannot be removed or shortened 
because of the restrictions in this Act.
    This Act needs to be amended to allow removal of bald eagle nests 
in areas that create safety hazards for aircraft. Such amendment could, 
of course, be specific to Alaska if necessary, as Alaska has many bald 
eagles and has extensive alternate habitat for these birds.
    In summary, we believe much safer aviation in Alaska will result 
from improving our rural airport system, applying precious AIP funding 
to runway improvements first, and implementing an Alaska Aviation 
Strategic Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to explain these aviation 
infrastructure needs. Attached is a copy of the Alaska Aviation 
Coordination Council Five Year Strategic Plan. Please advise if any 
questions or additional information is desired.

                  Alaska Aviation Coordination Council

             STRATEGIC PLAN--FISCAL YEAR 2000 THROUGH 2004

Intent
    To articulate Alaska Aviation infrastructure deficiencies and 
needs, and to outline a resolution methodology.

Background
    Alaska is unique in lacking highway infrastructure. In a State that 
literally comprises 16 percent of the total U.S. land mass, only about 
10 percent of the State geographically is accessible by road. This 
forces those non-road accessed communities, comprising 30 percent of 
the population, to heavily rely on aviation for day sustenance, 
transportation (schools, work, etc.), and livelihood.

Vision
    That Alaska will enjoy an air transportation system that has safe, 
efficient, and reliable access to population centers and other areas of 
general and commercial interest. This same transportation system would 
enhance the health and welfare of residents and visitors alike, while 
serving as a vehicle for commerce throughout the State.

Discussion
    Federal Programs involving disbursement of dollars for 
transportation normally balance highway and aviation needs. However, in 
Alaska, environmental, logistical, and financial limitations, preclude 
highway construction in many areas, forcing transportation requirements 
to be highly dependent on aviation. As a general rule, highway funding 
is not available to be used for aviation infrastructure. The resulting 
imbalance is a transportation infrastructure that is inadequate and 
unable to provide the safety and efficiency commonly expected of 
transportation systems in the rest of the United States. No where else 
in this country is there a complete dependency on aviation for basic 
transportation and commerce as in Alaska.
    A safer airport and aviation infrastructure in Alaska will bring 
Alaska up to par with other states' basic transportation systems.
Key Elements of a Safe and Efficient Alaskan Air Transportation 

        Infrastructure Include
    Publicly owned and used airports should be a minimum of 3,300 feet 
in length,\1\ with runway lights, and have at least a minimal shelter 
for passengers from inclement weather.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Nominal 3,300 foot Runway length, with lights, will accommodate 
FAA recommended minimum 3,200 foot length for instrument flight 
operations, plus 100 feet to accommodate terrain and temperature 
induced density altitude differences at various sites throughout 
Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Airports with scheduled air service have an ``all weather'' 
approach and landing capability.
    Availability of weather information systems (collection and 
dissemination).
    Communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) capability should 
be available state-wide to support efficient routing, traffic and 
terrain avoidance, real time flight locating, and enhanced search and 
rescue. CNS will include both Automated Dependent Surveillance 
Broadcast (ADS-B) data link and strategically placed radar in the 
Bethel area.
    Availability of Flight Information data that addresses site 
specific operational needs, such as Video Cameras and other Non-
traditional systems (i.e., relay of mountain pass visibility 
information, VASI in lieu of PAPI light systems, etc.).
    A change of U.S. Postal Service policies to remove pressure on 
carriers to deliver U.S. Mail within strict time periods without 
consideration of weather.
    Stable (local) aviation work force, including an emphasis on 
aviation education.
    A Standing Aviation Advisory Council to ensure continuous safety 
and user need assessment and input to ensure effective planning and 
development.

Comparison of Alaskan Air Transportation Infrastructure to What is 
        Needed
    Public airports minimum 3,300 foot length, runway lights, and 
minimal shelter.--150 Alaska airports are less than 3,300 feet (35 
runways less than 2,000 feet). 71 airports unlighted. More than half of 
rural airports without minimal passenger shelter.
    Airports with scheduled air service have an ``all weather'' 
approach and landing capability.--176 public use Alaska airports do not 
have basic instrument approach capability. Weather information, 
communications capability, and approach procedures are required to 
support commercial, passenger, and U.S. Mail operations.
    Communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) capability should 
be available statewide to support efficient routing, traffic and 
terrain avoidance, real timeflight locating, and enhanced search and 
rescue.--194 locations in Alaska need CNS capability. Data-link ground 
stations to provide CNS capability are projected in the Safe Flight 21 
budget line items for fiscal year 1902.
    Stable (local) aviation workforce.--Alaska currently has a high 
turnover in the aviation work force. This appears to be due to a 
combination of factors.
    At the entry level, non-local pilots, dispatchers, mechanics and 
other skilled workers often serve in bush locations while building 
experience enroute to promotion elsewhere. In turn, their successors 
are also of non-local origin, because local bush based personnel do not 
have the entry-level training and skills required for employment in the 
aviation industry, which training is not readily available in the bush 
environment. The resulting systemic turnover has historically precluded 
a stable, experienced workforce, which likely contributed to the higher 
accident rate associated with rural operations. Local training and 
aviation-focus educational opportunities can remedy this.
    Conversely, at the senior level, imposition of FAR Part 121 rules 
on historically Part 135 operations, specifically the mandatory 
retirement at age 60 rule, is forcing experienced and locally 
knowledgeable airmen into comparatively early retirement. Waiver of the 
age 60 rule for Alaskan operations would beneficially resolve this.
    As a direct result of these two issues, Alaska aviation experience 
levels are eroded, and aviation safety is significantly and adversely 
impacted.
    Flight Information data needed to address site specific operational 
needs.--Site specific operational needs can be addressed through non-
traditional application of technology, such as Video Cameras in 
mountain passes to supplement weather (visibility, etc.) information 
and associated technology to relay such information, improved runway 
alignment information from older VASI equipment in lieu of newer PAPI 
approach light systems, etc.
    U.S. Postal Service policies pressure carriers to deliver U.S. Mail 
regardless of weather.--Present system penalizes carriers, by loss of 
Postal revenue, who do not deliver mail within specific allocated 
timeframes. U.S. Mail distribution system should be revamped to allow 
redispatch of mail without penalization of carriers who decline to fly 
in unsafe conditions.
    Bethel Radar.--The Capstone program does not currently include 
radar for the Bethel area, or elsewhere in Alaska. Radar is 
recommended, initially in Bethel, ultimately elsewhere as needed, as it 
is necessary to view both the ADS-B equipped and non-equipped aircraft. 
Capstone will not be able to supply ADS-B equipment for all of the 
`resident' aircraft flying in the Bethel area, plus other non-ADS-B-
equipped aircraft periodically fly in or through the Bethel area. Radar 
will provide the locations of these non-equipped aircraft to air 
traffic control, allowing a comparison of the effectiveness of ADS-B to 
eventually replace radar. The MICRO-EARTS equipment currently used at 
the Anchorage Air Traffic Control Center has software in the final 
stages of testing and approval to allow both radar and ADS-B aircraft 
position reports to be displayed.
    Continuous safety and user need assessment to ensure effective 
planning and development.--Currently, no formal communication mechanism 
exists between the FAA and the aviation community at large to ensure 
effective feedback and/or advice in planning programs or resolving 
issues. Informal processes (i.e., Alaskan Aviation Coordination 
Council, Capstone industry Council, Weather Enhancement Group, etc.) 
lack the structure and authority necessary to ensure follow-up and 
accountability.
    Existing legislation empowers the FAA Administrator with authority 
to waive or modify regulations as necessary to address specific Alaska 
aviation issues. However, current processes do not provide a widely 
accepted forum that effectively works towards resolution of such 
issues. As a result, Alaska specific aviation issues are often worked 
congressionally prior to sufficient constructive dialogue between FAA 
and the aviation community. Often this results in a `situation' 
mentality, wherein issues are not formally addressed or effectively 
resolved until a crisis level is reached. Multiple examples exist of 
issues that could have been better addressed through improved 
communications.
    A formal ``Alaskan Federal Aviation Advisory Council'' to the 
Alaskan Region FAA, that includes multiple representative elements of 
the Alaskan aviation community, is recommended to address this 
communication deficiency.
                           five year p1an \2\
    Year 1--fiscal year 2000:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The grand total cost of this five year plan is estimated at 
$265,130,000. The most efficient way to complete this five-year program 
is to receive one-fifth of the funding in each of the next five years, 
or approximately $53 million each year. This will allow the project 
development work and actual construction work to be completed within 
the target 5 year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  --Establish a formal Alaskan Aviation Advisory Council comprised of 
        the Alaskan aviation industry to assist the Alaskan Region FAA 
        planning efforts.
  --Coordination and assessment of Alaska aviation infrastructure 
        needs.
  --Phase in (over initial three years) funding of the State Five-Year 
        Airport Capitol Improvement Program.
  --Establish Alaska site-specific supplemental weather, NAV-aid, and 
        lighting systems operational needs.
  --Develop locally available aviation skills training programs.
    Year 2--fiscal year 2001:
  --Begin airport infrastructure enhancements.
  --Develop/Publish GPS approaches.
  --Standardize ADS/FIS system design.
  --Begin installation of Alaska site-specific supplemental weather, 
        NAV-aids and lighting systems equipment (including Bethel 
        radar).
    Year 3--fiscal year 2002:
  --Continue airport infrastructure enhancements.
  --Flight check & publish approaches.
  --Begin ADS-B/FIS equipment installations.
  --Continue installation of Alaska site-specific supplemental weather, 
        NAV-aids and lighting systems equipment.
    Year 4--fiscal year 2003:
  --Continue airport infrastructure enhancements.
  --Continue ADS-B/FIS equipment installations.
  --Continue weather and lighting systems.
  --Expand CNS network to ARTCC and FSSs.
    Year 5--fiscal year 2004:
  --Complete Five-Year airport infrastructure enhancements.
  --Complete ADS-B/FIS equipment installations.
  --Complete weather and lighting systems.
    List of specific infrastructure improvement needs and estimated 
improvement costs at runways less than 3,300 foot lengths provides 
detail re above is attached.

                                                         AACC FIVE YEAR AVIATION STRATEGIC PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Existing                              Total estimated
               Community                    Existing surface        length      Existing inst. appr.           cost                    Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIACHAK..............................  Gravel..................       1,600  ........................         $4,000,000  .............................
ALAKANUK..............................  Gravel..................       2,200  ........................          7,000,000  .............................
ALEKNAGIK.............................  Gravel..................       2,100  ........................          3,000,000  .............................
ANVIK.................................  Gravel..................       2,900  NDB, GPS................          7,500,000  .............................
ATMAUTLUAK............................  Gravel..................       2,000  ........................          2,400,000  .............................
CHEFORNAK.............................  Gravel..................       2,600  ........................          7,000,000  .............................
CHEVAK................................  Gravel..................       2,600  ........................          6,500,000  .............................
CHICKEN...............................  Gravel..................       2,500  ........................          4,500,000  Road accessible in summer
                                                                                                                            only. Creek relocation
                                                                                                                            required for extension.
CHIGNIK...............................  Gravel..................       2,600  Terrain limited.........          4,500,000  Terrain Limited, may not be
                                                                                                                            able to construct full 3,300
                                                                                                                            foot length.
CHIGNIK FLATS.........................  Gravel..................       1,600  Terrain limited.........          4,500,000  Terrain Limited, may not be
                                                                                                                            able to construct full 3,300
                                                                                                                            foot length.
CHIGNIK LAKE..........................  Gravel..................       2,800  Terrain limited.........          3,000,000  .............................
CHUATHBALUK...........................  Gravel..................       1,500  ........................          6,500,000  .............................
CLARKS POINT..........................  Gravel..................       2,600  ........................          8,200,000  .............................
CORDOVA...............................  Gravel..................       1,800  Terrain limited.........          4,500,000  Terrain Limited, may not be
                                                                                                                            able to construct full 3,300
                                                                                                                            foot length.
CROOKED CREEK.........................  Gravel..................       2,000  Terrain limited.........          4,500,000  Terrain Limited, may not be
                                                                                                                            able to construct full 3,300
                                                                                                                            foot length.
DEERING...............................  Gravel..................       2,600  ........................          3,000,000  .............................
EEK...................................  Gravel..................       1,400  ........................          2,800,000  .............................
EKWOK.................................  Gravel..................       2,700  ........................          2,500,000  .............................
ENGLISH BAY...........................  Gravel..................       1,800  Terrain limited.........          5,000,000  Airport expansion not
                                                                                                                            practical, road to Nanwalak
                                                                                                                            best transportation
                                                                                                                            solution.
FALSE PASS............................  Gravel..................       2,100  Terrain limited.........          4,500,000  Terrain Limited, may not be
                                                                                                                            able to construct full 3,300
                                                                                                                            foot length.
GOODNEWS..............................  Gravel..................       2,800  ........................          2,500,000  .............................
GRAYLING..............................  Gravel..................       2,300  ........................          1,500,000  .............................
KARLUK................................  Gravel..................       2,000  ........................          2,500,000  .............................
KIPNUK................................  Gravel..................       2,100  ........................          5,500,000  .............................
KOBUK.................................  Gravel..................       2,300  ........................          3,500,000  .............................
KOKHONAK..............................  Gravel..................       2,800  ........................          2,500,000  .............................
KONGIGANAK............................  Gravel..................       1,900  ........................          3,780,000  .............................
KWETHLUK..............................  Gravel..................       1,700  ........................          4,500,000  .............................
KWIGILLINGOK..........................  Gravel..................       2,500  ........................          3,000,000  .............................
LARSEN BAY............................  Gravel..................       2,700  Terrain limited.........          4,500,000  Terrain Limited, may not be
                                                                                                                            able to construct full 3,300
                                                                                                                            foot length.
LEVELOCK..............................  Gravel..................       1,900  ........................          3,000,000  .............................
LIME VILLAGE..........................  Gravel..................       1,400  ........................            500,000  .............................
LITTLE DIOMEDE ISLAND/IGNALUK.........  Gravel..................         100  Terrain limited.........          1,000,000  Runway construction not
                                                                                                                            practical. Expand heliport,
                                                                                                                            erosion stabilization.
MANLEY HOT SPRINGS....................  Gravel..................       2,900  ........................          4,500,000  Cannot be extended, project
                                                                                                                            would relocate runway.
MANOKOTAK.............................  Gravel..................       2,700  ........................          4,500,000  Terrain Limited, may not be
                                                                                                                            able to construct full 3,300
                                                                                                                            foot length.
MOUNTAIN VILLAGE......................  Gravel..................       2,500  ........................          2,500,000  .............................
NEW STUYAHOK..........................  Gravel..................       1,800  ........................          8,500,000  .............................
NIGHTMUTE.............................  Gravel..................       1,600  ........................          4,500,000  .............................
NIKOLAI...............................  Gravel..................       2,300  ........................          3,200,000  .............................
NONDALTON.............................  Gravel..................       2,800  ........................          2,500,000  Terrain Limited, may not be
                                                                                                                            able to construct full 3,300
                                                                                                                            foot length.
NUNAPITCHUK...........................  Gravel..................       2,000  ........................          1,200,000  Terrain Limited, may not be
                                                                                                                            able to construct full 3,300
                                                                                                                            foot length.
OLD HARBOR............................  Gravel..................       2,700  Terrain limited.........          4,500,000  Terrain Limited, may not be
                                                                                                                            able to construct full 3,300
                                                                                                                            foot length.
OUZINKIE..............................  Gravel..................       2,100  ........................          8,500,000  .............................
PERRYVILLE............................  Gravel..................       2,500  ........................          2,500,000  .............................
PILOT STATION.........................  Gravel..................       2,500  ........................          7,000,000  Master plan underway to
                                                                                                                            identify relocation site.
PORT GRAHAM...........................  Gravel..................       2,000  ........................          4,500,000  Relocation required.
PORT LIONS............................  Gravel..................       2,200  ........................          7,000,000  Terrain Limited, may not be
                                                                                                                            able to construct full 3,300
                                                                                                                            foot length.
QUINHAGAK.............................  Gravel..................       2,600  ........................          5,300,000  Relocation required.
RUSSIAN MISSION.......................  Gravel..................       2,700  ........................          4,500,000
SELDOVIA..............................  Gravel..................       1,800  Terrain limited.........          4,500,000  Terrain Limited, may not be
                                                                                                                            able to construct full 3,300
                                                                                                                            foot length.
SHAGELUK..............................  Gravel..................       2,300  ........................          5,200,000  .............................
STEVENS VILLAGE.......................  Gravel..................       2,100  ........................          8,300,000  .............................
STONY RIVER...........................  Gravel..................       2,500  ........................          7,000,000  Relocation required for a
                                                                                                                            3,300 foot RWY.
TAKOTNA...............................  Gravel..................       1,700  ........................          5,500,000  Relocation required for a
                                                                                                                            3,300 foot RWY.
TOKSOOK BAY...........................  Gravel..................       1,800  ........................          4,500,000  .............................
TULUKSAK..............................  Gravel..................       2,500  ........................          3,500,000  .............................
TUNTUTULIAK...........................  Gravel..................       1,800  ........................          2,750,000  .............................
TUNUNAK...............................  Gravel..................       2,000  ........................          5,000,000  .............................
                                                                                                       -------------------
      Total for Runways...............  ........................  ..........  ........................        255,130,000
      Bethel Area Terminal Radar......  ........................  ..........  ........................         10,000,000
                                                                                                       -------------------
      Grand Total.....................  ........................  ..........  ........................        265,130,000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: (1) The average runway reconstruction cost is approximately $4,500,000. This number was used through this estimate where detailed costing is not
  available. Airports requiring site relocation may require additional funds to complete.
(2) Capital installation costs of automatic Weather Reporting machines, such as AWOS-3, are approximately $150,000 each per installation. This does not
  include annual operational costs. The machines could be installed with the airport improvement project as a portion of the project and turned over to
  the FAA for operation and maintenance.

                   STATEMENT OF MORTON V. PLUMB, JR.

    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Mort, do you have a 
statement?
    Mr. Plumb. Senator Stevens, Congressman Young, we have a 
few prepared comments, and also present some for entrance into 
the record.
    Senator Stevens. All of the prepared statements will be 
printed in the record in full, and your comments will appear 
after each one of those individually.
    Mr. Plumb. Anchorage International Airport is the gateway 
to Alaska and Anchorage residents and for all Alaska visitors. 
The Gateway Alaska road and terminal improvements program will 
address many of the passenger service needs. Additional 
passenger service needs may include people-mover connector 
between the domestic and international terminal, and in the 
future we will need to reconstruct the apron and the jetways at 
the international terminal.

                    KOREAN VISA WAIVER REQUIREMENTS

    Relaxation of the Korean visa waiver requirements would be 
very helpful. Current U.S. regulations require Korean visitors 
to apply for a visa to enter the United States. This 
requirement has had a negative impact on the development of 
international tourism to Alaska as it applies to South Korea.
    The State of Alaska has felt the damaging impacts of this 
restrictive policy. This is evident by Korean Airlines flights 
that are bypassing Anchorage, servicing Vancouver, British 
Columbia, and Toronto. As such, the State of Alaska would like 
to encourage the formalization of talks by the State Department 
to develop a pilot program for relaxing of visa requirements 
for travelers between South Korea and Alaska with regard to 
liberalizing passenger service for Alaska.
    In an effort to expand both international and domestic 
passenger opportunities, the Alaska International Airport 
System would like to see established a pilot program for the 
liberalization of passenger service for Alaska. This program 
would allow for travel between Alaska and other domestic points 
via international carrier. Allowing international carriers to 
enplane and deplane domestic passengers enhances route 
profitability, increases international air service to less 
competitive markets, and provides Alaskans direct air service 
to additional destinations.

                           AIR CARGO BUSINESS

    Cargo is big business at Anchorage International Airport. 
Air cargo is the fastest-growing sector at Anchorage 
International Airport. The airport is responding with a focus 
on marketing and infrastructure. In marketing, a comprehensive 
program for retaining and expanding and attracting cargo 
activity focuses on two levels.
    On the international level, the airport is seeking to take 
maximum advantage of our global location that we can reach 95 
percent of the industrial centers of the northern hemisphere 
within 9 hours flight time. We are seeking liberalization of 
international aviation agreements to open up new cargo transfer 
opportunities for foreign and domestic carriers. The Alaska 
International Airport System would like to encourage the 
formalization of talks between USDOT and the State Department 
to liberalize international air cargo service beyond open 
skies, and look at relaxing regulations against seventh and 
eighth freedoms.
    With regard to infrastructure, Anchorage International 
Airport faces global challenges to its current role as the 
world-class air cargo crossroads, long-range aircraft in the 
next decade, a trend we cannot control. Foreign airports hungry 
for their piece of our pie is another trend we cannot control. 
However, modern and efficient airport facilities is something 
we can control.

                     LAKE HOOD FLOAT PLANE FACILITY

    The Alaska International Airport System, with the critical 
assistance of the FAA airport improvement program, must 
continue to improve its competitive position to serve air cargo 
markets. With regard to general aviation, Lake Hood provides 
access to rural Alaska for both residents and tourists. No 
other public float plane facilities exist in the Anchorage 
area. Additional needs to support this vital facility include:
    Relocation of tie-downs from Anchorage International to 
Lake Hood to reduce taxi distances and vehicle-aircraft 
conflicts.
    Dredging Lake Hood to remove shallow areas in the lake that 
create safety concerns during low water periods.
    Construct shoreline stabilization in eroding areas. This 
could be developed as a Corps of Engineers project.
    Address safety concerns by constructing a safety area at 
Hood strip, establishing buffer areas around the taxiways and 
constructing new taxiways where aircraft can taxi on the 
roadways.
    Support for a new float plane facility to serve Anchorage 
and the Matsui area is very sorely needed.

                      REGULATORY AND SAFETY ISSUES

    With regard to regulatory and safety issues, wetlands 
mitigations, wetlands and airports in Alaska are generally 
incompatible. Wetlands often attract birds, creating hazards 
for aircraft operations. Airports in Alaska must fill wetlands 
to both reduce bird hazards as well as construct necessary 
aviation infrastructure. FAA safety guidelines regarding 
wetlands are in conflict with wetland regulations under the 
Clean Water Act.
    While the FAA guidelines require elimination of wetlands 
that create safety hazards, other Federal agencies restrict 
construction on the airport during nesting season, require 
expensive wetlands replacement mitigation at airports, and 
limits the types of land uses that can occur on airport 
wetlands.
    Anchorage International Airport air traffic control tower. 
Certain parts of the airfield at Anchorage International 
Airport cannot be seen by the air traffic control tower. Lack 
of tower visibility reduces safety and increases aircraft 
delays. Furthermore, the tower is currently located within the 
terminal road loop on land that could otherwise be used for 
other necessary functions at the airport.
    Runway and aircraft deicing is necessary for safe aircraft 
operations in the air and on the ground. Deicing chemicals are 
under increasing control and regulation by the Environmental 
Protection Agency because of their effect on water bodies 
around the airports. Capture and treatment of deicing chemicals 
is difficult and expensive. Many less expensive solutions at 
other airports do not work in Alaska. A deicing collection 
facility and treatment plant may be required for the airport to 
continue to grow and provide for safe operations in an 
environmentally friendly manner.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Senator, Congressman, this concludes my testimony. Thank 
you for the opportunity, and thank you for the support at 
Anchorage International Airport.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Morton V. Plumb

               PASSENGER SERVICES/BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

Passenger Facilities
    Anchorage International Airport is the gateway to Alaska for 
Anchorage residents, rural Alaska, and visitors. The Governor's Gateway 
Alaska road and terminal improvements program will address many 
passenger services needs. Additional passenger service needs include:
  --Upgraded (with people mover) connector between domestic and 
        international terminal
  --Reconstructed international passenger terminal apron and jetways
  --Additional parking and rental car facilities

Relaxation of Korean Visa Requirements
    Current U.S. regulations require Korean visitors apply for a visa 
to enter the U.S. This requirement has had a negative impact on the 
development of international tourism to Alaska as it applies to South 
Korea.
    The current application requirements generally require the traveler 
to take an additional trip to another city to apply and obtain a U.S. 
visa.
    The State of Alaska has felt the damaging impacts of this 
restrictive policy. This is evident by Korean Airlines flights that are 
bypassing Anchorage and servicing Vancouver, British Columbia and 
Toronto.
    As such, the State of Alaska would like to encourage the 
formalization of talks by the State Department to develop a pilot 
program for the relaxing of Visa requirements for travelers between 
South Korea and Alaska.

Liberalization of Passenger Service for Alaska
    In an effort to expand both international and domestic passenger 
opportunities, the Alaska International Airport System would like to 
see established a pilot program for the liberalization of passenger 
service for Alaska. This program would allow for travel between Alaska 
and other domestic points via an international carrier.
    Allowing international carriers to enplane and deplane domestic 
passengers enhances route profitability, increases international air 
service to less competitive markets, and provides Alaskans direct air 
service to additional destinations.

                 CARGO SERVICES/BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

    Air Cargo is the fastest growing sector at Anchorage International 
Airport. The Airport is responding with a focus on marketing and 
infrastructure.

Marketing
    A comprehensive program for retaining, expanding and attracting 
cargo activity focuses on two levels:
    1. On the international level, the Airport is seeking to take 
maximum advantage of our global location reaching 95 percent of the 
industrialized centers of the Northern Hemisphere within 9 hours flight 
time. We are:
    A. Seeking liberalization of international aviation agreements to 
open up new cargo transfer opportunities for foreign and domestic 
carriers here. The Alaska International Airport System would like to 
encourage the formalization of talks between the U.S. DOT and the State 
Department to liberalize international air cargo service beyond Open 
Skies and look at relaxing the regulations against seventh and eighth 
freedom flights.
    B. Strengthening business relationships with industry leaders by 
frequent air carrier and air freight forwarder contact to ride the wave 
of change in ``time definite'' delivery of cargo and small packages.
  --This requires personal contact in airline headquarters in Asia, 
        Europe and the United States.
  --The Airport brings many airline executives to our turf at our 
        annual ``Top of the World Air Cargo Summit''.
  --The Airport participates in national policy formation affecting 
        cargo issues by serving as Chair of the Airports Council 
        International Air Cargo Subcommittee.
  --Airport staff provides practical assistance to carriers and 
        logistics providers in locating usable airport land, operating 
        efficiently and keeping reliability at the highest levels.
    2. Within Alaska shipping more fresh and live Alaskan seafood is 
certainly the best opportunity in exports. Our Seafood Working Group is 
tackling obstacles and has a goal of doubling air shipped fish and 
shellfish in three years.

Infrastructure
    AIA faces global challenges to its current role as a world class 
air cargo crossroads:
  --Long range aircraft in the next decade, a trend we cannot control
  --Foreign airports hungry for their piece of the pie, another trend 
        we cannot control
  --Modern, efficient airport facilities, which we can do something 
        about.
    Modern and efficient infrastructure is essential to keep abreast of 
technological change and the pace of growth. Infrastructure 
improvements at AIA include new taxiways to reduce airfield delays, 
cargo support facilities, seamless access under runways between 
airparks, emergency operations center and maintenance facilities to 
ensure a safe and efficient operating environment, and navigational 
improvements.
    The Alaska International Airport System, with the critical 
assistance of the FAA Airport Improvement Program, must continue to 
improve its competitive position to serve air cargo markets.

            GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES/BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

    Lake Hood provides access to rural Alaska for both residents and 
tourists. No other public floatplane facilities exist in the Anchorage 
area. Additional needs to support this vital facility include:
  --Relocation of tie downs from Anchorage International to Lake Hood 
        to reduce taxi distances and vehicle/aircraft conflicts and 
        free up space at AIA for other uses.
  --Dredging Lake Hood to remove shallow areas in the Lake that create 
        safety concerns during low water periods. Construct shoreline 
        stabilization in eroding areas. This could be developed as a 
        Corps of Engineers project.
  --Address safety concerns by constructing a safety area at Hood 
        Strip, establishing buffer areas around taxiways, and 
        constructing new taxiways where aircraft taxi on roadways.
  --Support for a new floatplane facility to serve the Anchorage/Mat-Su 
        area, address unmet demand for floatplane slips, and relieve 
        airspace and airport congestion.

                           REGULATORY/SAFETY

Wetlands Mitigation and Bird Hazards
    Wetlands and airports in Alaska are generally incompatible. 
Wetlands often attract birds, creating hazards for aircraft operations. 
Airports in Alaska must fill wetlands to both reduce bird hazards as 
well as construct necessary aviation infrastructure. FAA safety 
guidelines regarding wetlands are in conflict with wetland regulations 
under the Clean Water Act. While the FAA guidelines require elimination 
of wetlands that create safety hazards, other federal agencies restrict 
construction on the airport during nesting season, require expensive 
wetlands replacement (mitigation) near airports, and limit types of 
land uses that can occur on airport wetlands.

Airspace Capacity
    The FAA is completing an Anchorage Area Airspace Study that is 
identifying ways to reduce aircraft delays in the air and on the ground 
in the Anchorage area. While the study is not yet complete, it appears 
some ideas, such as establishing new flight procedures, corridors, or 
constructing new runways or taxiways at Elmendorf and Anchorage 
International Airport will require further evaluation. Because the 
issues are complex and involve many levels of government and many 
airports, a formal interagency working group may be needed.

Anchorage International Airport Air Traffic Control Tower
    Certain parts of the airfield at Anchorage International Airport 
cannot be seen by the Air Traffic Control Tower. Lack of tower 
visibility reduces safety and increases aircraft delays. Furthermore, 
the tower is currently located within the terminal road loop, on land 
that could otherwise be used for terminal parking and terminal-related 
functions. These safety, efficiency and land use concerns could easily 
be addressed if the Air Traffic Control Tower at Anchorage 
International Airport was relocated.

Deicing
    Runway and aircraft deicing is necessary for safe aircraft 
operations in the air and on the ground. Deicing chemicals are under 
increasing control and regulation by the Environmental Protection 
Agency because of their affect on water bodies around airports. Capture 
and treatment of deicing chemicals is difficult and expensive. Many 
less expensive solutions at other airports do not work in Alaska. A 
deicing collection and treatment facility may be required for the 
airport to continue to grow and provide for safe operations in an 
environmentally friendly manner.

    Senator Stevens. And we are going to have some questions 
about that, Mort.
    Jim LaBelle.

                     STATEMENT OF JAMES D. LA BELLE

    Mr. LaBelle. Good afternoon, Senator Stevens and 
Congressman Young. It is a pleasure to represent the National 
Transportation Safety Board before you today regarding aviation 
safety in Alaska.
    Flight operations in Alaska are diverse, with challenging 
environments, which is rough terrain, adverse weather, and 
unique air transportation requirements. Due to the large 
geographic area and the lack of other forms of transportation, 
aviation is often the only way to travel. These challenges 
increase the risk to safe flight operations.
    Because of Alaska's unique aviation needs, the National 
Transportation Safety Board has had a longstanding interest in 
aviation safety in Alaska. In 1980, the safety board published 
a special study on the air taxi industry in Alaska. Although we 
have seen improvements to the safety of the aviation system in 
Alaska as a result of recommendations issued from that study, 
investigations indicated that the safety issues identified in 
the 1980 study continue to be a concern. Therefore, in 1995, 
the safety board published a second study on aviation safety in 
Alaska.
    As a result of that study, new safety recommendations were 
issued regarding weather observing and reporting, airport 
inspections and airport condition reporting, pilot flight, 
duty, and rest times, visual and instrument flight rules, and 
the needs of special aviation operations in Alaska.

                ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO NTSB STUDY

    The safety board is encouraged by the actions taken since 
publication of our study. For example, a demonstration project 
for a satellite-based navigation and traffic surveillance is 
underway in the Yukon-Kuskokwim region as part of the FAA's 
Capstone project. The FAA approved the use of single-engined 
airplanes for commercial passenger-carrying flight operations 
under instrument flight rules.
    The FAA and the National Weather Service implemented a test 
program in which color video cameras provide real-time weather 
information available over the Internet. The FAA and the State 
of Alaska are cooperating to equip and train ground personnel 
in Alaskan airports so they can provide near real-time 
information directly to pilots by radio. The FAA has fully 
staffed its Alaska Regional Airport Certification Office, and 
the FAA and the State of Alaska are cooperating to improve the 
inspection program for airports in the State, and the FAA 
implemented a State-wide program to collect and disseminate 
information about Alaskan airport conditions provided by pilots 
and unofficial observers through the automated flight service 
station network.
    As you are aware, Public Law 106-69, the Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000, 
directed that an interagency initiative, with the goal of 
reducing the number of occupational aviation fatalities in 
Alaska and the number of aviation accidents and resultant 
deaths in the State, be undertaken. We believe this initiative, 
which involves the FAA, the NTSB, the National Weather Service, 
and the National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health, 
or NIOSH, is a good step toward improving aviation safety in 
Alaska. You may be assured that the safety board will cooperate 
in every way possible with this effort to its completion.
    Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that over 90 percent of 
the accidents that occur in the State are attributable to human 
factors and operational errors. The ultimate responsibility for 
any flight lies with the pilot and a good educational program 
will go far to eliminating unwarranted risk-taking and human 
errors.
    Most commercial operators are dedicated to providing the 
traveling public with the highest level of safety, but our 
accident investigations show that there is often inadequate 
pilot training for the environment in which they fly, less than 
adequate management oversight, and a less than aggressive 
safety program, or no safety program at all. To decrease the 90 
percent human error figure, these issues must be addressed by 
the Alaska aviation industry.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Mr. Chairman, that completes my prepared remarks, and I 
would be happy to respond to any questions you have.
    [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of James LaBelle

    Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Delegation. It is a 
pleasure to represent the National Transportation Safety Board before 
you today regarding aviation safety in Alaska.
    Between 1990 and 1998, there were 1,510 aviation accidents, an 
average of one accident every 2 days, that took the lives of 355 
people. The commercial aviation accident rate in Alaska is three to 
four times greater than that of the other 49 States. Indeed, we were 
saddened to learn of the most recent commuter airline accident that 
occurred just last Tuesday 50 miles from Bethel, Alaska. That accident 
took the lives of 6 people. It is also significant to note that 
aircraft accidents are the leading cause of occupational fatalities in 
Alaska.
    Flight operations in Alaska are diverse, with a challenging 
environment, such as rough terrain, adverse weather, and unique air 
transportation requirements. Due to the large geographic area and lack 
of other forms of transportation, aviation is often the only way to 
traverse much of the State. These challenges increase the risks to safe 
flight operations.
    Because of Alaska's unique aviation needs and diverse challenges, 
the National Transportation Safety Board has had a longstanding 
interest in aviation safety in Alaska. In 1980, the Safety Board 
published a special study on the air taxi industry in Alaska. As a 
result of that study, the Board issued 10 safety recommendations to the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the State concerning the 
planning and development of Alaska's aviation system and 
infrastructure, weather observation and dissemination of weather 
information, regulatory surveillance and operator safety oversight. As 
a result of those recommendations, we have seen many improvements to 
the safety of the aviation system in Alaska.
    Despite these recent improvements, Board accident investigations 
indicated that the safety issues identified in the 1980 study continued 
to be of concern. In 1995, the Safety Board published a second study on 
aviation safety in Alaska. As a result of that study, 23 new safety 
recommendations were issued to the FAA, the United States Postal 
Service, the National Weather Service (NWS), and the State of Alaska 
regarding weather observing and reporting; airport inspections and 
airport condition reporting; pilot flight, duty, and rest time; visual 
and instrument flight rules; and the needs of special aviation 
operations in Alaska. Twenty-one of those recommendations have been 
classified as acceptable. The Safety Board is encouraged with action 
taken since publication of our study. For example:
  --A demonstration project for satellite-based navigation and traffic 
        surveillance is underway in the Yukon Kuskokwim Region of 
        Alaska, as part of the FAA's Capstone Program;
  --The FAA approved the use of single-engine airplanes for commercial 
        passenger- carrying flight operations under instrument flight 
        rules;
  --The FAA and the NWS implemented a test program in which remote 
        color video cameras provide real-time weather information, 
        available over the Internet. As of mid-1999, video cameras are 
        providing views of several airport environments and mountain 
        passes within Alaska;
  --The FAA and the State of Alaska are cooperating to equip and train 
        ground personnel at Alaskan airports so they can provide near 
        real time information directly to pilots by radio. The State of 
        Alaska implemented a program to equip and train airport 
        maintenance personnel for radio updates;
  --The FAA has fully staffed its Alaskan Region airport certification 
        office, and the FAA and the State of Alaska are cooperating to 
        improve the inspection program for airports in the State; and
  --The FAA implemented a state-wide program to collect and disseminate 
        information about Alaskan airport conditions provided by pilots 
        and unofficial observers through the automated flight service 
        station network.
    Many of these were taken as a result of the efforts of the Alaska 
Congressional Delegation, and we commend you for your continued work on 
these matters.
    Unfortunately, two of the safety recommendations issued as a result 
of our 1995 study were closed as unacceptable action. Those 
recommendations were:

To the Federal Aviation Administration
    Ensure, at all automated surface weather observing sites in Alaska 
for which FAA is responsible, and where currently there are qualified 
FAA weather observers (including contract weather observers) on site, 
that (1) operationally significant information, including distant 
weather 3 information, is manually added to automated weather 
observations until technological progress eliminates the need; and (2) 
all such information is combined and disseminated in a single aviation 
weather report.

To the National Weather Service
    Revise current policies to provide mike-in-hand (near real-time) 
radio service for aviation weather information at locations in Alaska 
where National Weather Service and surface and contract personnel are 
sited until automated surface weather observing systems transmit 
observations of an operationally significant weather phenomena to 
pilots operating in the terminal area.
    We believe the interagency initiative directed in Public Law 106-
69, the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations, fiscal year 
2000, is a good step toward improving aviation safety in Alaska, and we 
look forward to working on the unacceptable recommendation issues as 
part of that effort.
    As you are aware, the interagency initiative involves four federal 
agencies--the FAA, the NTSB, the NWS, and the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). This initiative involves five 
elements: (1) the gathering and analyzing of data; (2) bringing 
together working groups, including representatives of the aviation 
industry, the aviation workforce, and the insurance industry; (3) 
working with local professional groups such as individual pilots and 
the Alaska Airmen's Association, industry, and educational leadership; 
(4) evaluating the effectiveness of changes in flight safety practices; 
and (5) evaluating progress and suggesting additional improvements.
    The goal of this three-year joint effort is to reduce the number of 
occupational aviation fatalities in Alaska by 50 percent for the years 
2000 through 2009, and to reduce substantially the number of aviation 
accidents and resultant deaths in the State. You may be assured that 
the Safety Board will cooperate in every way possible with this effort 
to its completion.
    Mr. Chairman, these initiatives will go a long way to improving 
aviation safety in Alaska, but it should be noted that over 90 percent 
of the accidents that occur in the State are attributable to human 
factors and operational errors. The ultimate responsibility for any 
flight Res with the pilot, and a good educational program will go far 
to eliminating unwarranted risk taking and human errors. Most 
commercial operators are dedicated to providing the traveling public 
with the highest level of safety. But our accident investigations show 
that there is often inadequate pilot training for the environment in 
which they fly, less than adequate management oversight, and a less 
than aggressive safety program or no safety program at all. To decrease 
the 90 percent human error figure, the change must come from within the 
industry.
    Mr. Chairman, that completes my prepared remarks, and I will be 
happy to respond to any questions you may have.

                         ALASKA'S UNIQUE NEEDS

    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
    Pat, as you know, we have written this legislation to 
direct the FAA administrator to take into account Alaska's size 
and unique reliance on aviation before imposing new rules. We 
wonder, is that legislation being followed?
    Mr. Poe. I cannot cite a single situation in which a rule 
was totally disregarded regarding the State of Alaska. There 
are situations, and ongoing ones, where we look at ways to 
accomplish the intent of the rule in ways that are consistent 
with the environment that we have here in Alaska. I think those 
types of balanced approaches serve both causes well.
    Senator Stevens. I have been told there has been some 
attempt to consolidate this region with the region in Seattle. 
That would be automatically just putting us in a position where 
the Alaska region would not be subject to review by people who 
are familiar with our unique circumstances. Is that being 
pursued now, do you know?
    Mr. Poe. To my knowledge, it is not. We had one incident 
recently, and your office was involved, I believe, looking at 
the possibility of merging civil aviation security 
responsibilities between the two regions. That did not go 
forward, and as we speak I know of no other initiative.
    Senator Stevens. You have been here, as you said, just a 
little over a year now, and you came very highly recommended by 
the Administrator, and I would be interested to know if you 
have reached any conclusions as to what are the significant 
challenges that the industry faces here that it does not face 
outside. Too big a thing for 5 minutes?
    Mr. Poe. The range of issues here in the State of Alaska 
was something for which I was not fully prepared, to be very 
candid.
    The thing that struck me the most about my time here in 
Alaska has been the sense of community among the aviators, and 
the different organizations, whether it is the Alaska Aviation 
Safety Foundation, or the carriers, or the Airmen Association, 
or the Seaplane Association. We come together on an issue, and 
we come to point on trying to make a difference. That does not 
mean we always agree, but I think that that is one of the 
things that sets Alaska apart from any place I have been 
before.
    One other thing is that the FAA people here have been here 
long enough that they know people who have fallen to the 
system, and so this is not just a professional responsibility, 
it is a personal commitment, and it is a great group of people.
    Senator Stevens. I am sure we agree with that.

                       REVILLA CORRIDOR EXEMPTION

    Senator Murkowski has asked me to point out to you that for 
20 years VFR traffic has been able to obtain a special VFR 
clearance exemption through the Revilla Corridor that maintains 
a steady flow of traffic into Ketchikan, and there is a 
decision been made not to renew the exemption. He would like to 
know, in the absence of the exemption, how is FAA going to 
prevent a backup of VFR traffic in and out of the Ketchikan 
Harbor during marginal weather conditions, and is FAA delaying 
a reestablishment of the exemption?
    Mr. Poe. When we began to evaluate the new routes that were 
being taken in and out, and we saw this probable conflict in 
traffic, we began to look to see if the exemption had already 
expired. It had not, and as a result it remains in effect 
today. In a way that was good fortune, because that gives us an 
opportunity to work with all of the community there to try and 
find a palatable solution. Right now, we think without 
extraordinary and extra care given to that situation, that it 
could run a safety risk, and so we want to find a way to remove 
that, so the work is ongoing.
    Senator Stevens. It is in effect right now?
    Mr. Poe. The exemption remains in effect I believe through 
January. Someone can confirm that for me.
    Senator Stevens. All right. I will tell him that.

                    KETCHIKAN FLIGHT SERVICE STATION

    He also noted that in January 1999 there was a notice to 
the public that the Ketchikan flight service station hours 
would return to a 24-hour operating schedule following the 
recruitment of two new employees to fill the staffing losses. 
He said in February that the FAA reduced that flight service 
station hours to 14 hours and 15 minutes due to staffing 
losses, and that the new recruits had not been fully certified. 
What is going to be the schedule, as we go into the next 
quarter for the new century, for the flight service station? 
Will it return to the 24-hour schedule?
    Mr. Poe. It is our long-range intent that it do so. I do 
not have the answers to whether it will be effective within the 
first quarter of the next calendar year.
    Part of the problem is the grade structure of that 
particular facility, and that promotion opportunities come and 
people leave as a result of that. The other thing is that with 
minimum staffing, when training and other losses occur, it 
requires that we adjust the operation not only of that 
facility, but on occasion others, and we look for ways to do 
that that has the minimum impact to the public in terms of 
timing and in terms of the seasons of the year.
    To the best of my knowledge, our intent is to return that 
to a 24-hour operation.

             NEEDED INVESTMENTS AT ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL

    Senator Stevens. Mort, just a question or two for you. The 
transition of the Anchorage airport from an interim stop for 
passenger refueling to becoming, really one of the world's 
major cargo air hubs, as I think we have all noted that, and we 
have every indication that it is going to continue to grow. Are 
there investments that you think that we should be familiar 
with, steps we need to take to assure that that growth will be 
able to continue as scheduled and serve the air cargo and 
passenger markets? Is there anything further we should do in 
the Federal level to assist?
    Mr. Plumb. Senator, I think there is a few things we can do 
on the passenger and the cargo side, as I mentioned a little 
earlier. I think on the cargo side we need to take a close look 
at liberalizing the seventh and eighth freedoms, so we could 
capitalize on this globalization of aviation.
    In that regard, I might just give a quick example. Let us 
just say hypothetical purposes, if we had a package that was on 
a bill of lading, we would like to have the ability to have 
that package carried by a carrier such as United Airline from 
New York to Anchorage and then be put on a carrier such as JAL 
and go from Anchorage on to Tokyo.
    On the passenger side, we would like to see a pilot program 
that at least would give us an opportunity to show that it 
should not have any disadvantage in the marketplace, so 
Alaskans who are currently denied the opportunity to fly 
between Anchorage and New York could get on an international 
airline such as Korean Airlines and make that travel from 
Anchorage to New York as well as from New York back to 
Anchorage.
    With regard to infrastructure, there are some things. We 
believe we are going to need some new taxiways to reduce 
airfield delays. There are certain support facilities we are 
going to need, possibly seamless access between some of the 
airparks, which would mean a tunnel under some of the runways 
to get between the north and the west side there. We certainly 
see a need for an efficient operations center, and emergency 
operations center, where we could consolidate in case we did 
have a mishap here.
    Just recently we had an opportunity to exercise with the 
FBI on one of their exercises, and we both concluded that it 
would be advantageous to have a facility on the airport where 
we could operate from.
    I think that would conclude my comments on that area.
    Senator Stevens. I just have a couple more comments, Don.
    Mr. Young. You are the chairman.

                                CAPSTONE

    Senator Stevens. You have all mentioned Capstone. How is it 
really coming along? Whoever would like to comment.
    Mr. Poe. Well, I am sure there are several opinions. Let me 
offer mine straight away. I think with the help of industry and 
with your support, I think it has made remarkable progress, 
considering that it was almost exactly 12 months and a few days 
ago that the first appropriation was made, and we have done in-
house testing, we have awarded the contract to train new pilots 
who began the equipage of aircraft that will start in January, 
we have a listing of 150 airplanes, we have funded the first 
132. I think it is moving remarkably well, almost too well. We 
usually do not get this fortunate to move this fast.
    I also think that the user community here is very strongly 
behind Capstone, and at the end of the day, that is what is 
going to make it work.
    Senator Stevens. When will we get the report that will 
indicate how fast we can go forward and make it State-wide?
    Mr. Poe. The University of Alaska Study is a 3-year study 
which was looking at the safety aspect of Capstone. In my 
judgment, the $6 million appropriation that we received this 
year, we will use part of that as a scene-setter to move beyond 
the Yukon delta. Whether that's into Juneau, or whether that is 
into Fairbanks, or whether that is into Anchorage, but it will 
be into a different area. I think this will be an incremental 
process, and it is somewhat dependent on future appropriations.
    One of the main issues deals with spectrum, which is 
frequency. Right now we are using a frequency that belongs to 
the military and to go State-wide we are going to have to have 
one that the FAA owns and controls, and we are hoping to see 
that accomplished by January of next year, not of 2000 but 
2001, as a part of the certification process, also as part of 
looking at ways to use this technology to actually sequence and 
separate aircraft.
    Senator Stevens. How is it viewed from the State's point of 
view, Paul?
    Mr. Bowers. The State absolutely supports Capstone, and 
would very much like to see it implemented State-wide, expanded 
State-wide. It cannot be soon enough.

                     NTSB'S VIEW OF SAFETY PROGRESS

    Senator Stevens. Jim, I am not sure everybody knows that 
you made the basic recommendations for following out so far on 
the safety process, 15 more closed-circuit weather surveillance 
cameras. That was one of your recommendations. We have got ten 
support, I think, for your mike-in-hand proposal so pilots can 
update runway conditions in flight.
    I guess Capstone really was one of your ideas, as a matter 
of fact. At least my staff tells me they think it was your 
idea.
    Mr. LaBelle. Well, actually it came out of the NTSB Alaska 
Safety study in 1995.
    Senator Stevens. Did it?
    Mr. LaBelle. It was 23 recommendations, and I am pleased to 
say 21 of those 23 have been acceptable.
    Senator Stevens. What is next?
    Mr. LaBelle. Well, we hope with the Alaska safety 
initiative to make some inroads into some of the issues with 
human factors, and with the help of my office and the FAA and 
the National Weather Service, we hope to get a coalition 
together and hopefully make some progress to perhaps reidentify 
some old problems and make some new approaches to those old 
problems and deal with perhaps more effectively some of the 
human factors issues in Alaskan aviation, and in particular, 
pilot decisionmaking, management oversight, training for the 
Alaskan environment, and dealing with industry.
    There has been some resistance. I have sensed, from 
industry to more regulation, and I concur. This is not a 
regulatory event, as we see it. Those involved with the Alaska 
safety initiative. We are looking at a nonregulatory approach, 
with industry buy-in, and I think it is absolutely crucial that 
we have their support, hear their views, get their perspective, 
and act as a facilitator to help them reduce the accident rate 
in Alaska.
    Senator Stevens. I spent the morning with the tourism 
industry, and it is really taking off, you know. There is no 
question about it.
    One of the bright spots on our resource utilization screen 
is the increase in tourism, and substantial commitments there. 
The one dampener that could slow that down is the continued 
statistics we have had in recent months on aviation accidents 
and deaths. I really think the study that is underway is a very 
important one, to try and secure voluntary compliance with the 
type of procedures that would bring about the reduction in 
those statistics.
    If we cannot get voluntary compliance, of course, in time 
your agencies, at least three of the four of you, will be 
forced to bring about mandatory compliance with procedures. I 
think we would be anxious to learn any way we can to help bring 
about that voluntary compliance. I think it will come about 
sooner, and it will be more effective, if it is voluntary.
    Don.

                          INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

    Mr. Young. Thank you, Senator. I first want to thank the 
panel. I notice, Mr. Bowers, that you were making some 
suggestions and I was trying to write them down as fast as I 
could, about money could be better used on the runways, et 
cetera, than be used on another thing that Mr. Poe is 
proposing, or the FAA is proposing. Would you like to explain 
that, and what you think should be done?
    Mr. Bowers. It comes back to the infrastructure that we 
have got in Alaska. We really have an immature infrastructure. 
We do not have well-developed runways. In the rest of the 
country, in America, so to speak, we do have a fairly mature 
infrastructure.
    Runways are well-developed, they are lighted, they are 
paved, taxiways--we are into multiple iterations of improvement 
at those facilities. The last things we need to do are improve 
safety areas, and that is, indeed, the national direction. That 
is the policy that the FAA follows on a Nation-wide basis, and 
that makes a lot of sense in the rest of the country.
    In Alaska, however, any time we do any development on a 
runway, if we are doing any airfield infrastructure 
development, the FAA national policy is to marry that with 
implementing a full safety area at that airport. DOT absolutely 
supports having safety areas, but only after we have addressed 
the primary problem area, and that is having a decent runway. 
It makes no sense to me to implement a full safety area at some 
of our airports when most of them are short, unlighted, rough 
surface.
    The priority is, get the runway fixed first. After we have 
addressed that, then let us go back and do the refinements like 
improving the safety areas, keeping in mind that every landing 
and take-off uses the runway, but the safety area is only used 
if there is a problem, and typically that problem is a direct 
result of the operation from that rough, short, unlighted 
runway.

                          NATIONAL FAA POLICY

    Mr. Young. Mr. Poe, this is nothing personal, but are you 
having to follow the national direction of the FAA, or do you 
have the latitude to do what Mr. Bowers suggests?
    Mr. Poe. We have the latitude to work in the concept of a 
cost-benefit and look at the extent to which safety aprons are 
needed at airports in Alaska. That provides some flexibility. 
However, we consider the safety apron part of the airport 
runway. We consider one, if you will, one formula for safety.
    I can understand, when Paul indicates maybe we should pick 
priorities and surface the runway before we consider the 
accompanying safety implications.
    Mr. Young. Well, I am just going to suggest, Mr. Bowers--I 
have landed on a lot of those airfields, and I agree with you 
100 percent. I do not necessarily agree with you, Mr. Poe. I 
want you to know that right now.
    Mr. Poe. I understand that.
    Mr. Young. But I am hoping the industry itself will have 
some comments, and I hope you are not locked into concrete with 
the idea that you may not be totally right on this issue. There 
may be another side of the coin to avoid--we are supposed to be 
here for safety. We are not supposed to be here for turf 
acquisition. That is what I really want to stress.

                             HUMAN FACTORS

    Mr. LaBelle, you have mentioned that 90 percent of the 
accidents were related to human factor, and 10 percent were 
related to aircraft and regulations.
    Mr. LaBelle. I am sorry----
    Mr. Young. 10 percent would be aircraft, 90 percent----
    Mr. LaBelle. Well, the mechanical issues, or environmental 
issues. Essentially we look at three basic elements in any 
accident investigation. That is the pilot, the machine, and the 
environment they fly in.
    Mr. Young. So you are finding 90 percent, usually pilot?
    Mr. LaBelle. That is correct.
    Mr. Young. With all the new ideas and thoughts in weather 
reporting, automated weather reporting, all the other things 
that have been recommended by Senator Stevens, we still have 
that factor of 90 percent, do we not?
    Mr. LaBelle. We still have the factor, but a lot of the 
infrastructure relating to Alaska safety study, the 1995 Alaska 
safety study, is just now coming to fruition, so hopefully 
Capstone and other initiatives down the road will have some 
impact.
    But again, the operational issues are still, even Nation-
wide outside of Alaska they are still paramount. Those are 
still the principal precipitators of accident--the human 
element, and the more we can do, I believe, in Alaska to 
address the unwarranted risk-taking, the so-called bush pilot 
syndrome, through training, through awareness, and strong 
safety programs within the industry, I think we can make an 
impact on the accidents in Alaska.
    Mr. Young. The hand mike, does that basically replace the--
you see, I was never a great supporter of the automated weather 
reporting. You know, I have flown enough in the State to not 
really believe in it. Now, will that take and make up with the 
lack of good weather reporting, with the hand mike report?
    Mr. LaBelle. I think it will be an adjunct to it. I do not 
think it is--there is now automated weather reporting sites 
scattered throughout the State, and there is going to be more. 
I just had the opportunity to talk to the director of the 
National Weather Service, Richard Pesotti, and he indicated 
that they are going to be working with the mike-in-hand and 
some training for the National Weather Service individuals to 
help implement that, which is good, which is very proactive.
    Mr. Young. Now, I just came from an area that has an 
automatic weather reporting system. It tracks weather, wind-
wise, cloud-wise, wind coverage, et cetera, just very, very 
good. Why can we not put that in the airplane itself? It is 
just not practical financially?
    Mr. LaBelle. I really cannot respond to that. I suspect it 
would be financially prohibitive. Perhaps Capstone--the 
Capstone initiative has some of that inherent in it with the 
weather display and weather mapping and some other issues, and 
some of the downlinks that they have from satellite data, so 
that is coming. That is available at least in part in the 
Capstone initiative.

                             OLDER AIRCRAFT

    Mr. Young. Mr. Poe, you know I have had some questions--I 
will not bring them up today--about a couple of other subjects 
like airplane maintenance and certain things that I do not 
think are necessary, old planes being proposed in the Lower 48 
that now they say are outdated. No plane has been shown where 
it has collapsed or has had metal fatigue. It is pilot error.
    Alaskan industry itself, as you are well aware of, is 
dependant upon many of our old vintage aircraft. That is what 
they were built for, and as long as they are inspected, and I 
think that is your responsibility, and as long as they are, you 
know, studied for stress, engine maintenance is kept up, and 
everything is done, there is no reason physically why an 
aircraft cannot run forever, and one of my proud moments in 
Alaska is, I see planes flying that I see standing in the 
Smithsonian Institute, and I have flown on most of those.
    So I think there has got to be a working relationship, and 
I am glad to hear you say that that has occurred, or is 
occurring. I want to continue that, because as I mentioned in 
my opening statement, my goal is to make sure it is safe, but 
make it available, and make sure that the competition exists, 
and make sure that my consumers are able to get from A to B 
without having to pay an arm and a leg. Every time we have to 
do something within the insurance area, or addition, et cetera, 
our constituents end up paying for it, and very frankly I do 
not think it creates that much more safety.
    So with that, I want to thank the panel. Mr. Plumb, you 
have a great operation out there. Keep it going. One of my 
proud moments, as the Senator has mentioned, is the growth of 
that international airport, and we just hope that it continues, 
and we employ people, and we get jobs and get people off the 
airplane and on the airplane, and achieve the goal of good 
transportation.
    Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Stevens. Thank you. On that aging aircraft issue, I 
talked to FAA Administrator Garvey on that issue. You may know 
about that, Pat. She told me she is aware of the legislation I 
mentioned, specifically the law that requires the FAA to 
consider Alaska's unique environment and its dependance on 
aviation before imposing any new rules or regulations, and she 
assures me that Alaska's concerns would be addressed in the 
final rule.
    That has not been made public yet how it will be done, but 
we are going to monitor that very closely, Don. I am told now 
that that will be almost a year before that final rule is 
published, so we still have time to work on that.
    Mr. Young. Which reminds me, Senator, Mr. Poe, on that 
Ketchikan deal, has there been any problem with the existing 
exemption, the one that you brought up, of the corridor?
    Mr. Poe. Yes. The problem is, as traffic has intensified in 
that area, that we are no longer comfortable with the way the 
arrangement exists, and so----
    Mr. Young. May I ask this question: if you change it, what 
is the alternative, unless there is just less flights?
    Mr. Poe. Well, we have people looking into what the best 
alternative is. Our intent is not to reduce the number of 
flights. Our intent is to increase the level of safety, and 
that is what we are studying as we speak.
    Senator Stevens. We do thank you very much for taking the 
time to be with us. We do, by the way, have staff on the 
committee representing other Senators here today. That is 
important impact to have on our committee by the testimony we 
have, and far greater than if we had waited to have just one of 
you appear in a hearing in Washington, so I thank you for 
taking the time.
    Our next group is what we call the user group panel. Dick 
Harding, president of PenAir, representing the Air Carriers 
Association, Tom Wardleigh, president of the Alaska Aviation 
Safety Foundation, and ALPA representative Felix Maguire, the 
president of the Alaska Airmen's Association, and Ken Acton, an 
aviation consultant.
    I have just been informed, to my sadness, that because of a 
council meeting we must evacuate the building before 4:30, but 
we still have plenty of time, but I just want people to know 
there is a time constraint on us in order that the area may be 
cleaned and made presentable for the assembly.
    For no other reason that that is the way it appears on the 
schedule I was given, why don't we just start with you, Dick.

                      STATEMENT OF RICHARD HARDING

    Mr. Harding. Good afternoon, Senator Stevens, Congressman 
Young, members of the committee, members of the public. My name 
is Richard Harding, and I am speaking to you as past president 
of the Alaska Air Carriers Association and as general manager 
of PenAir. I have been a pilot all my life, and I still 
occasionally fly the line. I will talk about the age 60 rule, 
but before that I would like to discuss a couple of other 
aviation safety issues.
    The State of Alaska consistently has a significantly higher 
accident rate than the rest of the country. The Federal 
Government has invested millions of dollars in the FAA funding 
through new regulations and other programs. The sad reality is, 
the FAA has only minimally improved the safety record in 
Alaska. The accident rate today is the same as it was 15 years 
ago.
    Over the past 15 years, the FAA has implemented major 
regulatory changes, mandatory installation of GPWS, CVR, drug 
and alcohol testing, the commuter rule, and they have proposed 
now new regulations on repair stations and aging aircraft. The 
cumulative cost to Alaska-based carriers is in the millions of 
dollars. Despite all of these mandatory regulatory compliance 
items, the accident record in Alaska has not changed.
    PenAir took an inventory of the airports we serve, 2 years 
ago, and compared the accident and incident data relating to 
substandard airports. We made a difficult business decision to 
discontinue operations at several locations. This left a few 
small communities without options for air transportation. We 
did it because we realized the risk operating into those 
unimproved airports was not worth a potential accident.
    Recently, the airlines and other user groups met with State 
and Federal agencies to draft a 5-year plan of infrastructure 
projects, system changes and recommendations to improve safety 
in Alaska. Seven major issues were a minimum of 3,300 feet of 
runway length with lights, and minimum shelter for the 
passengers, all-weather approach and landing capability, 
availability of weather information, communication navigation 
systems, weather cameras, and support of Capstone, and very 
important, a stable aviation workforce.
    The Aging Aircraft Safety Act mandated the FAA to implement 
rules requiring engineering data that would forecast structural 
failure in aging aircraft and further apply that data to 
inspection programs. The Alaska air carriers and PenAir both 
support the regulations that improve airplane safety. 
Implementation of this regulation, however, will not provide a 
level of safety that is measurably better than provided by more 
feasible means. If the rule becomes regulatory, it will have a 
devastating effect on aviation infrastructure in Alaska.

                              AGE 60 RULE

    The current proposed legislation by Senator Frank Murkowski 
to extend the retirement age to 65 is a rule we believe would 
benefit nearly everyone. The flying public would benefit by the 
greater experience level on the flight deck, pilots would 
benefit from their ability to select their time of retirement, 
airlines would reap benefits of a lower pilot turnover rate, 
and retention of their most experienced pilots.
    This year, PenAir will lose two pilots, including me, 
directly related to the age 60 rule. Indirectly, our company 
has an annual turnover rate of about 25 percent within our 
pilot ranks. However, the loss would be less if the major 
carriers were not experiencing a rash of vacancies as a result 
of this forced retirement. The military would also benefit by 
less pilot turnovers in the airline industry.
    Experience is still the most important criteria for hiring 
pilots at PenAir. We operate in Alaska, and we have no choice 
but to fly in the most demanding conditions and under onerous 
geographical challenges.
    When I first came to Alaska to fly for PenAir I had 2,000 
hours of flight time. All of my previous experience consisted 
of training. I was either getting trained, or as a flight 
instructor, training others. I could ace any written test, pass 
any flight test with ease. However my first year of flying in 
Alaska was an education in itself. I found myself saying many 
times, boy, I will never do that again. After hundreds of 
never-again mental notes, I had a year under my belt, and a 
little experience.
    I have been fortunate enough to have flown in Alaska for 30 
years, and accumulated over 30,000 accident-free hours. Many 
pilots are not as lucky. A study by the State labor economist 
confirms my personal experience. Her 1997 study confirmed that 
pilots with less than a year experience contributed the most 
pilot fatalities on the job.
    The general health of Americans has improved over the last 
40 years, and most people are working to an older age. The 
median age of the Nation's workforce has risen from 28 in 1970 
to 39 today. Even Social Security is raising the retirement age 
to 67.
    Most people I know would prefer to have a little gray hair 
in the front seat, particularly when the flying conditions are 
not ideal. Maybe they say that to spare my feelings, but I do 
not think so, because I feel the same way.
    In conclusion, I sincerely hope the age 60 rule is amended 
to 65. I fully believe it would be beneficial to everyone, and 
would help reduce the pilot shortage we face today.
    Aviation in Alaska is an integral part of the daily 
economic and social fabric of our State. Ever more restrictive 
and expensive operational equipment requirements force carriers 
to make business decisions that are not market-driven, but are 
regulatory compliance-based.
    The FAA continues to force carriers that have reached a 
financial and operational threshold of using larger turbine-
powered equipment to pay a compliance penalty to operate that 
equipment. At the same time, operators of smaller, 
reciprocating engine equipment do not have the same regulatory 
compliance cost structure. The cumulative effect is to drive 
operators toward increased utilization of old technology, while 
exposing the traveling public to a greater risk.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    The industry needs relief from well-meaning but misdirected 
regulatory proposals that accomplish little, or are of 
substantial cost. We do not expect to undo the mistakes like 
the commuter rule, but we would like to see one-size-fits-all 
regulations addressed to meet Alaska needs. You, Senator 
Stevens, provided the FAA a vehicle with recent regulation that 
allows the Administrator to consider Alaska's unique 
requirements. The Administrator still needs your guidance on 
how to apply this regulation. We also need your help in 
bringing Alaska into the 21st Century. We will never have the 
highway system provided to the Americans in the Lower 48, but 
Alaskans deserve an aviation infrastructure equivalent to that 
road system, one that provides the same safe, reliable 
transportation system as our fellow Americans.
    And thank you for letting me speak today.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Richard Harding

              ALASKA AVIATION ISSUES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

    Good afternoon Senator Stevens, members of the committee and 
members of the public. Thank you for providing this opportunity to 
inform you of critical issues affecting commercial aviation today. My 
name is Richard Harding and I'm speaking to you as past-president of 
the Alaska Air Carriers Association (AACA) and as General Manager of 
PenAir, an Anchorage based company with 45 aircraft, 98 pilots and 425 
employees. I have been a pilot all my life and have accumulated 30,000 
accident free hours over 30 years in the industry. At times I still fly 
the line, although my commercial flying will come to an abrupt halt in 
5 days because of an unjustified and antiquated rule. The FAA rule does 
not consider the value of my lifetime experience or good health. I'll 
talk more about the Age 60 rule in depth later. But, before that, I'd 
like to discuss aviation safety and Alaska's accident statistics, 
recent regulatory initiatives, the Commuter Rule, the condition of 
Alaska's airports and Aging Aircraft.

                              SAFETY FIRST

    First, let's talk safety. The State of Alaska consistently has a 
significantly higher accident rate than the rest of the country and, 
anybody remotely involved with aviation in Alaska is acutely aware of 
that fact. The Federal government has invested millions of dollars into 
FAA funding through new regulations, increased oversight, and 
initiatives including a new approach to ``dictating'' and how the 
industry will operate ``more safely.'' We've seen times of heavy-handed 
enforcement practices by the agency and have experienced the pendulum 
swinging the opposite direction to accommodate and work with carriers. 
The sad reality is what the FAA has done has only minimally improved 
the safety record in Alaska; and the safety rate today is the same as 
it was 15 years ago.

                         REGULATORY INITIATIVES

    Over the past 15 years, the FAA has implemented the following major 
regulatory changes: (1) mandatory installation of GPWS on turbine-
powered aircraft with 10 or more seats; (2) mandatory installation of 
TCAS on turbine-powered aircraft; (3) elimination of the allowance of 
15 minutes flight to VFR conditions; (4) Part 135 flight crewmember 
training to Part 121 training program standards; (5) drug, and alcohol 
testing and training for aviation vendors' employees; (6) equipment 
installation requirements for single-engine IFR operations; (7) 
``commuter rule'' conversion to Part 121 operations for single-engine 
aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats; (8) NPRM 99-09 Repair 
Stations, and (9) NPRM 99-02 Aging Aircraft. The cumulative costs to 
Alaska based air carriers has been in the millions of dollars. Despite 
all of these mandatory regulatory compliance items, the safety record 
in Alaska has not changed significantly.

                           THE COMMUTER RULE

    In 1995, we felt the biggest and most onerous rule to ever hit the 
industry was the ``Commuter Rule.'' It has been nearly 5 years since 
its effective date with little or no change in the industry's safety 
record--while there has been a documented decline in service in parts 
of Alaska. Where 10-19 passenger twin turboprops with two pilots in the 
cockpit were once used, they have now been reduced to 9 passenger seats 
with a single pilot. The results for those who completed the changeover 
are higher operating costs, higher ticket fares, and those who didn't 
change over have more exposure to risk through increased numbers of 
takeoffs and landings. Certainly, the move back in time to older, 
single-engine piston-powered aircraft vs. the more reliable and safer 
twin and single engine turboprops is not progress.
    In 1995, the FAA passed a rule that required Part 135 10-19 seat 
aircraft to transition into more restrictive and expensive Part 121 
operation rules. Only two companies made a successful transition into 
Part 121, PenAir and Frontier Flying Service. Three others that made 
the transition, Taquan Air Service (Air One), SouthCentral Air and Yute 
Air have either gone out of business or into bankruptcy. In effect, the 
rule took many of the newer, more technically advanced aircraft out of 
operation and literally set Alaska aviation back 25 years.

                                FUNDING

    We have experienced a slow improvement in runway conditions over 
the years because of an increased investment of federal dollars. We 
need to increase the number of dollars to get airports up to minimum 
service levels. Investments in Alaska's aviation infrastructure are 
such a slow and arduous process because of the bureaucratic process of 
the FAA, the value of much needed improvements isn't something we can 
count on in the near future, with the exception of Capstone.
    We all understand the different operating culture and 
infrastructure of Alaska transportation as compared with the Lower 48. 
Most of the Alaskan commuter fleet is composed of single-engine 
aircraft flying VFR. Aviation takes the place of a road system 
infrastructure throughout most of Alaska's bush, and it always will. 
The cost of building and maintaining a half-mile of airport is much 
less expensive than building and maintaining roads between villages.

                                AIRPORTS

    Speaking of airports, two years ago, PenAir took inventory of the 
airports we served and compared accident and incident data relating to 
substandard airports. We made a difficult business decision to 
discontinue operations into several destinations. This left a few small 
communities without options for air transportation. We did it because 
we realized the risk operating into those unimproved airports wasn't 
worth the potential costs involved with an accident.
    The conditions at our rural airports are only one of several topics 
I would like to discuss today. All of the subjects, however, address 
safety and offer recommendations for reducing accidents in Alaska.
    Recently, the airlines and other user groups met with state and 
federal agencies to draft a five-year plan of infrastructure projects, 
system changes and recommendations to improve safety in Alaska. The six 
major recommendations of the ``Alaska Aviation Coordination Council'' 
were; (1) publicly owned airports, a minimum of 3,300 feet in length 
with runway lights and minimum shelter for passengers; (2) all weather 
approach and landing capability; (3) availability of weather 
information; (4) communication and navigation systems; (5) weather 
cameras; and (6) very importantly, stable aviation work force. The 
estimated cost to bring Alaska's airport system up to these minimums 
statewide was estimated to be $265 million over the next 5 years.

                             AGING AIRCRAFT

    Congress initiated the Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991 (AASA) in 
reaction to an accident involving an older Boeing 737 in Hawaii. The 
Act mandated the FAA implement rules requiring engineering data that 
would forecast structural failure in aging aircraft and further apply 
that data to inspection programs. The manufacturers of the types of 
aircraft involved in the accident that precipitated this Act of 
Congress have already addressed the aging aircraft issue. Of the 
remaining light twin-engine aircraft used in commuter service, a 
disproportionate amount of these aircraft are being operated in Alaska.
    Operators in Alaska, including PenAir, rely heavily on light twin-
engine aircraft to provide the aviation infrastructure necessary to 
serve Alaska's small communities that are totally dependent upon air 
transportation. Implementation of this rule would eliminate light twins 
and force carriers (those that survive the economic loss of their light 
twins) to revert to single-engine aircraft. Most single-engine aircraft 
in Alaska are older than the light twins, and most cannot fly IFR, 
which will in turn create a less safe environment for the public. 
Please note that accident statistics show that in Alaska, single-
engines have six times more accidents than twin-engine aircraft.
    In Alaska, the light twin engine aircraft we fly are primarily the 
Piper Navajo, and the Cessna 402. Neither has been manufactured since 
1983. It is not practical or economically feasible for the manufacturer 
to provide the design data necessary for engineers to create the 
information required to establish damage-tolerance-based inspections 
and procedures. Under the current NPRM, expanded inspection procedures 
apply damage-tolerance inspection criteria. Considering that this NPRM 
is directed toward aircraft designed under FAR 3 and FAR 23, it 
effectively requires re-engineering of the airframes.
    In addition to the lack of design information availability, the 
National Air Transportation Association (NATA) estimated the cost per 
air carrier to be approximately one million dollars per aircraft type. 
The only result of the new regulation will be the elimination of light 
twin aircraft in Alaska, not increase safety.
    The AACA and PenAir both support regulations that improve airplane 
safety. Implementation of this regulation, however, will not provide a 
level of safety that is measurably better than provided by other more 
feasible means. The Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991 did not mandate 
the FAA require operators to re-engineer entire fleets of operational 
aircraft, and the Act did not mandate the FAA to ground them. There is 
no mention in the AASA of damage-tolerant inspection criteria. There 
are other measures available to ensure the continued airworthiness of 
aging aircraft for the remainder of practical service life, such as 
implementation of additional age sensitive maintenance procedures 
requiring progressive inspection programs, tailored to each affected 
type, and incorporation for planned obsolescence provisions.
    Damage tolerance inspection procedures are inappropriate for 
retrofit inspection programs. There is no need to expand the scope and 
detail of inspection criteria for PenAir. To place this burden on each 
air carrier to develop its own program, including damage tolerant 
inspection criteria for each type of aircraft the air carrier intends 
to operate in the future, is not practical nor economically viable. The 
proposed aging aircraft regulations, as currently written, are 
unnecessary and cumbersome.
    If the rule becomes regulatory, it will have a devastating effect 
on the aviation infrastructure in Alaska. The most critical safety 
concern with older aircraft fleets, and the most immediate concern, is 
the individual airplane's history of damage, repair maintenance and 
alterations. A progressive inspection plan such as Approved 
Airworthiness Inspection Program, designed by certification engineers 
and airworthiness inspectors incorporating increasingly stringent 
requirements as the aircraft ages, would identify fatigue problems 
before they affect safety.
    Grounding fleets of aircraft in Alaska will enhance neither safety 
nor serve the public interest. The regulation needs to be modified to 
allow reasonable inspection programs an opportunity to address the 
aging aircraft issue.

                              AGE 60 RULE

    The Age 60 Rule is not a new idea, as the very first FAA 
Administrator, Elwood Quesada, introduced it during his term and on 
March 15, 1950 it took effect requiring mandatory retirement for pilots 
as they reach age 60 even though neither scientific studies and/or 
medical documentation ever supported this rule. Overwhelming opposition 
was presented and only after the rule had taken effect was a study 
undertaken to examine critical issues. The study was performed by the 
FAA in the early 60's but later abandoned by the agency before final 
results were made public. In 1969, an independent report was 
commissioned and completed, but again results were never made public.
    In 1979, a Navy study of pilots and their long-term health 
histories was performed on one thousand aviators. The FAA reviewed the 
study but concluded it failed to provide an adequate basis for revising 
the Age Sixty Rule.
    Congress became interested in the issue and directed the National 
Institute of Health (NIH) to do research on the viability of the rule 
and they were tasked with substantiating the reasons pilots were 
retired at sixty. A panel was convened outside the authority of the FAA 
and that panel ``expressed doubts about the need for all pilots to step 
aside at age sixty.'' Subsequently, the panel recommended initiation of 
a comprehensive study focusing on selected captains over sixty.
    After reviewing the NIH report, the FAA issued two notices of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRMs). First, the agency suggested extending the 
Age Sixty Rule to include flight engineers and the second proposed a 
test program for selected pilots over sixty. This mirrored exactly what 
the NIH had suggested. Two years later the furor died down and the FAA 
quietly dropped the proposal.
    The current proposed legislation by Senator Frank Murkowski to 
extend the retirement age to 65 is a rule we believe would benefit 
nearly everyone. The flying public would benefit by the greater 
experience level on the flight deck. Pilots would benefit from their 
ability to select their time of retirement. The airlines would reap 
benefits by experiencing a lower pilot turnover rate and retention of 
the most experienced pilots in the system.
    Of course, no issue is without opposition. Those that wouldn't 
benefit from a rule change are the young pilots on the fast track to 
the left seat. Certainly the rule would delay them back, which in 
actuality would provide a quiet benefit by allowing them more time to 
gain valuable experience.
    This year PenAir will lose two pilots, including myself, directly 
related to the Age Sixty Rule. Indirectly, our company has an annual 
turnover of about 25 percent within our pilot ranks. However, the loss 
would be less if the major carrier's weren't experiencing a rash of 
vacancies as a result of this forced retirement. The military would 
also benefit by less pilot turnovers in the airline industry.
    Last year, for the first time ever, we lost a 48-year old pilot to 
the majors! And, I'm amazed to hear some carriers are now hiring pilots 
over 50. On the opposite end of the spectrum some majors are now hiring 
pilots with less than one thousand hours. In contrast, at PenAir, we 
won't even consider employing pilots with such a low experience level 
to fly our five-passenger airplanes. We used to give hiring preference 
to pilots without a four-year college degree because we knew the 
airlines weren't interested in them, but that is not true anymore.
    Experience is still the most important criteria in hiring pilots at 
PenAir. We operate in Alaska and have no choice but to fly in the most 
demanding conditions and onerous geographical challenges. On an average 
day we have ``poor'' weather reporting and operate within strict 
limitations because most airports have only VFR capability and many of 
the airports we depend upon have sub-standard runways.
    When I first came to Alaska to fly for PenAir, I had 2,000 hours 
listed on my employment application. All of my previous experience 
consisted of training. I was either getting trained or training others 
as a flight instructor. I could ace any written test and pass any 
flight test with ease. However, my first year flying in Alaska was an 
education in itself. I found myself saying many times, ``Boy, I'll 
never do that again.'' After hundreds of ``I'll never do that again'' 
mental notes, I had a year under my belt and a little experience. I 
have been fortunate to have flown in Alaska for thirty years and 
accumulate over 30,000 accident free hours. Many pilots aren't as 
lucky. A study by state labor economist Taktha Lukshin confirms my 
personal experience. Her 1997 study confirmed that pilots with less 
than one year experience contributed to most of the pilot fatalities on 
the job.
    The general health of Americans has improved over the last forty 
years and most people are working to an older age. The median age of 
the nation's workforce has risen from 28 in 1970 to 39 today. Even 
social security is raising the retirement age to 67.
    Most people I know would prefer to have a little gray hair in the 
front seat, particularly when the flying conditions aren't ideal. Maybe 
they say that to spare my feelings, but I don't think so. I feel the 
same way.

                               CONCLUSION

    I sincerely hope the Age 60 Rule is amended to Age 65. I fully 
believe it would be beneficial to everyone, whether they know it or 
not, and would help reduce the pilot shortage we face today. Aviation 
in Alaska is an integral part of the daily economic and social fabric 
of our state. Evermore restrictive and expensive operational and 
equipment requirements force air carriers to make business decisions 
that are not market-driven, but are regulatory compliance based. The 
FAA continues to force air carriers that have reached the financial and 
operational threshold of using larger, turbine-powered equipment to pay 
a ``compliance penalty'' to operate that equipment. At the same time, 
operators of smaller, reciprocating-engine equipment do not have the 
same regulatory-compliance cost structure. The cumulative effect is to 
drive operators toward increased utilization of old technology while 
exposing the traveling public to greater risk.
    The industry needs relief from well meaning but misdirected 
regulatory proposals that accomplish little or nothing but add 
substantial costs. We don't expect to undue mistakes like the commuter 
rule but we would like to see ``one size fits all,'' regulations 
addressed to meet Alaskan needs. You, Senator Stevens, provided the FAA 
a vehicle, with recent regulation, that allows the Administrator to 
consider Alaska's unique requirements. The Administrator still needs 
your guidance on how to apply this regulation.
    We also need your help to bring Alaska aviation into the 21st 
century. We will never have the highway system provided to Americans in 
the lower 48; but, Alaskans deserve an aviation infrastructure 
equivalent to that road system that provides the same safe, reliable 
transportation as their fellow Americans.

    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We appreciate it, 
Dick.
    Tom.

                       STATEMENT OF TOM WARDLEIGH

    Mr. Wardleigh. Thank you, Senator Stevens and Mr. Young. It 
is a pleasure to greet you here. I just returned from New 
Zealand. I did not have time to prepare a written dissertation, 
but the one thing I noticed is that user fees were instituted 
in New Zealand in 1987, with general aviation exempt from those 
fees.
    However, in January 1999, those user fees were applied to 
general aviation in that country. It is my personal 
observation, after visiting several airports there, that Mort 
Plumb hosts more general aviation at the Lake Hood airstrip 
than the nation of New Zealand has. I commend you for 
protecting us so far from user fees and other things that would 
just put the lid on general aviation.
    Addressing safety directly, Alaska has a unique mix of 
topography and weather that makes it extraordinarily demanding 
to serve airports like Dutch Harbor and St. George Island, St. 
Paul Island, Ketchikan, Juneau, Wrangell, Petersburg, and so 
forth. Retention of experienced pilots is going to be a 
critical factor in improving any safety record in the Yukon 
Delta, Kuskokwim area, anywhere that we have been consistently 
going into the mining business with aluminum bits, which just 
does not work.
    I believe that through your efforts, the University of 
Alaska has a fine plant facility. They are capable of training 
resident Alaskans, people born and raised here, people who want 
to live in the rural communities, and serve those communities. 
One of our apparent problems is a lack of gainful employment 
opportunity in the small communities of rural Alaska. Being a 
professional pilot, even a ticket agent or a dispatcher or a 
weather observer is certainly an attractive alternative to not 
doing any of those tasks.
    I urge that politically we get together with the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, with the unemployment people and the Federal 
Government, any source of funds that will enable us to bring 
young people in from graduating in rural high schools, train 
them to useful careers in aviation at the University of Alaska, 
perhaps protect them a little bit from the city environment 
when they first get here, enable them to have a productive life 
in aviation, and become a PenAir pilot working for Dick, and 
stay at PenAir, rather than going to the worldwide air carriers 
or other, more lucrative jobs.
    I believe some stability and some lesser accident rate 
could improve the insurance rates, make the companies more 
profitable, and make the people in the communities a little bit 
more comfortable when they ride in a small airplane from place 
to place, and when their athletic teams go from village to 
village to just play basketball.
    Mort mentioned a problem with seaplane adequacy here in the 
Anchorage area. There is a possible opportunity for the State, 
and with some political influence, the railroad. The Alaska 
railroad had a large gravel pit at Eklutna, Alaska. One of the 
local construction firms even created a proposed plan to make a 
good, safe, seaplane base in that old gravel pit.
    Unfortunately, it had just been Eklutna Village 
Corporation. They had a vote whether to support the 
accommodation of seaplanes or to keep it as it is, and with the 
population of 27, the vote was 14 to 13 to not have a seaplane 
base there.
    It is my feeling that if an attractive land exchange 
program could be created, perhaps those people would exchange 
that land, where it could become very convenient. It is in a 
very sheltered wind area, and would in fact make a fine 
reliever seaplane base for the communities of Eagle River and 
Palma, and Anchorage.
    We are concerned not so much for safety, but for 
utilization of the air space over national parks, refuges, and 
other Federal domain in the State of Alaska. We notice, for 
instance, that the park service employees use gravel bars and 
rudimentary strips, but they discourage the general public from 
using them.
    At the present time, we have got a tentative agreement with 
the park service at McKinley to continue the McKinley air strip 
in service for the foreseeable future, or, quote, until a 
suitable replacement is identified. That air strip was used 
recently for medevacs and service to people in need, as well as 
just the tourist population. We feel that access to that park 
should not be restricted to just those people who are able to 
walk and who have the time to walk. There are handicapped folk 
who can see Mount McKinley in no other way than getting in an 
airplane and viewing that majestic piece of real estate. We 
hope that you can intervene with that.
    We notice that the insurance availability can be a business 
deterrent. Right now, there is considerable flux in the 
availability of commercial insurance for aviation purposes. I 
do not exactly know how the Congress can fit in that, but 
hopefully there can be found a way to make affordable insurance 
available land, of course, the key to that is stop having 
accidents. The key in my view to stop having accidents is have 
more proficient, skilled pilots and more conservative 
management who will tell them, you may not take that flight 
under certain conditions.
    We recognize that the FAA is basically air carrier 
oriented, because the air carriers serve the huge bulk of the 
national population, but we urge that it stay close to the 
administration, to Mrs. Garvey and her successors, so that 
Alaska's unique needs can be met. One size did not fit Alaska 
any better than a sharpei dog's coat, and not many of them run 
in the Iditerod.
    I would suggest that our Anchorage population reading the 
letters to the editor recently has lost sight of the fact that 
Anchorage International is one of the most unique and 
beneficial airport sites in the whole world, to my knowledge. 
We have three flight paths from those runways that go over 
water. They do not imperil people's houses, residencies. They 
do not make a lot of noise.
    The thought of moving a large airport into the Susitna 
Valley would preempt a great deal of livable land by virtue of 
the noise and the approach and departure paths. I believe Mr. 
Plumb has a tremendous challenge to develop that beautiful 
airport site successfully and skillfully, and sell it to the 
population of Anchorage, who benefit by the fact that 747's 
full of fuel oil do not fly right over the middle of town on 
take-off most of the time.
    I join you in the issues already mentioned about aging 
aircraft. We still have a 1929 Traveler in commercial service 
here in Alaska. It seems to be doing fine. I would hope that 
the FAA's enforcement program--and be reminded of the original 
language of the enabling act that said, and to regulate in the 
interest of safety. We get the feeling that some of the 
regulation goes on just because the law is the law is the law. 
We would like to have some direction to their legal department, 
and to their enforcement people. Focus it on safety. Make the 
regulation in the interest of safety come to life.
    And thank you for this opportunity.
    Senator Stevens. Thanks, Tom. Glad you got back in time.
    Felix Maguire.

                       STATEMENT OF FELIX MAGUIRE

    Mr. Maguire. Senator Stevens and Congressman Young, ladies 
and gentlemen, it is an honor to be able to speak before you 
this afternoon.
    I am president of an association that is a State-wide 
association that is 1,200 members scattered throughout the 
State with regional directors in Fairbanks, Juneau, Kenai, and 
Bethel, so we keep an eye out on most things around the State 
for general aviation.
    Personally, I have been the chief pilot for AT&T ALASCOM 
for the last 20 years, and I have flown into most villages 
throughout the State, and I do so on a regular basis, so I am 
very familiar with the structure of the State.
    There are six points I wanted to mention this afternoon. 
Number 1 is that the 5-year strategic plan that has already 
been mentioned, we are very supportive of that. It came out of 
an initiative when people gathered together and had 
communicated well and shared well their vision and their 
feelings for the future, and there is a good sense of vision in 
that strategic plan.
    The only thing that I personally would disagree with is 
that it asked for runways of 3,300 feet, and I think we should 
go for 4,000. The reason I say that is because, when I started 
flying here 25 years ago, and in the first 10 years I flew a 
King Air, and I kind of was the first one to fly a King Air 
around for a while, and then the King Air started to catch on 
and we started moving from piston airplanes to turboprops, and 
by the end of my 10 years of flying that King Air and we sold 
it and replaced it with a Cessna Citation, we noticed other 
people flying King Air's, and even the airlines were flying the 
Beech 1900's, which is the stretch version of the King Air.
    I have flown the Citation now into gravel strips all over 
the State, and even took Citation into Chungnak, which kind of 
surprised them that a jet would get in there, and the movement 
is that the older airplanes are not being replaced. They are 
not making any more Navajos, so gradually we are going to move 
to turboprops, and then we are going to move to jets down the 
line, and if we are looking in the next century, then we have 
to look to providing runways that are capable of taking those 
airplanes.
    I was able to do most of my stuff on the part 91 and land 
on runways that are 3,000 feet, but if Dick Harding is to use 
the Citation in and out of a strip he will have to have 4,000 
feet to meet the requirements of part 121.
    The next issue I mention is whether we had a system here in 
Alaska that was working very, very well, called LABS, and the 
FAA provided that system, and we could get weather on that, and 
it was available very cheaply on a commercial basis. It was not 
Y2K-compatible, so it was taken away and replaced with a system 
called DAWN. The only problem with DAWN is that DAWN is an 
internal system. The FAA will not let the public use that. They 
have this tremendous system, but they use it for themselves 
only, and I do not see the rationale in the FAA gathering 
information from the National Weather Service and then hoarding 
it to themselves and not letting it available to the public. If 
this system could be put on the Internet, then we could all 
have this information, even if we have to pay for it.
    The commercial systems that are out there at the moment are 
not as good as DAWN. They are not as good as the LABS 
situation. They do not allow you to have collectives. If you 
want the weather, if you are going from here to King Salmon, 
you have to get the weather for Barrow and every other place, 
so it is a waste of paper and time, and is not as efficient as 
the LABS system was.
    The cameras are a great contribution to the State, and we 
thank the Senator for his getting the first appropriations to 
try out the first cameras, and it took us a while to get the 
FAA to do that, but now that we have got them, everybody sees 
the advantage of having cameras throughout the State, and we 
look forward to having a camera in every pass as well as at 
some of the remote locations where we do not have a human being 
to report the weather.
    Flight service stations are still a concern. You have 
already mentioned the fact that the flight service station in 
Ketchikan is short-staffed, and it has to do, at that post has 
partially to do with the fact that the flight service station 
personnel are grade 10's. Those at the FASS are grade 12's, and 
so everybody who is in the flight service station wants to move 
to an FASS and get extra pay.
    In the meantime, with the shortage, an FASS person comes to 
Ketchikan to fill in. They are not only getting two grades 
higher in pay, they are also getting per diem, and that 
destroys the morale of the flight service station, so people 
want to leave the flight service stations and go away.
    There is no training facility in Oklahoma for flight 
service stations as they are today. The equipment is outmoded, 
and for some reason the FAA is adamant that training has to 
take place in Oklahoma and not on-site. If they would train 
people on-site in Ketchikan and Sitka and Dillingham and 
Barrow, then we would not have the shortage. We could train 
local people to do that, and we would be able to employ perhaps 
the Native residents to work at the flight service stations.
    Maintenance is a concern of navigation facilities 
throughout the State. The FAA in the last month has decided to 
centralize maintenance in Anchorage, so all the people who 
maintain things out of Juneau or Ketchikan, Barrow and so 
forth, are all going to be centralized in Anchorage.
    I work for a corporation that tried the same thing. AT&T 
brought all their technicians in from the bush and put them all 
here in Anchorage, and found themselves in a real bind when 
something went out, such as ADAK went off the air 3 months ago, 
and the only way to get somebody out there--you cannot fly them 
out commercially because there is no weather available.
    You cannot charter an airplane because the charter cannot 
go without weather available. The only thing they could do was, 
they fortunately had a corporate airplane that flew under part 
91 that could go out and take a look-see.
    The FAA does not have a part 91 airplane in the State of 
Alaska, and we know how difficult it is to get into Juneau on 
most days, and if we have to get a technician down to Hoonah or 
to Haines to fix a beacon, then the difficulty of getting them 
from here to Juneau is the first step, and then to get them the 
other way. So I think it would be a retrograde step and a 
depreciating of service if FAA centralizes the maintenance in 
Anchorage.
    The Capstone project is a great project. We support that, 
but we see that even though it is a 3-year experiment within 3 
years, if it is a total success, it will take at least 20 years 
before this is implemented Nation-wide. In the meantime, Bethel 
is a bad spot without radar, and each year we encourage the FAA 
to put radar in Bethel since 1987.
    They have approved it each year, and each time it comes 
round to appropriations it gets killed, because the 
appropriation is based on the number of passengers who move 
through the terminal. The number of passengers moved through 
Bethel could be all put on one 747, or two 747's, in one day, 
and that is inadequate to justify the place to have radar.
    If we counted airplanes instead of passengers, the movement 
of aircraft would justify the radar, and I think an exemption 
should be made on how we justify the radar in Bethel and go 
ahead and put it in. The radar could be in and up and working 
in 2 years, whereas the Capstone project equipment will not be 
working for at least 20.
    Senator Stevens. 20?
    Mr. Maguire. I would think, by the time we get around the 
whole Nation, everything that would have to be done to use this 
as a national project. This is an experiment that is going on, 
the Capstone, and it is going to be very successful, but by the 
time you get every aircraft equipped, and every center equipped 
with the radar, the ADSB to read this stuff, and you need 
radars around and facilities to pick up the ADSB, it is going 
to take a longtime to implement the whole thing as a national 
program, and the way the FAA works, and the way the 
appropriations work, it will take time, and that is not hitting 
them or saying there is anything wrong with them. They are 
doing the best they can, but they are severely limited by their 
funding.
    Aging aircraft is a problem. It will force us back into 
single engine airplanes, and single engine airplanes have more 
accidents than twins, and we know we have not been successful 
even though we have had single engine IFR approved. Not many 
are doing it because of the extra equipment they have to carry 
on the airplane. If we force people out of the aging aircraft, 
then we are going to force them back into singles.
    Generally, airplanes start out in the Lower 48, and in 
Europe, and they run 10 years, and we see them for the second 
wind up here in Alaska, so to speak, and then after we are done 
with them they might end up in some third world country, but we 
do not get many new airplanes into Alaska, and if they are 
going to interpret the regulations to deprive us of the use of 
the current, every 737, every airplane that ERA has over there 
will go away. They are Conairs, they are twin Mortons, they are 
all Morton 10 years, 14 years old. They will all disappear. It 
would be an intolerable situation for the State.
    The last thing I would like to mention is the Ketchikan 
corridor, seeing as how you brought it up. What I was told 
precipitated the Ketchikan Corridor was a new ILS that was 
asked for by Alaska Airlines and other airlines, an ILS 2, and 
it reduced the minimums from 1,000 feet down to 500 feet, and 
it was the fact that they would come down to 500 feet, that 
they would be too close to the people going out in the 
corridors.
    I find it hard to believe that after all these years 
somebody has brought that up as an objection, because even if 
you fly the normal ILS down to 1,000 feet, at some point you 
are going to be at that same point of 500 feet as you go in, 
and you are going to be at that in VFR conditions if you are 
flying the ILS 1, and people can fly past you.
    If it is down to 500 feet, they will not be flying down the 
corridor, so I do not know why FAA is making this such a big 
problem. The exemption is good, the separation is sufficient, 
it has worked well for 20 years, let us keep it going.
    Paul Bowers brought up the idea that the FAA is kind of 
locked into with the airports of improving the safe areas 
around the airports rather than improving the runway. There is 
a similar thing happening with PAPI's and VASI's. Those are the 
lights and the approaches to runways. PAPI's our international 
standard. It is the IKO standard, and they are warning us to 
put those in all our runways because it is the IKO 
international standard.
    VASI's work much better in Alaska, because if you come 
downwind at Fort Yukon and you turn base and you can see the 
VASI, you know whether you are high or low. You cannot tell on 
a PAPI until you are lined up straight with the runway whether 
you are high or low. A VASI is a much better indicator and 
safety device for Alaskans than a PAPI, and just because it is 
national policy to go with PAPI's and its IKO does not 
necessarily mean that we have to go that way in Alaska, and 
that is one of the problems again.
    For your own home town, Congressman Young, from Fort Yukon 
down to Circle and down to Eagle, you cannot fly a small 
airplane down there, I discovered to my horror, because the MOA 
is now down to 100 feet in that area, and we are trying to work 
with the military so that we can get a corridor between Fort 
Yukon, Circle, and Eagle, so people can go down there at least 
to 2,000 feet safe altitude, especially in the summertime when 
we have people coming visiting Fort Yukon.
    But it is an unprecedented time of cooperation that is 
going on at the moment. We are sitting around tables, we are 
talking to each other, Tom, from the Safety Foundation, the Air 
Carriers Association, the military, the FAA, the DOT, and we 
have been working so well together in this last year, it has 
been very refreshing to see that everybody is willing to speak 
out, and nobody is afraid to say certain things, and yet 
everybody is cooperating to make things better, and that is 
part of what led to that 5-year strategic plan.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    I congratulate them for doing that. I congratulate both of 
you for inviting us here this afternoon, for having our say. 
Thank you very much.
    [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Felix Maguire

    Good afternoon Senators and members of the committee. Thank you for 
the opportunity to present some comments on the major issues affecting 
aviation in Alaska and their impact into the 21st Century. My name is 
Felix Maguire and I am president of the Alaska Airmen's Association, 
which is non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and 
enhancement of General Aviation through education and safety. The 
Association has more than 1,200 member Statewide. It has its 
headquarters in Anchorage and has regional Directors in Fairbanks, 
Juneau, Kenai and Bethel. We work closely with all other civil aviation 
organizations, including AOPA, as well as the Military and State and 
Federal Government Agencies to preserver and enhance general aviation.

                              MAJOR ISSUES

    Five year strategic plan.--We have worked with the above 
organizations to produce the Five Year Strategic Plan for Alaskan 
Aviation as proposed by the Ad-hoc Alaska Aviation Advisory Committee. 
This proposal is the result of all agencies, civil and government, 
gathering together and communicating openly with concerns for the best 
interest of aviation in our State. We whole-heartedly endorse its 
recommendations concerning: (1) The lengthening of runways to a minimum 
of 3,300 feet and providing safe shelter at every airport; (2) All 
weather approach and landing capabilities; (3) Availability of weather 
information; (4) Good communication and navigation facilities; (5) 
Weather video cameras; (6) A stable aviation work force. This vision 
for the future will meet many of the safety needs at the airports 
throughout the State. Our inter-model transportation system relies 
heavily on Marine transportation in the SouthEast, Road and Rail in 
South Central, and totally on Aviation in the North, the West and 
SouthWest. In a State where the infrastructure is so different from the 
rest of the United States, we emphasize that Aviation is the lifeline 
to the outside world for most Alaskan villages.
    Weather information.--The installation of AWOS and ASOS has 
replaced many human observers throughout the State. Weather continues 
to be a major factor in aviation accidents in Alaska. The introduction 
of Video Cameras has been the greatest enhancement to weather reporting 
in the past 15 years. We encourage more use of this technology and 
greater availability to the public. The availability of weather and 
NOTAMS through such systems as LABS enabled users to access vital 
safety information before flight. LABS was discontinued this year as 
not being Y2K compatible. The replacement system, DAWN, is not 
available to the public. It is for FAA in-house use only. Other 
commercial systems are not as good and very costly. Why can't the FAA 
make DAWN available to the users via the Internet? It does not make 
sense for the FAA to hoard the information and give it out piece meal 
by phone or on DUATS. LABS provided for collectives. For example if an 
aircraft were flying from Fairbanks to Ketchikan, LABS would give 
weather at the appropriate airports en-route, Anchorage, Cordova, 
Yakutat, Juneau, Sitka as well as winds aloft and forecast. Using 
current commercial systems, the pilot gets the weather for every 
station in Alaska, using more paper and wasting time and energy. The 
FAA gets good information from the National Weather Service but is not 
making this available to the general aviation users. Why?
    FSS stations.--These are the backbone for distributing information 
and weather in our State. The specialists at FSS are Grade 10 while 
their counterparts at AFSS are Grade 12. The AFSS has more 
sophisticated equipment but the FSS personnel are hard to replace. 
There is no scheduled training for replacements and after a year at an 
FSS the specialist inevitably moves on to an AFSS for the higher grade 
of pay. Ketchikan has been on reduced service for a year now awaiting 
replacements. Temporary replacements come from the AFSS, get higher pay 
plus per diem, and this breaks down the moral of the FSS staff. 
Consequently, we the users suffer from shorter hours of operation; 
staff with less experience as the longer serving ones leaves. If this 
continues the FSS will close due to staffing shortages and the users 
will lose a valuable safety net.
    Maintenance of facilities.--The FAA recently proposed to centralize 
its maintenance for the State in Anchorage. I was Chief Pilot for AT&T 
Alascom for twenty years here in Alaska and saw that company go through 
the same cost cutting exercise. There were several instances that will 
be paralleled by the FAA when trouble hits. The communications earth 
station at ADAK went off the air three months ago. All scheduled 
aviation came to a stop, as there was no weather reporting available 
and no ATC frequencies in operation. The island was isolated. 
Maintenance could not travel on a Charter, as there was no weather. 
Fortunately, the company has a corporate aircraft that operates under 
Part 91. We were able to fly to Dutch Harbor, fill up with fuel and 
then proceed to Adak for a ``look see.'' Being part 91 we were able to 
land and get the maintenance technician to repair the Earth Station. 
The FAA does not have as part 91 aircraft in Alaska so what will it do 
if a critical navigation system goes down. We know how difficult it is 
to get into Juneau some days even with all systems working. We 
encourage to FAA to rethink this policy as long as there are ground-
based facilities. In the middle of the next century, if we have only 
Satellite based non-ground facilities, then the technicians could be 
centralized.
    Future planning.--I came to Alaska in 1974 as an Air Force Pilot 
and since then I have noticed the great improvement in many airports 
and a deterioration service by the FAA. This is in part due to a plan 
that implemented to replace FSS stations and weather reporting with un-
tried automatic equipment. Future plans should not be implemented until 
the replacement systems are proven to be successful. Our Association 
fully supports the Capstone project that has so much promise for the 
future. At the same time we know that it will be some twenty years 
before it is all refined and ready for operations use everywhere. In 
the meantime, Bethel needs its radar. The radar has been approved for 
installation in Bethel every year since 1987 and each year it gets 
dropped for lack of funding. The measurement used that counts 
passengers passing through the airport is unsatisfactory. Two B.747's 
could carry all that travel in one day so the FAA drops the requirement 
for Radar. If they used the number of aircraft movements, they would 
find Bethel is a busier airport than of the lower 48 airports. An 
exemption needs to be made so that Bethel gets the Radar that is 
necessary to provide more safety. The record of radar being introduced 
at King Salmon shows that the flow of aircraft increases with the 
introduction of approach radar.
    Aging aircraft.--Twenty years ago I flew the first King Air around 
the state. Others were flying Navajos, and Cessna 402 as well as a 
myriad of single engine aircraft. Over the ten years of flying the King 
Air other started flying similar aircraft. In 1989 we switched to a 
Cessna Citation V. The runways were improving and the Citation 560 
could handle gravel and short runways of 3,000 feet. This is a part 91 
operation. To use the aircraft for Part 135 or Part 121, a longer 
runway would be required. The trend has been from Piston twins to 
Turboprop, and in the future it will lead to jets. There are no piston 
twin being made that would replace the aging Navajos and others. In 
Alaska, we tend to get the second-wind aircraft; those that have been 
used for ten years in the lower 48 and Europe appear in Alaska. When 
they finish their time here they go on to Africa and other less 
developed countries. The new NPRM would kill the aviation business in 
Alaska. Surely, the intent was to prohibit failures such as the B.737 
that came apart in Hawaii. This NPRM will force Alaskans back into 
single engine aircraft. They have a worse record for safety and mainly 
fly VFR. The result would be a retrograde step for Aviation.
    Better communications, cooperation and interchange of ideas is a 
necessary ingredient for the future. I thank you for allowing us to 
express these thoughts and hope that you will be able to consider the 
special needs of a State that depends so much on aviation.

    Senator Stevens. Thank you.
    Ken. Ken Acton.

                         STATEMENT OF KEN ACTON

    Mr. Acton. Thank you, and good afternoon, Senator Stevens, 
Congressman Young, and the public. Thank you for holding this 
hearing in Alaska, and so close to those of us who are directly 
affected by the issues of commercial aviation.
    I would like to address three fundamental issues and two 
emerging issues for the future. In the same manner that many of 
the challenges facing Alaskan aviation are not new, I would 
like to suggest that some of the first issues for the future 
are not new, either, namely, any future demands and 
accommodation of Alaska aviation will still include reliance on 
a handful of fundamental requirements, and they are, available 
weather information, reliable airport facilities, and 
consistent FAA oversight and support of the industry.
    I believe both the weather and the airport facilities have 
been addressed prior to my time, so in the interest of time I 
will not dwell on those. I would like to reinforce the issues 
that Mr. Bowers brought up and Dick Harding brought up and 
Felix brought up, all about the Alaska aviation, the 5-year 
plan and the minimum standards for airports.
    I would also like to endorse the comments, the previous 
comments about alternative and more weather sources. This is 
the single best way that we can improve aviation safety in 
Alaska, is the expansion and the increase in the number of 
weather sources throughout the State.
    The third fundamental need that I mentioned was the need 
for consistent FAA oversight and support of commercial 
operators. My business allows me to work with several operators 
and with several FAA representatives, and I have discovered, 
along with my clients, that there are certain patterns that 
impede both the FAA and commercial operators from maintaining 
an open working relationship. The three most common patterns 
are the lack of accessibility of assigned FAA inspectors for 
their oversight and support, the instability of inspector 
assignments, and the inconsistent interpretation of FAR.
    I believe these patterns that exist between operators and 
their assigned inspectors are indicative of a much larger 
pattern, and Dick Harding mentioned it earlier, specifically 
the well-intentioned FAA initiatives for safety that we have 
seen in the last 10 years have not significantly improved the 
safety record of Alaskan aviation. What we need instead are 
consistent, stable, and predictable expectations from the FAA 
that will help create the trust and the cooperation that will 
strengthen safety, service, and compliance.
    Several speakers prior to me have mentioned Capstone, and 
I, too, would like to endorse Capstone, and mention it as 
illustrative of the need for these three fundamental issues in 
the future, namely, when we look at the system, I mean, it is 
an exciting system, and I cannot think of a better model for 
the theme of this hearing, you know, the issues of the 21st 
Century, and when we look at the ingredients of how it works, 
being able to download weather into the cockpit, being able to 
tell where you are and have that communicated to the other 
airplanes, that is all great, but still we understand the 
importance of the fundamental needs, one, the importance of 
state-of-the-art weather services, and more of them; second, 
reliable airport facilities as aircraft operate in an IFR type 
operation into many of these locations; and third, broad 
support and participation, which can only occur with an open 
and trusting relationship between the regulators and the 
aviation users.
    I did mention that I would like to bring up two issues that 
I see as emerging issues in the future, the first of which is 
an increased need for responsible risk management on the part 
of and by the initiative of operators, incumbent on the Alaskan 
aviation industry and individual operators to create better 
risk management and safety systems for its operations. 
Increased market competition and the experience level of the 
pilots flying in Alaska require this.
    Without specifically defining a model, or defining what 
would be the best program for all, I think the need defies 
that. Rather, I think we can identify qualities of good risk 
management that are appropriate to rural Alaskan aviation. 
Initial and recurrent training programs should include 
aeronautical decisionmaking not only for pilots, but for 
management as well.
    It is time to recognize and respond to the fact that the 
corporate culture of operators influences the safety of flight 
operations, and that this culture can be trained and managed.
    The second quality of good risk management is the 
incorporation of increased two-pilot experience and revenue 
flight operations. I am not suggesting doing away with single-
pilot operations. I am simply suggesting that operators need to 
pay more attention to the quality control of the pilot in the 
cockpit. This would include programs that require new-hire 
pilots to fly in revenue line operations with experienced 
pilots prior to assignment in single-pilot operations, and 
especially during marginal and winter operation and flight 
conditions. This also includes routine company checks of line 
pilots throughout the year.
    The last quality that I would like to identify of good risk 
management systems in the future are the need to make the go 
no-go decisions of operators, to define them in procedural 
terms. I am speaking of the decisions surrounding specific 
flight assignments and their release for flight. PenAir has 
demonstrated leadership in this area by developing a model for 
flight release that is not only participative between 
management and pilots, but it also is defined in qualitative 
terms.
    The FAA needs to encourage and support the efforts of 
operators to define appropriate risk management for their 
operations. I do not believe that the FAA should regulate a 
one-size-fits-all model for such programs, and I was pleased to 
hear Mr. LaBelle say that as well. I would agree with what 
Felix said, that the industry, the operators, general aviation, 
and the regulators have a relatively good long-range planning 
atmosphere right now.
    What I do believe is that operators are in a better 
position to create appropriate risk management measures for 
their own operations, but they need resources, training and 
support to do so, to design these systems.
    The last issue I will address is changing patterns of 
scheduled air service in Alaska. We are all familiar with the 
established pattern of large aircraft serving mainline routes 
to hub cities, and small aircraft serving bush village 
destinations.
    As we experience more competition, improvements to our 
airway and airport infrastructure, there will be greater 
pressure to support different types of aircraft and route 
structures than we have seen in the past. We are already 
experiencing pressures from the passenger, freight, and mail 
markets that will blur the line separating large mainline 
aircraft on given routes versus small aircraft on other routes. 
The introduction of the commuter rule in 1995 is one example of 
regulation that inhibited the improvements to service and 
safety, and reinforced this two-class system of scheduled air 
service. I believe our future will include and require the use 
of more midsize aircraft in the creation of nontraditional 
route structures. While both small and large aircraft will 
diminish, they will also still be represented in several 
markets. In other words, the market will be much more complex, 
and it will be nice to think that the regulatory environment in 
the future will not only be flexible enough but also 
accommodate and support these changing patterns in scheduled 
service.
    In closing, the challenges of maintaining a safe and viable 
commercial aviation industry I think will depend on improving 
airway and airport infrastructure, the cooperative efforts 
between FAA and the industry to address safety and compliance, 
and the regulatory environment that supports appropriate 
service to the Alaskan market.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Thank you very much. I will be submitting written comments.
    [The statement follows:]

                    PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEN ACTON

    Good afternoon Senator Stevens, Congressman Young, members of the 
committee, the panel and the public. Thank you for holding this hearing 
in Alaska and close to those of us who are so directly effected by 
commercial aviation. I have worked in the Alaskan aviation industry for 
21 years in administration and training. In that time, I have worked 
for Part 121 and part 135 carriers in rural Alaska, have served on the 
board of the Alaska Air Carriers Association, and been a consultant to 
the industry. I would like to speak in behalf of the issues of rural 
Alaska aviation and many of my clients, including the interests of Part 
135 operators, both scheduled and on-demand, and the markets they serve 
including Alaska communities as well as on-demand off-airport flights 
for the tourism, recreation, and sport fishing and hunting industries.

                          INDUSTRY CHALLENGES

    We all know that aviation is the essential transportation link in 
rural Alaska, and we also know that rural Alaska is a demanding flight 
environment. There is a limited airport and airway infrastructure. The 
weather is harsh and often unpredictable. Most airports consist of 
small, unpaved runways that are subject to varying year-round 
maintenance requirements. There are few options for IFR flight. The 
nature of the market and its economy of scale dictate the use of small 
aircraft in VFR operations. The flight activity can be intense with the 
industry currently supporting some 300 certificated operators in the 
State of Alaska. And finally, because of the nature of the commercial 
pilot profession, rural Alaska operators attract low time pilots who 
are unfamiliar with the area and its unique requirements.

                           RESPONSIVE EFFORTS

    Most of these industry challenges are not new, nor have they been 
ignored. There have been several responsive efforts to the challenges 
of creating and maintaining a safe and affordable air transportation 
system in the State. The automated weather reporting systems, both AWOS 
and ASOS, have been a welcome addition. We have seen a continuing 
program to upgrade and improve many rural Alaskan runways. The Capstone 
project is an exciting and promising plan for improving airway 
capabilities. And the mail transportation policy supports the presence 
and viability of scheduled air service at reasonable cost.
    Indeed, many things are working very well, and we all share a debt 
of gratitude for the support and leadership of the congressional 
delegation.
    I would like to address 3 fundamental issues and 2 emerging issues 
for the future.

                    FUNDAMENTAL NEEDS OF THE FUTURE

    In the same manner that many of the challenges facing Alaskan 
aviation are not new, I would like to suggest that some of the first 
issues for the future are not new either. Namely, any future demands 
and accommodation of Alaskan aviation will still include reliance on a 
handful of fundamental requirements: available weather information, 
reliable airport facilities, and consistent FAA oversight and support 
of the industry.

                          WEATHER INFORMATION

    Weather information is essential. Unfortunately, most aviation 
accidents in the State of Alaska are weather-related. The availability 
of reliable and more weather information is the single best way to 
improve the flight environment and it is the most repeated concern of 
the industry. The automated weather stations, both AWOS and ASOS, have 
significantly addressed the need for increased weather information. The 
``mike-in-hand'' program and the addition of ``flight cam'' 
installations help pilots and operators see an even broader picture of 
the weather. The industry supports all of these systems. Simply put, 
the availability of reliable weather reporting systems in multiple 
locations will remain a fundamental requirement for maintaining a safe 
flight environment in Alaska's, future. We need more weather reporting 
locations. We need a variety of source information.

                      RELIABLE AIRPORT FACILITIES

    Maintaining reliable airport facilities is the second fundamental 
need I would like to highlight. The State of Alaska with FAA capital 
investment continues to upgrade and improve the runways in rural 
Alaska. We would all like to see it happen sooner than later.
    As we enter the 21st century, most of our runways are still short, 
unlighted, and unpaved, and are subject to mud, ice, and drifting snow. 
One of the highest levels of Part 135 flight activity occurs in the 
Yukon-Kuskokwim delta where 70 percent of the runways are under 2,500 
feet in length and many are unlighted. And even though the Alaska 
Supplement may describe the surface of these runways as gravel, we know 
that in several locations that means the best fill material which was 
readily available, which is often a coarse river silt. We need runway 
improvements to bring our airports up to at least the minimum standards 
identified by the Alaska Aviation Coordination Council.
    We also know that we cannot always rely on future capital funding 
of runway improvements. In fact, capital funding is a small part of the 
long-term equation. Runways, navaids, and automated weather systems 
come with the price of maintenance. The State of Alaska and the FAA 
both face budgetary constraints that seem to directly effect the 
response time of runway and airport facility maintenance. Reports of 
unreliable or irregular airport facilities are often first reported by 
users and not by the providers. VFR pilots and operators have learned 
that you often have to ``go see for yourself'' because the accuracy of 
some of the AWOS/ASOS systems and the reliability of some runway 
maintenance has not been proven. Unfortunately, this puts all of us 
right where we don't want to be; namely it invites operators and pilots 
to ignore some of the intended support systems for flight ops 
decisions. We need definitions and criteria for reporting facility 
outages and predictable response times for their repair. And we need 
reliable runway maintenance.
    Another part of our airport facilities include the flight service 
station system. The current flight service station system is still 
functional, but the regional aspect of the FSS system lacks sensitivity 
to the local flight environment. This is particularly true in areas 
that require operations under special VFR flight rules of FAR 91.157. 
Let me give you a recent example. Class E airspace was recently 
extended down to the surface area in both Aniak and Saint Marys. This 
has made for a safer flight environment when the airspace is 
accommodating both IFR and VFR flight activity simultaneously. However, 
these flight conditions represent less than 10 percent of the daylight 
hours and introduces control of a VFR flight environment without any 
local presence. Prior to these new airspace procedures, all airport 
traffic participated in the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) 
procedures. Under the new airspace classification whenever the ceiling 
is less than 1,000 feet and 3 miles of visibility and regardless of any 
IFR flight activity, the VFR pilots must obtain special VFR clearance 
from the Flight Service Station in Kenai to operate into and out of 
these runways. This includes having to wait for a landing clearance 
while holding in the vicinity of mountainous terrain in marginal 
weather, especially in Aniak. The remote control of VFR flight arrivals 
and departures at these airports does not include a sensitivity to the 
flight conditions nor the presence of ATC to encourage broad 
compliance.
    Alternatively, there was a time when both Saint Marys and Aniak had 
the equivalent type of airspace (a control zone) but it was only 
activated when an IFR approach was initiated. This seemed appropriate 
to the level of mixed VFR and IFR flight activity and in lieu of any 
local ATC personnel in these locations. Outside of the times of active 
IFR flight activity, the airspace was uncontrolled and the traffic 
relied on use of the CTAF.
    At the end of the day, and on the threshold of the 21st century, we 
need improved airport facilities and some assurance that these 
facilities will be reliably maintained and appropriately administered.

                       FAA OVERSIGHT AND SUPPORT

    A third fundamental issue for future operations is the need for 
consistent FAA oversight and support of commercial operators. My 
business allows me to work with several operators and with several FAA 
representatives, and I have discovered along with my clients that there 
are certain patterns that impede both the FAA and commercial operators 
from maintaining an open and working relationship. The three most 
common patterns are (1) The lack of availability of assigned inspectors 
for oversight and support, (2) the instability of inspector 
assignments, and (3) the inconsistent interpretation of FAR.
    Accessibility of FAA certificate inspectors can be difficult. 
Operators are sometimes stymied in their efforts to obtain requested 
Ops Specs changes, required check rides, or simply a request for FAA 
guidance due to the absence of their inspector. Many inspectors work a 
4-day work week, are often assigned to training or other administrative 
duties, or are simply unavailable for unexplained reasons. In such 
cases, other inspectors can seldom respond to a specific operator's 
request and the operator must wait until their assigned inspector 
becomes available. Commercial operators must necessarily rely on 
assigned FAA representatives to conduct operations and the operators 
need to rely on the FAA's availability as well.
    There has also been a pattern of apparent random reassignment of 
inspectors to commercial operators. In the past three years, I have 
several clients who have had as many as three and four inspectors 
assigned to their certificate oversight in less than 12 months. In fact 
some inspectors have been assigned to operators and subsequently 
reassigned to new operators without any introduction or exchange 
between the operator and the inspector. This pattern seems to be 
especially prevalent among the smaller operators.
    Any re-assignment of inspectors can quickly reveal a third pattern 
and that is the inconsistent interpretation of FAR across different 
inspectors. As a result, regulatory compliance matters rather than 
safety or service can dominate a commercial operator's management. A 
lot of my client workload consists of helping operators respond to 
varying interpretation of FAR due to inspector re-assignments.
    These patterns of oversight between operators and inspectors are 
indicative of a much larger pattern. Specifically, the well-intentioned 
FAA initiatives for safety that we have seen in the last 10 years have 
not significantly improved the safety record of Alaskan aviation. 
Consistent, stable and predictable expectations from the FAA will help 
create the trust and the cooperation that will strengthen safety, 
service, and compliance.

                                CAPSTONE

    I would like to briefly mention the Capstone project to illustrate 
my concern for the first three fundamental issues I have addressed. 
Capstone offers some real promise for increased aviation safety with 
21st century technology and an appropriate governmental response to the 
theme of this hearing. When we look at the ingredients of its systems 
and how it will work, we are reminded that our future will still 
require: (1) state-of the art weather services, (2) reliable airport 
facilities, and (3) broad support and participation which can only 
occur with an open and trusting relationship between FAA and the 
aviation users. Capstone will highlight and increase the demand for 
these basic Alaskan aviation needs.

                    INDUSTRY RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES

    There are two more issues for the future that I would like to 
address. The first of which is an increased need for responsible risk 
management on the part of operators. It is incumbent on the Alaskan 
aviation industry and individual operators to create better risk 
management systems for its operations. Increased market competition and 
the experience level of pilots flying in Alaska require it. Without 
specifically defining these systems, we can identify a few qualities of 
good risk management that are appropriate to rural Alaskan aviation.
    Initial and recurrent training programs should include aeronautical 
decision making for both pilots and managers. It is time to recognize 
and respond to the fact that the corporate culture of operators 
influences the safety of flight operations and that this culture can be 
trained and managed.
    A second quality of good risk management systems is the 
incorporation of increased 2-pilot experience in revenue flight 
operations. This includes programs that require new hire pilots to fly 
in revenue line operations with experienced pilots prior to assignment 
in single pilot operations, especially during marginal and winter 
flight conditions. This also includes routine company checks of line 
pilots throughout the year. I know of several operators who have 
incorporated these qualities into the training and management of their 
pilots and have acquired greater confidence in their own flight 
operations, and have earned the respect of the public, regulators, and 
their insurance underwriters.
    The go/no-go decisions of operators, that is, the decisions 
surrounding specific flight assignments and their release for flight, 
need to be defined in procedural terms. Penair has demonstrated 
leadership in this area by developing a model for flight release that 
is not only participative between management and pilots, but is also 
defined in quantitative terms.
    The FAA needs to encourage and support the efforts of operators to 
find appropriate risk management systems for their operations. I do not 
believe that the FAA should regulate a one-size-fits-all model for such 
programs. Operators are in a better position to create appropriate risk 
management measures for their own operations, but they need resources 
and support to do so.
    The interests of the industry and the public will benefit when 
operators procedurally define risk management systems and make them the 
priority they deserve in their daily operations.

                 CHANGING PATTERNS OF SCHEDULED SERVICE

    The last issue I will address is changing patterns of scheduled air 
service in Alaska. We are familiar with the established pattern of 
large aircraft serving mainline routes to hub cities, and small 
aircraft serving bush village destinations. As we experience more 
competition and improvements to our airway and airport infrastructure, 
there will be greater pressure to support different types of aircraft 
and route structures than we have seen in the past. We are already 
experiencing pressures from the passenger, freight and mail markets 
that will blur the line separating large mainline aircraft on given 
routes versus small aircraft on different routes. The introduction of 
the ``Commuter Rule'' in 1995 is one example of regulation inhibiting 
improvements to service and safety and reenforcing this two-class 
system of scheduled air service. I believe our future will include and 
require the use of more mid-sized aircraft and the creation of non-
traditional route structures. While the use of both small and large 
aircraft will diminish they will also still be represented in several 
markets. Service and safety will be enhanced if the regulatory 
environment accommodates the changing patterns of scheduled air 
service.

                                SUMMARY

    In closing, the challenges of maintaining a safe, viable commercial 
aviation industry in rural Alaska will depend on improving the airway 
and airport infrastructure, cooperative efforts between FAA and the 
industry to address safety and compliance, and a regulatory environment 
that supports appropriate service to the market. Thank you for the 
opportunity to express these issues. I will be happy to answer any 
questions and will be submitting written comments for the record.

                        Safety improvement trend

    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Don, do you want to 
go first this time?
    Mr. Young. Thank you, I want to go back to what I said 
before about the efforts put forth, especially Mr. Harding and 
Mr. Wardleigh. You have been around here a long time. The 
percentage of accidents now, today, with all the advantages we 
have, was that the percentage improved, or is it about the same 
as what it was, say, 25 years ago?
    Mr. Harding. One of the things we do not have is an actual 
accurate number of flight hours for 135 operations. It is not 
required for people to report that. We do not. We know there is 
an increase in aviation activity, and we know that the accident 
rate has been level, so we can say there has been some 
improvement, but we do not what that number is in actual hours 
flown in 135 operations.
    Mr. Young. This is another thing that I am seeking here, if 
anything is, you know, we are supposed to be for safety and not 
for regulation for just regulation's sake, and that is my 
philosophy and always has been. That is one of my biggest 
concerns over the years is, we pass regulations because it is 
the thing to do, but in result we did not become any safer, and 
you know, I may be incorrect in this, but when I first started 
flying up here 40 years ago, we had a pretty good safety 
record. We had a lot of experienced pilots, by the way, even 
then, and if I go back to the 9010, one of our biggest 
concerns, and I am glad to hear we are getting more local 
people into the flying, a lot of the pilots, as you well know, 
come up here to get their hours in to go back outside. Those 
first hours, I think you mentioned it, and you mentioned it, 
you know, those first hours are the period of time we have the 
most accidents, and I still think that is what we should be 
addressing, is the pilot involvement in the accidents, more so 
than anything else. I do not know how we do that. Maybe we are 
addressing it.
    But you talk about gray hair, I can remember one thing, I 
went to New York about 3 years ago and jumped in a cab, the 
worst ride and the biggest scare I ever had in my life. The guy 
was from Russia, had been here 6 months, driving in New York. 
Now, think about that a moment. Some of the time you get in 
these airplanes and you see somebody in the airplane that has 
got nice--he is a young fellow, good guy, wants to do well, 
find out he has not been flying in Alaska but about 3 weeks. 
That bothers me.
    Now, this is for the industry to think about. I think that 
is something you have to address.
    As far as the 60-year-old, Mr. Harding, I happen to agree 
with you on this 100 percent. The problem is, you have some 
people within your industry that are flyers that do not agree 
with you, that they do want the age of retirement at 60 years 
old. If we were to change that, I think the only way we could 
possibly do it would be for Alaska only. I want you to know 
that there are certain people that are flying within the unions 
that do not like the idea of changing that retirement age. I 
like seeing that gray beard and the gray hair to make sure I 
have got somebody with a little experience in that seat.
    So you can comment on that. As far as the air space goes 
over national parks, we are addressing that issue every day. I 
am not terribly confident, under this president and 
administration, that they believe as we do. We think the law is 
on our side, but it is going to be maybe a big battle. We hope 
we can win on that one.

                              DAWN SYSTEM

    I want to ask one question, Mr. Maguire, on the DAWN deal. 
Why can we not use that? I mean, are they saving----
    Mr. Maguire. What they say is that if somebody gets into 
the DAWN system they can get into the FAA's whole system, and 
then they might be able to do some damage within the FAA 
computer system.
    Mr. Young. But that information was available under the 
other system, was it not?
    Mr. Maguire. It was available, but you know, in this age of 
computers, I do not see why a fire wall could not be put in 
that you can go in and find the weather and not go beyond that. 
The way it was explained to me was that if you got in that you 
might be able to alter something, or change something that may 
be bad for the country.
    But at the same time, I can go into the military one and I 
can get the weather from the military for Elmendorf or even the 
airports over in Bosnia if I want, and they do not seem to be 
concerned about the security, but the FAA seems to have tighter 
security requirements.
    Mr. Young. Well, I think that is something the Senator and 
I can look into, because if the information is there and 
improves the safety factor, to me it is ridiculous not to have 
that information available for you. That does not make sense to 
me.
    Mr. Maguire. It does not make sense to us, either.
    Mr. Young. Senator.

                              AGE 60 RULE

    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. You know, on the age 
60 rule. I agree with Don, it is going to be very difficult to 
deal with. We do need to keep the retirement age in 
perspective, however, because one of the great problems right 
now is to attract more people into training, younger people 
into training, and that is one of the reasons that they say 
they want the old ones out so that there are opportunities for 
new ones to come in. It is a very difficult problem.
    Mr. Young. Will the Senator yield just for a moment?
    Senator Stevens. Sure.
    Mr. Young. I think I am correct, I was flying with a 59-
year-old person the other day on a major airline, and he 
informed me that in 2 years time 60 percent of the existing 
pilots today will have to retire by the year 2002. Now, who are 
they going to replace them with? Now, that is something we had 
better think about.
    Senator Stevens. I was going to get to that. Our statistics 
show that the demographics of society are such that if the 
older pilots cannot fly, we will soon not have enough pilots to 
keep our commercial lines going. It is a very difficult problem 
to deal with.

                      OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT

    Dick, my staff tells me you have got this innovative 
program now, ORM, operational risk management, which the Army 
started sometime ago. I am told you are the only commercial 
carrier of any class that has instituted the concept. I think 
we need to know, for the staff and all of us, what is PenAir's 
risk management program, and should we try to make it apply 
outside of Alaska to the aviation industry?
    Mr. Harding. The operational risk management system is 
something we have developed. We started with doing risk 
assessment of runways, putting a numerical value on them, and 
when they got to a certain risk factor we would quit operating 
there, and that is how we discontinued serving some of them.
    We met with the military, and we were talking to them, and 
they said, you know, we have this RM program. We had the worst 
helicopter safety record in the world, and 6 years after 
adopting this program we went to the best, so that kind of 
caught my attention, and I plagiarized everything they had, 
rewrote our program, and we have one now for our 135 and our 
141 operation.
    Senator Stevens. Could I interrupt you, please? They have 
given me an emergency message. If Dr. Robert Alberts is in the 
audience, would you please step out into the lobby.
    Thank you very much, Dick.
    Mr. Harding. Anyway, we have taken the program, and before 
a pilot leaves the home station he has to fill out a piece of 
paper, it takes about 15 to 30 seconds to do it, it gives him 
two things. One is an awareness of the risk involved in that 
particular flight, and the other one, when it gets to a certain 
point, it gets management involved, and this is one of the 
biggest problems we have in Alaska, is getting operational 
control, getting the managers--I cannot fly with every pilot in 
Bethel and King Salmon all the time, so I have to rely on them 
working in that area to make the decisions, and with this 
operational risk management it gives us an opportunity to, with 
higher risk flights to get involved in the decisionmaking of go 
or no-go, and we have been doing it for about 2 years now and 
it has been very successful and, of course, the pilots had 
first fought it because pilots are not paper-oriented people, 
but after they realized that it has taken some of the 
responsibility away from them and sharing it with management 
they endorse it now.
    Senator Stevens. Anyone else talked to you about using the 
system?
    Mr. Harding. We have had quite a few carriers in Alaska, 
and I have had several major carriers from outside Alaska that 
have inquired, and I have sent them a copy of the program also.
    Senator Stevens. Have you shared that with other carriers?
    Mr. Harding. Yes. Any other carrier that is interested in 
that, we are willing to share it. If we can lower the accident 
rate of other carriers it is to our advantage, too. We would 
like to see less accidents in Alaska, and I think this program 
is probably the most cost-effective accident-reducing program 
that we could possibly come up with. It does not cost anything. 
All we have to do is, it takes a little time to fill out a 
piece of paper.
    Mr. Young. Senator, can I ask just one question? When you 
say accident, are you talking about all accidents, on ground, 
in the air, landing, take-off and such? You know, maybe a pilot 
runs into a pylon, or something like that. Is that considered 
an accident?
    Mr. Harding. An accident has got a very narrow definition 
in the part 830 of the regulation, and from the time he starts 
his take-off, taxiing, to the time he pulls to a complete stop 
and stops the airplane it is considered in-flight, and that is 
considered an accident at that time, if he does a certain 
amount of damage.

                  STATE OF GENERAL AVIATION IN ALASKA

    Senator Stevens. Tom, what is the situation here now in 
terms of the state of the general aviation community? I have 
already said my great respect for you as an instructor, because 
you were able to get me certified after 4 days. That is pretty 
good. But Young says he is still not going to ride with me 
unless you are there. But is the state of aviation generally in 
Alaska healthy? Should we be as concerned as we are about these 
safety statistics we are hearing?
    Mr. Wardleigh. Senator, you certainly should be as 
concerned as you are. In our review of the past 18 years or so 
of the Safety Foundation's activities, nothing much as changed, 
and we see the key to reducing accidents as better information 
and better understanding by the pilot. We endeavor to change 
that through research and public education.
    We are trying to teach, for instance, the basketball teams, 
do not wear jeans and sneakers if it is 40 below and you are 
going to ride in a Cessna 206 to play a game. Everyone has to 
be responsible for their own safety, and that includes the 
doctors, dentists, lawyers who leave here on Friday afternoon 
to go catch a trout some place.
    They cannot blame the weather service if the weather is 
different from the forecast. They cannot blame the FAA. The 
weather that is most important--I was one of the strong 
supporters of the weather cameras, and of keeping the flight 
service stations that you facilitated in remote Alaska, but 
really down to the nitty gritty, the weather that is important 
to you is what you see through the windshield. It does not 
matter what the forecast is. When Felix and I are out flying 
together, if we cannot cope with what we see through the 
windshield, we had better have an alternative plan to go some 
place else and do something else.
    One of the concerns that I see facing general aviation in 
Alaska right now is the EPA's mandate that we stop using leaded 
aviation fuel, 100 low lead. As recently as yesterday I talked 
to the Shell Oil Company engineer in charge of these projects. 
They have not yet produced a substitute fuel that is free of 
lead that will allow us to operate the thousands of aircraft 
engines in Alaska, the pistons, the old round and flat engines 
that are so common in our recreational activities and in our 
air taxi activities.
    Right now there is an ethanol fuel that is being assessed, 
and all you have to do is change the pistons to cam shafts to 
cam followers in the valve seats in order to make it compatible 
with your flat engine, and there is no way that those folks 
with the big round engines, like Northern Air Cargo, can ever 
realize the service they need from their engine if we must in 
fact go to unleaded fuel with the present state of research.
    Senator Stevens. Well, back when I was a kid in order to 
increase the performance of engines we put more lead in it. 
Can't you add lead to some of these other products?
    Mr. Wardleigh. Well, you can, but that does not meet the 
EPA requirement that it be lead-free. At the present time there 
is only one source of aviation fuel lead. That is a tiny little 
factory in England that is still making the stuff. There is no 
other source any more.
    Senator Stevens. What do you think, Mr. Maguire--what do 
you think about the state of aviation right now, Felix?
    Mr. Maguire. I think generally it is fairly healthy. I 
think there are more people wanting to get back into it. The 
numbers have gone down. The numbers of pilots qualified have 
gone down.
    I think one of the problems we have--and I hate to say this 
with Dick sitting here--is what Congressman Young brought up 
about the young pilots coming up here and getting some 
experience and leaving, and I think that is partly because we 
do not pay them very well in Alaska.
    Our air carriers are living on the bread line, and because 
we do not pay them well, they do not stay. They make bigger 
dollars somewhere else. So that is an industry problem, I 
think. They have to reconcile, if they pay them more, then how 
are they going to make enough money off a ticket to pay for 
that.

                 LAKE HOOD FLOAT PLANE CAPACITY ISSUES

    But the general aviation, I think it is reasonably healthy. 
There is still 120 people out on the waiting list at Lake Hood 
to get a float plane spot, and it is still taking 15 or 16 
years to get a spot out there, so we do need another facility 
somewhere to cope with that.
    Senator Stevens. Is there a plan for that?
    Mr. Maguire. There is not, no.
    Senator Stevens. Mort, have you gone? Did Mort leave? It is 
too bad we did not ask Mort that.
    Mr. Maguire. One of the problems, there was a plan some 
years ago to build some more float plane slots at Lake Hood, 
but the area they picked, unfortunately they found when they 
did some dredging that all the rest of the water of the rest of 
the lake would drain out through it and it would go, because it 
does not have a proper chalk base, so they decided not to touch 
that.
    Senator Stevens. Well, let me ask all of you, do we need 
another location in this area? I am told we have about half of 
the float planes in the United States up here now. Do we need 
another location away from that general large airport for the 
float planes?
    Mr. Maguire. Well, we feel that we do because of the 
congestion that is over there. Anchorage International is very 
congested with Lake Hood traffic, Merrifield traffic, Elmendorf 
traffic, and Anchorage International traffic altogether.
    Another facility would be good. However, everybody likes 
the fact that it is downtown and it is out there in Lake Hood, 
and everybody would give that first preference.
    Mr. Young. Let us go back to the Clinton project, though. 
That is not that far away, and if they were willing to sell 
them for exchange, that might be the most--I would say the most 
logical area to have one.
    Mr. Maguire. There are a limited number of aircraft 
available, so even if--you know, if somebody wants an airplane 
they have to probably buy one that is already out there. There 
is not too many new ones coming into the State.
    Mr. Young. Mr. Maguire--can I ask a question, Senator?
    Senator Stevens. Sure.
    Mr. Young. Or all of you, and I am saying this because it 
is important. You say everybody is sitting down and talking and 
working for a solution. That was your statement. Does that 
include the FAA?
    Mr. Maguire. That does very much include the FAA, but they 
are hamstrung a little bit, you know. You must realize that the 
structure of the FAA is such that the local administrator does 
not have much clout.
    Mr. Young. Well, this is what I am--with all due respect, 
this gentleman has a lot of clout. I like to think I have got a 
little clout, and I will have a little more if I get where I 
think I am going to go, and I think it is ridiculous for them 
to say this is the way we are going to do it, we do not care 
what the local administrator says, but we are going to do it 
because we are God.
    We are trying to look for safety, and if there is a better 
way of doing it other than one-shoe-fits-all, I think that 
ought to be--the reason I asked Mr. Poe is there enough 
flexibility, if he does not have the flexibility, then I would 
like to write something to give him the flexibility so we can 
achieve what we are seeking, that safety, and have our 
consumers without paying an arm and a leg, get from A to B, and 
I think that can be done, you know.
    Mr. Maguire. Well, my impression is, it is like any major 
corporation that has a headquarters out of State, and different 
department members, as willing as they are, they report to 
somebody in Washington, DC, not to Pat Poe. They report to 
somebody back there.
    Mr. Young. You mean within the Alaska region they do not 
report to Pat Poe, they report to Washington, DC?
    Mr. Maguire. They report to somebody in Washington. I am 
not FAA, but that is the impression I get from them.
    Mr. Young. We have to work that out somehow.
    Senator Stevens. No, it is an administrative management 
rather than substantive management concept that they have got.
    Can I go back now, chief--do you understand what I am 
saying? They have a substantive line, and the control--I went 
through that with them once before.

                      PLANNING FOR ALASKA'S FUTURE

    Let me ask you this. This intrigues me to think about 
trying to find another place that would be equally almost 
successful to the Lake Hood location, where we might get 
additional float plane capability. Do you have any suggestions 
to us? God willing, we hope to outlive Strom Thurmond, you 
understand that. But we are probably not to do it by too much. 
We have only just so much time in these positions we have, and 
God willing, and Alaskans--I am not supposed to say these 
things, probably, but you know, we have 8 to 10 years where the 
three of us have positions that Alaska will not see for another 
50, at least, probably.
    Now, what should we be doing is to try and make sure that 
when we leave our watch we have the best state-of-the-art 
system in aviation. What are we missing? What should we be 
working on to set in motion plans that take 5 or 6 years to 
come to fruition? Have you given that any thought?
    What does general aviation, what does commercial aviation 
need in Alaska to be really the state-of-the-art, top-drawer 
transportation system we need for the next century?
    Dick, what do you think?
    Mr. Harding. The strategic plan that we put together, that 
5-year plan was put together by all of us. We all did get 
together on that.
    Senator Stevens. Did it think out that far?
    Mr. Harding. Yes. It is 5 years, at least 5 years ahead.
    Senator Stevens. What is missing? What have we not done in 
it?
    Mr. Harding. Well, we get down to the smaller things, like 
the float plane, we do need another facility for float planes. 
As great as Mort Plumb has--the more he does for drawing cargo 
to International, the more it leans on the general aviation out 
there and squeezes us out, and it is going to push us further 
and further away, because they call the shots. The large 
carriers call the shots at International.
    They bring in all the money, so general aviation gets 
pushed aside a little bit, and we need to protect that, and I 
think if we could develop a lake out at Birchwood, I think that 
would be great, as Tom said, the one at Eklutna, if you could 
use your influence to get that lake for us, that would be 
great.
    Senator Stevens. Is the summary of the 5-year plan similar? 
My staff says they have got it. I have not seen it. Okay. Tom, 
have you got any suggestions?

                      EKLUTNA FLOAT PLANE FACILITY

    Mr. Wardleigh. Well, I would like to speak to the Eklutna 
situation. It is a half-flooded, tidally influenced termination 
of the Eklutna River, which is a salmon-carrying river, and the 
plan that we proposed some years ago would put a dike in the 
form of a wheel strip right at the tide line where the clay 
breaks into the inlet to protect the float plane pond.
    You could then dredge a rather large pond that would 
accommodate a large number of seaplanes, have an operating 
strip essentially parallel to the runway, and by lining the 
pond with gravel you would enhance the salmon-spawning 
available area and by diking the thing and monitoring the 
height of it you would inhibit the inflow of the salt water, so 
you would keep the whole system fresh, it would be noncorrosive 
to the floats.
    And essentially the Birchwood and Eklutna area lies in the 
eye of the tornado, where the winds come out and spin around 
Matanuska and the Kenick Glacier and just blow like the dickens 
across Palma and Wasilla. There is an area of calm winds most 
of the time at the Birchwood Airport and the Eklutna gravel pit 
area.
    It just is an ideal sanctuary if some agreeable land 
exchange could be made to get the land made available. I doubt 
that the intertribal politics of the Eklutna Tribe will ever 
facilitate that. I do not know, but it is difficult and 
cumbersome. If the State could own the land, it would 
facilitate accomplishing what is needed.
    Senator Stevens. Okay. That is a good alternative. Anyone 
else make any comments?
    Mr. Acton. I would echo Felix's statement about the 5-year 
plan, too. I mean, that statement about what constitutes needs 
for the future. That has been a collective effort, anyway, 
articulated by a collective effort.
    The other thing that comes to mind, Senator, is more 
adherence by the FAA to accommodate the unique needs of Alaskan 
aviation. When we see new initiatives, new NPRM's, new HBATS, 
whatever came out from the FAA, it is not always recognizable 
that there is recognition of some of these unique needs, and 
more so, I do not think that that necessarily gets communicated 
down to the level that most directly affects operators, and 
that is the relationship between an inspector and an operator.
    You know, I mentioned in my comments that there is a 
reassignment of inspectors. That is routine and to be expected, 
but seemingly in the last few years there has been quite a bit 
of it, and with some frequency, and many operators will simply 
get a new set of inspectors assigned to oversight of their 
operation, and find that everything that they have been doing 
and have been previously approved is now needing revision. Now, 
that makes no sense to me.
    Mr. Young. What you need is a manual that is consistent.
    Mr. Acton. Consistent, stable, and simple.
    Mr. Young. Not changing because the personnel changes.
    Mr. Acton. Correct.

                  LACK OF TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES

    Senator Stevens. One of the difficulties we have is trying 
to convince the rest of the country of the fact that we have no 
highways. Not only do we not have Federal highways, we have 
very few State highways. We have very few local highways that 
join communities, and we are dealing with a system that 
replaces an infrastructure that covers a whole series of areas 
that are substantially supported by other programs.
    The highways funds, the assistance to States, the urban 
grants, the HUD grants, all of those things that come into play 
that affect transportation systems in the south, we see very 
few of those. We are trying our best, I am trying my best to 
make certain some of that money comes in to us to meet our 
unique needs, but it is a very difficult thing to organize a 
transportation system based upon one support group that works 
out of a fund that is committed and primarily supports the 
commercial world.
    Our general aviation is not looked at the same way as the 
people who drive--husband and wife each drive a car to work in 
Washington, DC. If we had a husband and wife flying different 
planes in Alaska, the difference would--you would see that 
acutely, because the assistance those two get, highway funds, 
local funds, police, all types of insurance coverage, et 
cetera, that is not available to the people flying up here, is 
just two different worlds, and to find money to finance our 
world is the problem. I am still working on that, and I think 
we have got to find some way to do it.
    The Postal Service is probably the area where we have the 
greatest example of the Federal Government trying to meet our 
needs. They currently lose about $125 million a year in their 
operations up here. Everywhere else is operating on a plus 
basis, because it is a nonprofit, really not federally 
subsidized system now. But we have to find some way to get some 
more money to this stream. I think we are going to keep up the 
development of this concept, and I would welcome your 
suggestions along those lines.
    Do you have any other comments, my friend?

                    DISTANCE PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE

    Mr. Maguire. Senator, if I might just--one of the thoughts 
that occurred to me, with the maintenance that I mentioned, 
that they are going to centralize maintenance in Anchorage, if 
supposing in Washington, DC, the runway lights go out and they 
have to bring somebody from as far away as Chicago to fix them, 
they might get a sense of how far people have to go from here 
to Ketchikan to fix the lights. They might understand a little 
bit better, because that is about as far as people will have to 
go if they centralize all the FAA maintenance in Anchorage.
    If a light goes out in Barrow, it is like sending somebody 
from Wichita all the way over to Florida to fix the lights.
    Senator Stevens. I fought that problem with the Coast Guard 
once. Do you know they moved all the maintenance systems down 
to Seattle, and when they started paying overtime to send 
people out to Cold Bay, they learned, and it has been 
readjusted. It will not take long for people to understand they 
cannot finance that system.
    Mr. Maguire. But with the limited funds it will be wasted 
in the meantime.
    Senator Stevens. Yes. Well, let me thank you all for taking 
the time to come. By the way, Pat, you are still here. Anything 
we have said that you want to defend yourself on or comment on?
    Mr. Young. We have been fairly nice. I can tell you that 
right now.

                MAINTAINING AN ACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH FAA

    Mr. Poe. No, Senator. I think I agree with a lot of what I 
heard. I think the only thing I would punctuate is the fact 
that there is an active dialogue.
    Senator Stevens. Well, it is to your great credit, my 
friend. I think there is a different attitude here in the FAA, 
and I can remember coming home and having meetings with the 
Airmen's Association in which your predecessor was not welcome. 
Not your successor, but your predecessor was not welcome.
    We thank you for what you are doing, and I think that 
attitude that these people express of having a working 
relationship is good news as far as we are concerned. It means 
we can do our job a lot easier in Washington, so thank you very 
much. I just did want to give you a chance to speak up if you 
thought there was something that you should comment on.

         RECOGNITION OF GUESTS AND APPRECIATION TO PARTICIPANTS

    I do not know if you know it, but the staff of the 
Appropriations Committee for the House Transportation 
Subcommittee is here in Alaska with us. They have come up to 
witness some of the challenges and issues we face. I understand 
they were in rural Alaska yesterday, and learned how to put on 
their shoes at 51 below, and other things--was it really that 
cold?--in Point Hope yesterday.
    I do thank them for coming, and I hope that this hearing 
today has been as meaningful to them as it has to Don and me. 
We really do thank all of you in the audience for coming and 
participating, and I thank my good friend the Congressman for 
all Alaska for honoring us with his presence here today. It was 
a Senate hearing, but we are pleased to have Congressman Young 
with us at any time, and I do want to let the audience know if 
you have any comments or questions about answers that were 
given here, and you want to pass them on to us, you should 
write to me at the Senate in Washington, or take your time to 
talk to these gentlemen right here.
    This is my transportation subcommittee clerk, Wally 
Burnett. I was there when he was born in Fairbanks. He does not 
like to remember that.
    And Dan Elwell, who is what we call an extern on our staff, 
working with me, who is, by the way, an American Airlines 
pilot, and has really contributed greatly to our understanding 
of aviation issues in this last period.
    Lisa Sutherland, the vice director, deputy director of the 
Appropriations full committee staff, is here with us also.
    If you want to corral someone who will listen, since we are 
on our way to another meeting, feel free to trip them so that 
they do not leave too fast.

                    ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS

    But we do thank you for your courtesy, and again, if you 
want to add any comments or ask questions about what you--those 
comments, if you wish them to go into the record must be in our 
hands by January 7. We have to file this record on January 7 in 
the Senate.

   Prepared Statement of the Professional Airways Systems Specialists

    I represent the Professional Airways Systems Specialists for the 
North Alaska Systems Maintenance Office. Our area of responsibility 
extends from Barrow to the north, to Gambell in the west, to Eagle in 
the east, and as far south as Shemya, this includes all National 
Airspace equipment in between. Since the beginning of Mr. Al Gore's 
initiative known as reinvention of government, personnel reform, and 
now the FAIR Act some very disturbing trends are beginning to emerge. 
Air safety is being measured in dollars rather than in lives saved and 
accidents prevented. Here in Alaska an initiative known as Corporate 
Maintenance Philosophy has been undertaken and has been in effect for 
about three years. New ways of doing business are being experimented 
with along with a very serious attempt to change a culture. The program 
started out with a list of six paths to success and a plan including 
``the nows'' and ``the futures''. The program progressed pretty well 
for the first year and a half but began to experience difficulty as 
staffing and money began to go away. When opportunities existed to make 
capital gains and reinvestment in the existing infrastructure I believe 
those funds were squandered and when staffing adjustments were made we 
wound up with a whole lot of folks in the wrong places and there is no 
political will or decent leadership willing to make the necessary 
adjustments. I will attempt to describe some events and projects which 
I feel have failed and in the process have cost millions of hard to get 
taxpayer dollars.
    1. Staffing of the technical workforce which maintains and repairs 
National Airspace equipment and infrastructure has dropped to 
dangerously low levels, despite the fact that our overhead staff in the 
regional office continues to grow, mostly in higher pay grades such as 
GS-14 and GS-15 levels. Most of these positions provide no direct 
support to the NAS or the flying public. We have assistants to 
assistants to assistants and assistants who supervise assistants. The 
bureaucracy is so bloated it is no wonder we cannot manage to field new 
systems in a timely fashion, we can't get out of our own way.
    2. Mean time to restore facilities has been on a steady increase as 
a result of our new Corporate Maintenance Philosophy. Risk assessments 
conducted concerning this situation have been ambiguous, depending on 
who conducts the assessment. The Airways Facilities managers contend 
this is a normal result of the way we are doing business and the Air 
Traffic managers are concerned about redundant systems being left to 
run on half a system while Airways Facilities decides whether or not to 
respond. Whereas we used to respond to facility outages in 24 hours or 
less our MTR ``mean time to restore'' numbers are running at 68 hours 
and more than likely will continue to increase.
    3. Our Emergency Operations Facilities have deteriorated to such a 
state that if we experienced a national disaster or a serious 
disruption in our existing communication facilities we would not be 
able to communicate with the vital EOF sites outlined in our emergency 
plans. Kenai has no operational facility at all, Fairbanks has one 
resource with very limited backup, and no control on the floor at the 
AFSS. Juneau has a similar situation to that of Fairbanks. The EOF 
facility was to be complete a year ago, but has been in a bureaucratic 
quagmire since the property disposal that took place in Kenai two years 
ago. HF communications was a vital aspect of the emergency experienced 
during the 1964 earthquake, our HF capabilities at this time are in a 
sad state of affairs.
    4. We have installed a government owned and operated satellite 
telephone system here. Despite the fact that the system circumvents the 
private sector and costs were on an astronomical scale we did it 
anyway. Litigation continues to this day over the whole affair and the 
system now has become one of the most labor intensive and biggest drain 
on resources in our inventory. Training has been barely adequate and 
scarce at best, there is no relief in sight, instead we are continuing 
on with a phase 2 of the system. The facilities are known as ANICS.
    5. The Microwave Landing System program purchased 26 MLS systems, 
Alaska was delivered 14 of the 26. There was to be a five year test 
program with a clause that if the systems proved to be inadequate, they 
would be replaced with a system ``equal to or better than'', what is 
the question? Each system cost the taxpayers $750,000, the Alaskan 
portion of that acquisition was 10.5 million dollars. Well those 
systems are off the air more than they are on the air. Most all of the 
MLS systems were installed, flight inspected, and turned off, placed in 
care taker status with a 72 hour turn up stipulated. Only one real user 
in the commercial area was using these that was Reeve Aleutian Airway, 
the aircraft equipment was supplied by the FAA.
    6. We are planning the construction and operation of four new 
Flight Service Stations in our state over the next year or so, they are 
at Deadhorse (leased from state), McGrath, Iliamna (leased from private 
vendor), and Northway. I am not privy to the cost of these facilities 
but I have reviewed the plans during the engineering process.
    I was shocked to learn that the plans for these new ``state of the 
art'' facilities included at the heart of the voice switching system 
components developed in the 1970s, not supportable, and antiquated. 
When the question was posed to the program managers their reply was 
equally ludicrous. We have been told that STVS and or ICSS voice switch 
equipment was not available for installation at the new facilities. 
Because flight service stations no longer exist in the lower 48 states 
the program managers in Washington made no provision for acquisition of 
new voice switch equipment. The voice switch equipment in a facility 
like a flight service station is the heart of the facility, most 
everything going in or out of that facility goes through that switch. 
Why would anyone want to build new facilities around an outdated 
switching system is beyond me!
    7. Our latest effort in modernizing the NAS in Alaska is known as 
CAPSTONE. I have done some research on its history thusfar and find it 
to be an innovative development in technology, the subsidiary company 
of United Parcel Service, IlMorrow Inc. makes the equipment being used 
for the ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, it also 
requires other facilities to be a complete system in the NAS. Some of 
the other facilities are AWOS Automated Weather Observation Systems and 
some lighting aids. My immediate involvement in the 3 year test project 
has been with the AWOS systems and already I see cost cutting measures 
being taken that will hamstring the program right from the beginning. 
We are currently installing and getting ready to turn on four weather 
systems in St. Michaels, Holy Cross, Scammon Bay, and Mountain 
Villiage, with six more coming next fiscal year. These weather 
observation systems are planned to be placed into service with dial up 
capabilities only, this will inevitably lead to poor service to the 
flying public and the system will not possess ADAS Aerospace Data 
Analysis System capabilities which is used in surface weather analysis. 
I view the ADAS connection as critical to the success of these 
facilities. I fear that by the time the FAA can field, test, and 
finalize a system like CAPSTONE it will be long obsolete and we will 
have another boat anchor.
    Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony to you regarding 
air safety and modernization in Alaska. I encourage you to take a more 
active role in oversight of our government agencies and their 
operations. I am grateful for the finding you have secured for the 
state and the aviation community while Chairman on the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. Some of our government agencies have become 
self serving and in some cases out of control, I would hope strong 
leadership from our congressional delegation will make some effort to 
curtail this trend.
                                 ______
                                 

                 Prepared Statement of Aero Twin, Inc.

    First, let it be noted that there is a majority opinion held within 
the repair station industry that modernization of Part 145 is overdue.
    While a few of the revisions to Part 145 proposed by this NPRM are 
welcome changes (provisions for satellite repair stations and Deviation 
authority, for example), there are many provisions to which Aero Twin, 
Inc. strongly objects.
    Prior to citing individual paragraphs, we will comment on several 
primary objections to the proposed amendment to Part 145:
    1. Aero Twin, Inc. cannot support a revision that mandates the 
establishment of internal quality assurance processes that are so ill-
defined as to potentially mean anything, up to and including the 
requirement for ISO 9000 certification for every repair station. Such 
proposals must be rejected out-of-hand until the FAA deigns to provide 
some definition of what, specifically, is entailed by the proposed 
quality assurance system. Advisory material published concurrently with 
the release of the rule is absolutely inadequate. Further, while Aero 
Twin, Inc. does not object to the concept of self-auditing, we feel 
performance of such audits must remain elective. The quality control 
programs and procedures currently mandated by Part 145 are carefully 
designed to assure airworthiness; FAA surveillance assures adherence to 
the programs. While the FAA may have data suggesting that 
implementation of quality assurance systems enhance quality, it is 
unclear that the conclusion is readily extended to encompass smaller 
repair stations, where the additional level of internal oversight would 
be largely symbolic, yet more costly per employee.
    2. The proposed revisions to Part 145 include the creation of an 
Accountable Manager. We are strongly opposed to this provision. We 
believe it to be a poorly veiled means to assign liability to an 
individual within a corporation. A Repair Station is an organizational 
authorization. Responsibility for assuring adherence to the applicable 
regulations is the joint responsibility of the organization and the 
FAA. Requiring one individual to assume all of the responsibilities 
delegated to the proposed Accountable Manager is outside the scope of 
FAA function. Each organization seeking Repair Station authorization 
should retain the right to identify which staff members hold particular 
responsibilities within the organization, subject to meeting basic 
qualifications. Daily operation of an organization subject to personnel 
absences due to vacations, sickness, business travel, etc. requires 
flexibility not afforded in the FAA's proposal. We would support the 
creation of a `Primary Point of Contact' as a means to streamline 
correspondence and interaction with the FAA.
    3. The personnel training requirements proposed by the FAA are not 
well enough defined to allow a reviewer to judge the benefits or the 
costs involved. While Aero Twin, Inc. does oppose mandated training 
requirements in principal, specific information regarding these 
requirements must be provided if this review is to have substantive 
meaning. Advisory material published concurrently with the release of 
the rule is absolutely inadequate.
    4. In the proposed revision, in addition to the repair station 
manual, there is a series of documents that must be prepared and 
maintained by the repair station, and in some cases forwarded to the 
FAA district office. We recommend adoption of a consistent language in 
prescribing the requirements for these documents. The documents 
include:
  --The capability list [ref 145.203]
  --The personnel roster [ref 145.157]
  --A comprehensive facility description [ref 145.207(c)]
  --A list of references to manufacturers' inspection standards for 
        particular articles [ref 145.207(d)(2)]
  --A forms manual [ref 157.145.207(d)(3)]
  --A vendor list [ref 145.207(h)]
    We suggest the following apply to each of the listed documents:
    a. These documents should be separate from the repair station 
manual, included only by reference, and should constitute accepted 
data, as opposed to approved data.
    b. These documents should be maintained by the repair station and 
submitted to the district office upon revision within a stated period 
or time following revision, without affecting the status of repair 
station compliance.
    c. The form of submission may be an electronic document accompanied 
by means to access the electronic copy.
    These features are already prescribed for certain documents in the 
proposed rule (refer to 145.205(e)(2), 145.205(f), 145.207(d)(3)). A 
consistent system of dealing with these documents will clarify the rule 
and improve compliance. Separation from the approved manual material is 
imperative.
    5. We are unable to accept the FAA's unsubstantiated cost analysis. 
The cost of establishing and maintaining a quality assurance system 
cannot be determined until the system is defined in some detail. The 
cost of establishing and maintaining a personnel training system cannot 
be determined until the system is defined in some detail. Both systems 
are mandated by the proposed rule, yet neither is described in detail 
sufficient with which to estimate costs.
    Aero Twin, Inc. comments to specific paragraphs in the proposed 
rule: Paragraphs of the proposed rule to which Aero Twin Inc. has no 
specific comments are omitted.

FAA Section 145.3 Definition of terms
    (a) Accountable manager means the manager who has the corporate 
authority for ensuring that all maintenance, preventive maintenance, 
and alteration is carried out to the standards required by the 
Administrator.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We object to the mandated creation of 
this titled position for the aforementioned reasons (see opening 
comments).
    (i) Computer system means any electronic or automated system 
capable of receiving, storing, and processing external data, and 
transmitting and presenting such data in a usable form for the 
accomplishment of a specific function.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: This definition should be clarified to 
exclude office systems.
    (j) Consortium means the holder of a type certificate that forms a 
combination or group of separate certificated repair stations to 
perform maintenance, preventative maintenance, or alteration of that 
type-certificated product and components thereof, and functions under a 
single unified quality control and quality assurance system.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. does not agree that 
consortiums, as defined, should be allowed. In the first, place we 
oppose the requirement for quality assurance systems which negates the 
primary purpose of a consortium. In the second place, we oppose the 
granting of relief to a consortium as it unfairly favors type 
certificate holders entering the repair station industry.
    (n) Maintenance release means a repair station document signed by 
an authorized repair station representative that states that the 
article worked on is approved for return to service for the 
maintenance, preventative maintenance, or alterations performed.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We believe the exclusive nature of the 
scope of `return to service' should be emphasized by the insertion of 
the word `only'. `Approved for return to service only for the 
maintenance, preventative maintenance, or alterations performed.' The 
scope of the maintenance release must not be ambiguous in any way.

FAA Section 145.9 Advertising
    (b) No certificated repair station may make any statement, either 
in writing or orally, about itself that is false or is designed to 
mislead any person.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We do not agree that paragraph (b) 
belongs in the airworthiness regulations. It is offensive that the FAA 
presumes to mandate fair and honest business practices. Organizations 
that would intentionally mislead are unlikely to be converted by virtue 
of this regulation. Other FAA certificate holders are not under similar 
regulatory restraint.

FAA Section 145.11 Deviation authority
    [all]
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. agrees with the 
provisions for Deviation authority. It should remain a part of the 
final rule.

FAA Section 145.51 Application for certificate
    (a)(3) A statement signed by the accountable manager confirming 
that the procedures described in the repair station manual are in place 
and meet the requirements of the applicable Federal Aviation 
Regulations.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. believes this paragraph 
should be removed. In the first place, we do not agree with the 
creation of an Accountable Manager; in the second, we see no need for 
any separate signed statement. The approval of the required manual by 
both the repair station and the FAA, and FAA inspection, assures 
compliance with the regulations. This transparent enforcement clause is 
unwarranted.
    (a)(4) An organizational chart of the repair station and a list of 
the names and titles of managing and supervisory personnel.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. suggests the deletion of 
all words after `repair station'. The requirements of 151.51(b) and 
151.157 render this paragraph redundant.
    (d) An applicant for a repair station certificate operated by a 
consortium, which functions as a single organization with regard to 
quality control and quality assurance, holds an approved type 
certificate, and performs maintenance, preventive maintenance, and 
alterations of that type certificated product, must have the 
consortium's quality control and quality assurance systems in place at 
each of its facilities.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. does not agree with the 
creation of consortiums, and thus, is opposed to inclusion of this 
paragraph.

FAA Section 145.59 Ratings and classes
    (a) Aircraft ratings. An aircraft rating on a repair station 
certificate permits that repair station to perform maintenance, 
preventive maintenance, or alterations on an aircraft, including work 
on the powerplant(s) of that aircraft up to, but not including, 
overhaul as that term is defined in See. 145.3 under the following 
classes:
    (1) Class 1: Aircraft (other than rotorcraft and aircraft composed 
primarily of composite material) of 12,500 pounds maximum certificated 
takeoff weight or less.
    (2) Class 2: Aircraft (other than rotorcraft and aircraft composed 
primarily of composite material) over 12,500 pounds maximum 
certificated takeoff weight and up to and including 75,000 pounds 
maximum certificated takeoff weight.
    (3) Class 3: Aircraft (other than rotorcraft and aircraft composed 
primarily of composite material) over 75,000 pounds maximum 
certificated takeoff weight.
    (4) Class 4: Rotorcraft (other than rotorcraft composed primarily 
of composite material) of 6,000 pounds maximum certificated takeoff 
weight or less.
    (5) Class 5: Rotorcraft (other than rotorcraft composed primarily 
of composite material) over 6,000 pounds maximum certificated takeoff 
weight.
    (6) Class 6: Aircraft composed primarily of composite material of 
12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight or less.
    (7) Class 6: Aircraft composed primarily of composite material over 
12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: The definitions of Classes 1 through 7 
are completely dependent upon the interpretation of the phrase 
`composed primarily of composite material'. The explanation provided in 
the NPRM sheds some light on the FAA's intent, but the regulation is 
vague.
    Aero Twin, Inc. concurs that repair of advanced composites requires 
special training and special equipment, but in the case of aircraft 
with one or several primary structural elements fabricated using 
advanced composites, there typically remains a large percentage of 
aircraft structure and systems which may be adequately inspected, 
maintained, and repaired by non-specialized techniques and equipment.
    Maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations of advanced 
composites should be made permissible by a separate and distinct 
rating, or be considered a specialized service rating under 145.59(i). 
In either case the rating should be made applicable to components or 
substructures (not entire aircraft).
    This recommendation would involve removal of the composite 
exception clause in 145.59 (1) through (5), the removal of 145.59 (6) 
and (7), the addition of an Advanced Composite Rating in 145.59, in 
appropriate revisions to 145 Appendix A, and definition of the term 
Advanced Composite.
    With regard to the definition advanced composite, we wish to point 
out the definition would need to exclude room temperature cure, wet-
layup, non-vacuum bagged fairings typical on many light aircraft, but 
might reasonably include any composite primary structure, regardless of 
fabrication technique.

FAA Section 145.61 Transition to new system of rating
    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a 
certificated repair station with a certificate issued before [effective 
date of the final rule], may exercise the privileges of that 
certificate until [2 years after the date of the final rule].
    (b) A certificated repair station with a certificate issued before 
[effective date of the final rule] that makes an application to change 
any portion of that certificate under Sec. 145.57 must meet all the 
applicable requirements of this part and apply for and receive approval 
for each rating under which the repair station desires to exercise 
privileges.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. does not believe that the 
proposed two-year transition is realistic. We have experienced FAA 
administrative delays of six months in obtaining approval of minor 
revisions to our Repair Station Manual. We cannot believe Flight 
Standards District Offices will be able to support the concentrated 
workload of training inspectors, processing of major revisions to the 
manuals of all repair stations, perform the required inspections, all 
within the allotted period. If the rule passes as written, the FAA will 
certainly have to spend additional time and effort in providing for 
inevitable deadline extensions. We propose that 151.61(a) be amended to 
allow a five year transition period: `. . . may exercise the privileges 
of that certificate until [5 years after the date of the final rule].' 
It follows that the requirements of 145.61(b) are also unrealistic, as 
it is unlikely that an active repair station can operate for even one 
year without needing minor revisions to its manual. We therefore 
recommend that for a two year period following adoption of a final 
rule, minor revisions to Repair Station Manuals may be adopted and 
approved without meeting all new applicable requirements.

FAA Section 145.103 Facilities and housing requirements.
    [all]
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. believes the language of 
the current 145.53 is adequate to address facilities and housing 
requirements; we recommend retaining existing language.
FAA Section 145.105 Change of location, housing, or facilities
    (a) A certificated repair station may not make any change in this 
location or any change, deletion, or addition to its housing or 
facilities, whether the change is a new location, is a substantial 
rearrangement of space within the present location, or involves moving 
any of the housing or facilities that are required by Sec. 145.103, 
unless the change is approved by the Administrator.
    (b) The Administrator may prescribe the conditions, including any 
limitations, under which a certificated repair station my operate while 
it is changing its location, housing, or facilities.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We believe the regulations should provide 
for a grace period of at least 30 days in the reporting and approval of 
changes within existing facilities, where such changes do not involve 
reduction or removal of existing capability, space, etc. The 
requirement to obtain prior approval will discourage improvement and 
modernization.

FAA Section 145.151 Personnel requirements
    (a) Each certificated repair station must: (1) Designate an 
individual as the accountable manager;
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We object to the mandated creation of 
this titled position for the aforementioned reasons.
FAA Section 145.157 Records of management, supervisory, and inspection 
        personnel
    (a) Each certificated repair station must maintain the following:
    (1) A roster of management and supervisory personnel, including the 
names of the repair station officials who are responsible for its 
management and the names of its technical supervisors;
    (2) A roster with the names of all inspection personnel, including 
the chief inspector;
    (3) A roster of personnel authorized to sign a maintenance release 
for approving an altered or repaired article for return to service;
    (4) A summary of the employment of each individual whose name is on 
the management, supervisory, and inspection personnel roster. The 
summary must contain enough information on each individual listed on 
the roster to show compliance with the experience requirements of this 
part including:
    i. Present title;
    ii. Total years of experience in type of maintenance work;
    iii. Past employment record with names of places and periods of 
employment by month and year;
    iv. Scope of present employment; and
    v. If applicable, the type of mechanic or repairman certificate 
held and the ratings on that certificate.
    (b) The rosters must be kept current and reflect changes caused by 
termination, reassignment, change in duties or scope of assignment, or 
addition of personnel.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. agrees with the 
provisions of 145.157, with the caveat that the rosters required by 
this section must be distinct from the FAA Approved Repair Station 
Manual to ensure that personnel changes do not immediately render the 
manual itself invalid. The intent of the proposed rule is unclear. We 
recommend language be added to provide a fixed grace period of 30 days 
for reporting changes per 145.157(b).

FAA Section 145.159 Training requirements
    (a) Each certificated repair station must have an employee training 
program that consists of initial and recurrent training and is approved 
by the Administrator.
    (b) The training program must ensure that each employee assigned to 
perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations, and each 
employee assigned to perform inspection functions is capable of 
performing the assigned task.
    (c) Each certificated repair station must document in a form 
acceptable to the Administrator programs pertaining to individual 
employee training. Individual training records for those employees who 
require training under the requirements in paragraph (b) of this 
section must be retained for the duration of each individual's 
employment.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. agrees that training is 
of the utmost importance, but we are unable to meaningfully respond to 
this requirement in light of the lack of detail in the proposal. We 
therefore oppose this section until the FAA provides draft versions of 
the advisory material. Refer to our opening comments.

FAA Section 145.201 Quality assurance and quality control systems
    (a) Each certificated repair station must: (1) Establish and 
maintain a quality assurance system acceptable to the Administrator;
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We oppose the requirement for quality 
assurance systems for the aforementioned reasons (see opening 
comments). We recommend the title of section 145.201 be revised to 
`Quality control system', and that (a)(1) and (a)(3) be eliminated (the 
latter being redundant considering 145.207(d)(1)).

FAA Section 145.203 Capability list
    (a) Each certificated repair station must prepare and retain a 
current capability list acceptable to the Administrator. The repair 
station may not perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 
alterations on an article until the article has been listed on the 
capability list in accordance with this section and Sec. 145.207(g).
    (b) The capability list must identify each article by make and 
model, part number, or other nomenclature designed by the article's 
manufacturer.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: It is burdensome and unnecessary to 
require listing each article by make, model, and part number. Listing 
articles by model series should be allowed, where appropriate. For 
example, the Cessna 150 was produced as models 150, 150A, 1501B, 150C, 
150D, 150E, 150F, 150G, 150H, 150J, 150K, 150L, and 150M. In this case 
it would be appropriate for the capability list to include `Cessna 
Model 150 Series'. This is even more important in the case of 
instrument, accessory, and propeller rated repair stations, where the 
list of specific models and/or part numbers could become extremely 
long, and constant revision to add new listings would be overly 
burdensome.
    (c) An article may be listed on the capability list only if the 
article is within the scope of the ratings. And classes of the repair 
station's certificate, and only after the repair station has performed 
a self-evaluation in accordance with Sec 145.207(g). The repair station 
must perform the self-evaluation described in this paragraph to 
determine that the repair station has all of the facilities, equipment, 
material, technical data, processes, housing, and trained personnel in 
place to perform the work on the article as required by Part 145. If 
the repair station makes that determination, it may list the article on 
the capability list.
    (d) The document of the evaluation described in paragraph (c) of 
this section must be signed by the accountable manager and must be 
retained on file by the repair station.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We do not accept the creation of an 
Accountable Manager, therefore we object to paragraph (d). We propose 
the Repair Station designate staff members with authority to sign 
capability evaluation reports; that designated authority would be 
documented as part of the roster required by 145.157. The FAA's review 
and acceptance of the roster would confer acceptance of the designated 
signature authority.
FAA Section 145.205 Repair station manual
    (a) Each certificated repair station must prepare, keep current, 
and follow and approved repair station manual for the ratings 
authorized that is consistent with the size and complexity of the 
repair station.
    (b) The certificated repair station manual must:
    (1) Set forth the procedures and policies approved by the 
Administrator for the repair station's operation in accordance with the 
requirements of this part; and
    (2) Be followed by the repair station's personnel while conducting 
station operations.
    (c) Each certificated repair station must maintain at least one 
copy of its current manual at its facility.
    (d) A copy of the repair station's current manual must be made 
readily available to repair station personnel required by subpart D of 
this part.
    (e) The repair station must provide to the certificate holding 
district office:
    (1) A current paper copy of the repair station manual; or
    (2) A current electronic copy of the repair station manual that is 
accompanied by the means to access the electronic copy.
    (f) Except for changes to the capability list, each revision to the 
repair station manual must be submitted to the Administrator for 
approval.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We believe the capability list should be 
separate and distinct from the repair station manual. The proposed rule 
is clear in its intent that the capability list is not FAA-approved; we 
suggest that paragraph (f) be revised by striking the words `Except for 
changes to the capability list'.

FAA Section 145.207 Repair station manual contents
    Each certificated repair station's manual must include the 
following:
    (a) An organizational chart containing the name of each management 
employee who is authorized to act for the repair station, the 
employee's assigned area of responsibility, and the employee's duties, 
responsibilities, and authority;
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We do not agree that the organizational 
chart included in the repair station manual should include names of the 
individuals holding each position. The personnel roster required by 
145.157 will include the names of repair station staff members. We 
suggest replacing the word `name' with `title'.
    (c) A description of the certificated repair station's operations, 
including a description of the facilities, equipment, material, and 
housing as required by subpart C of this part;
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: The requirements of subpart C, 
particularly as written in the proposed rule, are too comprehensive for 
inclusion in the repair station manual. A facility diagram is 
sufficient. We suggest that paragraph (c) should read: `A diagram of 
the certificated repair station's facilities'. If a comprehensive 
description of the certificated repair station's operations, including 
a description of the facilities, equipment, material, and housing as 
required by subpart C of the proposed rule, is to be required, it 
should be separate and distinct from the repair station manual 
(accepted data, not approved data).
    (d) An explanation of the certificated repair station's quality 
assurance system, including:
    (1) The quality control system;
    (2) References, where applicable, to the manufacturer's inspection 
standards for a particular article, including reference to any data 
specified by that manufacturer;
    (3) A sample copy of the inspection forms and instructions for 
completing such forms or a reference to a separate forms manual;
    (4) Procedures for updating the capability list required by Sec. 
145.203, including notification of the certificate holding district 
office; and
    (5) Procedures for the implementation of corrective actions for any 
discrepancies found by the quality assurance system.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We believe paragraph (d) and its sub-
paragraphs need substantial revision: We do not agree with the 
requirement for a quality assurance system (see opening comments) nor 
do we believe the references of subparagraph (2) should be included in 
the body of the repair station manual; a list of such references, if 
required, should be separate from the manual (accepted data, not 
approved data). We suggest that (d) be revised to read:
    (d) An explanation of the certificated repair station's quality 
control system, including:
    (1) A sample copy of the inspection forms and instructions for 
completing such forms or a reference to a separate forms manual;
    (2) Procedures for updating the capability list required by Sec. 
145.203, including notification of the certificate holding district 
office; and
    (3) Procedures for the implementation of corrective actions for any 
discrepancies identified by internal or external review.
    (g) Procedures for self-evaluations, including methods and 
frequency of such evaluations, and procedures for reporting results to 
the accountable manager for review and action;
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We do not agree with the need for a 
quality assurance system nor with the creation of an Accountable 
Manager. Absent the requirement for a quality assurance system, we do 
not oppose the inclusion of self-evaluation procedures; we suggest (e) 
be revised to read: `Procedures for self-evaluations, including methods 
and frequency of such evaluations, and procedures for documenting and 
reporting results'.
    (h) A list of the maintenance functions contracted to an outside 
facility with: (1) The name of the facility; (2) The type of 
certificate and ratings, if any, held by such facility; and (3) 
Procedures for qualifying and surveilling the facility and for 
accepting maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations performed 
by the facility;
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: This list, which we refer to as a vendor 
list, should be separate from the repair station manual (accepted data, 
not approved data). In the case of FAA certificated facilities, 
subparagraph (3) should not apply, as those facilities are already 
subject to FAA verification of an approved quality control system.
    (k) The repair station's capability list;
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: The capability list should be separate 
from the approved manual material. We suggest striking this paragraph.

FAA Section 145.211 Inspection of maintenance, preventive maintenance, 
        or alterations performed
    (a) A certificated repair station must inspect each aircraft, 
airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, component, or part 
thereof upon which it has performed maintenance, preventive 
maintenance, or alterations as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 
this section before approving that article for return to service.
    (b) Each repair station must certify on an article's maintenance 
release that the article is airworthy with respect to the maintenance, 
preventive maintenance, or alterations performed after;
    (1) The repair station performs work on the article; and
    (2) A qualified inspector inspects the article on which the repair 
station has performed work and determines it to be airworthy.
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: There must be no ambiguity in this 
section with regards to the scope of the inspections and maintenance 
release. The required inspection and maintenance release must apply 
only to the work performed and this limitation must be very clearly 
stated in the final rule. We believe this is the intent of the words 
`with respect to' in paragraph (b); however, similar wording is omitted 
in (b)(2), leaving open the interpretation that the qualified inspector 
must determine airworthiness of the complete article, not limited to 
the work performed. We suggest that (b)(2) be revised to read `A 
qualified inspector inspects the article and determines it to be 
airworthy with respect to the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 
alterations performed'.

FAA Section 145.213 Contract maintenance
    (a) A certificated repair station may not contract a job function 
to another certificated repair station unless:
    (1) The contracting repair station meets the quality control and 
inspection system requirements of 145.201(a)(2) and 145.209(c)(2), and
    (2) The contracting repair station's approved repair station manual 
contains the information and procedures specified in 145.207(h).
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: It is wrong to assume that `another 
certificated repair station' may not meet the basic requirements for 
certification, and that the contracting repair station is responsible 
for making that determination. The FAA is responsible for making 
approved determination. All of (a) should be eliminated from the 
proposed rule.
    (b) A certificated repair station may not contract a job function 
to a noncertificated person unless:
    (1) The certificated repair station meets the quality control and 
inspection system requirements of 145.201(a)(2) and 145.209(c)(2);
    (2) The certificated repair station's approved repair station 
manual contains the information and procedures specified in 145.207(h);
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: It is wrong to assume that a certificated 
repair station may not meet the basic requirements for certification. 
Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) should be eliminated.

FAA Section 145.215 Privileges and limitations of certificate
    (a) A certificated repair station may:
    (1) Perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations 
only on any aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, 
component, or part thereof for which it is rated;
    (2) Arrange for the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 
alteration of any article for which it is rated at another organization 
only if that organization is under the quality control system of the 
repair station, as prescribed by Sec. 145.201(a); and
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Paragraph (a)(2) is contrary to the 
provisions of proposed 145.213. We suggest (a)(2) read: `Arrange for 
the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of an article 
for which it is rated at another organization under the conditions of 
145.213.

FAA Section 145.219 Reports of defects or unairworthy conditions
    (b) Each certificated repair station must report the defect or 
unairworthy condition it discovers to the Administrator on a form and 
in a manner prescribed by the Administrator. The report must include as 
much of the following information as is available:
    (1) Type, make and model of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft 
engine, propeller, appliance, or component part;
    (2) Name and address of the operator;
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We believe (b)(2) should be eliminated. 
Further, we believe compliance with the provisions of 145.219 will be 
enhanced by this elimination.
Appendix A to Part 145--Job Functions
    [all]
    Aero Twin, Inc. Response: As previously stated, Aero Twin, Inc. 
believe that aircraft classes 6 and 7 should be eliminated and a 
distinct rating for advanced composites be created. This would 
necessitate appropriate revisions to Appendix A.
    End of comments to specific paragraphs of the proposed rule--------
------------------------
    In summary, Aero Twin, Inc. hopes that the FAA, in quantifying the 
benefits of this proposal, has considered that, due to increased 
overhead, many small repair stations will be economically unable to 
comply with the proposed requirements for extensive new internal 
processes and record-keeping. The market in general aviation 
maintenance will swing in favor of individual repairmen; repair 
stations will surrender certificates to work in that less-overburdened 
regulatory environment. As a result, a large portion of GA maintenance 
will move out from under the light of current FAA repair station 
surveillance and into the darker corners of ramps and tee-hangars 
nationwide.
                                 ______
                                 

                Prepared Statement of Security Aviation

    It would appear that the tendency of the Anchorage FAA Flight 
Standards District Office (FSDO) is more of a ``we are here to help 
you'' attitude than enforcement. Perhaps the reason is that it is 
literally impossible for an inspector to one day come in, drink your 
coffee, maintain a friendly relationship and then the next day 
objectively investigate a violation or accident of the same operator. 
The FAA should consider creating enforcement officers, a section 
completely separate from the regular FSDO inspectors. In addition to 
investigating and prosecuting pilots and operators these enforcement 
officers should be in the field making sure that all operators are 
playing by the same rule book. Eliminate the personal relationships. An 
FSDO inspector cannot do both.
    The FAA continues to allow air charter companies who have had 
numerous violations, accidents, injuries and fatalities to continue 
operating. Some of these operators have been banned by the Department 
of Defense (DOD) who will not allow military or civilian personnel to 
travel on these carriers. The FAA flight standards district office 
receives the DOD reports but still allows these operators to continue 
transporting the general public, who assumes because they are licensed 
by the FAA they have to be OK. Why is the general public not afforded 
the same safety standards that a PFC, Colonel or GS-15 civilian is 
afforded?
    Why is the FAA not doing press releases on pilot and operator 
violations and accidents? Is it true that a journalist or reporter must 
obtain violation and legal proceedings information from the FAA under 
the Freedom of Information Act? Very few of the traveling public has 
access to information that will influence who they fly with. Who you 
fly with should be just as important as the grocery store, restaurants, 
or lawyers that you may use, all of whom publicize their inspections or 
findings.
                                 ______
                                 

     Prepared Statement of the Alaska Aviation Coordination Council

    The undersigned members of the Alaskan Aviation Community wish to 
express our appreciation for the aviation hearings in Anchorage on 
December 14, 1999. After careful consideration of testimony thus far, 
we would like to add the following comments and clarifying information 
to the record.
    We believe that Alaska aviation interests share a common vision of 
Alaska aviation infrastructure needs and that it is clear from existing 
testimony that Alaska is unique in its reliance on aviation for its 
most basic transportation needs. Three points of clarification may need 
to be made regarding testimony given:
    First, the need for airport and aviation infrastructure 
improvements is clear and the cited $265 million in airport 
improvements over the next five years is in addition to the historic 
$80 million in annual Airport Improvement Program funding that now 
comes to Alaska.
    Second, the cited 20-year window for Capstone avionics to broadly 
affect aviation safety refers not to the efficacy of Capstone, but 
rather to the fact that until virtually all aircraft are equipped with 
`Capstone' type avionics, Capstone will not be able to provide all the 
safety benefits it promises to. Obviously, interim, incremental 
improvements will be most welcome and statewide implementation of 
Capstone is strongly endorsed.
    Third, due to the scope and dynamic nature of aviation and Alaska, 
more aviation related issues will arise and our concern is that the 
present nationally driven FAA methodology of addressing these concerns 
does not serve Alaska aviation safety as well as it should. Alaska is 
often detrimentally impacted by well meaning federal regulatory 
reaction, to issues occurring elsewhere, with a ``one size fits all'' 
solution. A brief sampling of recent national mandates that have failed 
or are failing to improve aviation safety in Alaska follow (specifics 
for which are attached):
  --Outdated FAA requirement to re-equip transponder equipped aircraft 
        in Alaska, for which a petition for exemption (FAA Docket 
        29537) is languishing.
  --FAR Part 135 to Pt. 121 transition for commuter carriers, that 
        effectively forced some remote Alaskan markets to smaller, non-
        pressurized aircraft.
  --The Single Engine Instrument Flight Rule (SEIFR) re-write that 
        effectively eliminated SEIFR.
  --A historic eastbound departure procedure from Juneau International 
        Airport revised to now uneconomic usage.
  --Long standing Ketchikan Revilla corridor flight procedures 
        cancelled.
  --Aging Aircraft NPRM 99-02 that will effectively shut down most 
        intra-Alaskan Part 121 and Part 135 scheduled operations.
    With national focus programs driven from a remote FAA headquarters 
in Washington, D.C., policy makers often fail to understand the actual 
impact of their decisions on basic safety. At other times, locally 
identified and pursued safety concerns, lacking a national focus, fail 
to get proper consideration and are either ignored or brushed aside 
without regard to existing procedure.
    For these reasons, we feel it important to fundamentally change the 
way Alaskan aviation interests and FAA communicate and work together to 
resolve safety concerns. Toward this end, we would again cite the 
(attached) Alaska Aviation Coordination Council's Strategic Plan, 
specifically the recommendation to create a formal ``Alaskan Federal 
Aviation Advisory Council'' to the Alaskan Region FAA. This Advisory 
Council would provide continuous safety and user need assessment to 
ensure effective planning and development. Presently, no formal 
communication mechanism exists between the FAA and the aviation 
community at large to ensure effective feedback and/or advice in 
planning programs or resolving issues and informal processes lack the 
structure and authority necessary to ensure follow-up and 
accountability. Pursuant to this end, we have also asked FAA 
Administrator Jane Garvey to authorize the FAA Alaska Regional 
Administrator to address local issues in the best interest of Alaskan 
aviation safety, including, if need be, authority to waive or modify 
regulations as necessary to address specific Alaska aviation issues.
    Again, we thank you for your tireless pursuit of a safe, efficient, 
and reliable air transportation system that meets the needs and 
enhances the health and welfare of all Alaskans.
                                   Paul Bowers,
               A.E.E., Chair, Alaska Aviation Coordination Council.
                                   John Pratt,
              AK Field Representative, Seaplane Pilots Association.
                                   Tom Wardleigh,
                      Chairman, Alaskan Aviation Safety Foundation.
                                   Richard Harding,
                                     Operations, Peninsula Airways.
                                   Bob Hajdukovich,
                                President, Frontier Flying Service.
                                   Gary Bennett, Jr.,
                         General Manager, Northern Lights Avionics.
                                   Robert Jacobsen,
                                        President, Wings of Alaska.
                                   Jim Hill,
                                            Pilot, Alaska Airlines.
                                   Arthur Warbelow,
                           President, Warbelow's Air Ventures, Inc.
                                   Fred H. Ciarlo,
                               General Manager, Tanana Air Service.
                                   Ronald W. Haney,
                           Interim Chair, Aviation Technology, UAA.
                                   Leonard Kirk,
                         President, Leonard Kirk Aviation Training.

ANECDOTAL EXAMPLES OF FAA NATIONAL DIRECTION THAT DOES NOT SERVE ALASKA 
                            AVIATION SAFETY

    Alaska is often detrimentally impacted by well meaning federal 
regulatory reaction, to issues occurring elsewhere, with a ``one size 
fits all'' nationally driven FAA solution that do not serve Alaska 
aviation safety as well as they should. Following is a brief overview 
sampling of recent national mandates that have failed or are failing to 
improve aviation safety in Alaska:
  --Most transponder equipped aircraft in Alaska have still useful Mode 
        A/C compatible equipment, not thrice as expensive Mode S 
        equipment. Due to nationally proposed infrastructure upgrades, 
        however, FAA national regulations were changed years ago to 
        require air taxi aircraft replacing worn out equipment to do so 
        only with more costly Mode S equipment. The proposed FAA NAS 
        infrastructure upgrades never occurred and are now in doubt, 
        without which there is no benefit to Mode S equipage in small 
        aircraft in Alaska. For this reason, many operators of aircraft 
        with worn out Mode A/C transponders are simply removing them 
        from service rather than replacing with expensive Mode S. 
        Conversely, although Alaska trails the nation in radar 
        coverage, larger aircraft are increasingly equipping with TCAS, 
        which alerts pilots to the presence of any transponder-equipped 
        aircraft, Mode A/C or Mode S. Erosion in the number of 
        transponder equipped aircraft is a safety issue.
      Petitions for exemption (FAA Docket 29537) from this requirement 
        on behalf of all affected Alaskans seems to have been brushed 
        aside without processing per the FAA's own rules (FAR Part 11) 
        and with apparently no understanding of the issues involved.
  -- The nationwide, congressionally mandated FAR Part 135 to Pt. 121 
        transition for commuter carriers, that effectively forced 
        smaller operators to revert from pressurized small twin 
        aircraft to nonpressurized single engine aircraft, because the 
        two-pilot and other regulatory burdens of Pt. 121 compliance 
        made the larger aircraft uneconomic in some remote Alaskan 
        markets.
  --The Single Engine Instrument Flight Rule (SEIFR) re-write that was 
        intended to enable Alaskan air carriers utilization of IFR 
        capable single engine aircraft, but which rule finally came out 
        effectively making it uneconomic to operate SEIFR and it 
        removed the limited SEIFR procedures previously available to 
        Part 135 operators.
  --The long standing, historic east-bound `Lemon Creek Departure' 
        procedure from Juneau International Airport, developed and 
        safely used without incident by Lockheed Constellations, DC-6s, 
        Boeing 707s, B-720s, B-727s, B-737-100s, 200s, 300s, 400s: all 
        in concert with and fully approved for use by Alaska Region 
        FAA, until a change in FAA staff and national interest review 
        found this long standing local procedure `unsafe'. Present 
        procedure modifications now impose significant, cost-
        inefficient load restrictions on Pt 121 operators who opt to 
        use it.
  --Ketchikan Revilla corridor flight procedures involving SVFR and IFR 
        coordination, wherein longstanding Air Traffic procedure 
        separating SVFR floatplane operations could be conducted in the 
        channel simultaneously with IFR operations at the airport, with 
        aircraft separation assured by altitude restrictions. With new 
        Alaska Airlines RNP minimums and availability of approaches to 
        Runway 29, FAA ATC issued notice that simultaneous operations 
        will be cancelled effective 02/28/00.
  --Aging Aircraft NPRM 99-02 would mandate a transport category 
        oriented Damage Tolerance (DT) inspection program for all 
        multi-engined 14 years or older aircraft used in Part 121 and 
        Part 135 scheduled operations. This would apply to nearly every 
        intra-state operation in the State of Alaska, affecting over 
        700 aircraft that were not designed to undergo such 
        inspections, Alaskan operators note this proposal is not only 
        cost prohibitive, but implementing a DT inspection program 
        could in itself make airworthy components or structures un-
        airworthy. (Multiple requests to have this NPRM rescinded have 
        been submitted by users.)

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Stevens. So I thank you all for being here and 
recording our testimony.
    Thank you very much.
    [Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., Tuesday, December 14, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2001

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2000

                           U.S. Senate,    
      Committee on the Budget and Committee
                 on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
                       Transportation and Related Agencies,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committees met jointly, at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-608, 
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman 
of the Budget Committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Domenici, Shelby, Grassley, Gorton, 
Snowe, Abraham, Lautenberg, Conrad, and Durbin.

      JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON MODERNIZING THE FEDERAL AVIATION 
                ADMINISTRATION: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    Federal Aviation Administration

STATEMENT OF JANE F. GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY JACK BASSO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

                      Office of Inspector General

STATEMENT OF KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON

    Senator Gorton [presiding]. If we can get you seated, we 
will begin. The meeting will come to order.
    In the temporary absence of Senator Domenici, the chairman 
of the Budget Committee, he has asked me to open. He has an 
opening statement here that expresses my views exactly and I 
think outlines what we are about here today. So I will present 
it, but the record can show that it is his opening statement 
with which I am associated.
    There are two committees that are represented here this 
morning and two panels of witnesses. There are going to be a 
lot of questions, so witness time is going to be limited. We 
will introduce the first panel, and once they have completed 
their statements and our questioning, we will move immediately 
to the second panel.
    First we will hear from the FAA Administrator, Jane Garvey. 
She is accompanied by Jack Basso, Assistant Secretary for 
Budget and Programs and CFO for the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation. Following the Administrator's testimony, we 
will hear from Kenneth Mead, the Department of Transportation's 
Inspector General.
    Madam Administrator--and these are Senator Domenici's 
words--I know how difficult this week has been for you and your 
staff. Whatever you want or can say about the Air Alaska 
tragedy, please feel free to comment this morning. Whatever is 
said here today, let me be very clear--and this is not a 
partisan issue--safety should always be priority number one. As 
you can well imagine, this comes very close to me.
    Ms. Garvey. Yes.
    Senator Gorton. Many of my constituents were involved in 
that tragedy, and I have always had a particular warm spot in 
my heart for Alaska Airlines. It is a very heart-breaking 
experience for all of us who are from Seattle.
    Let me also say what this hearing is not about. It is not 
about the President's budget for the FAA next year. We are 
going to get those numbers on Monday. Should the Administrator 
want to discuss those numbers, of course, she is free to do so. 
But that is not a part of our hearing request.
    Second, it is not about the current ongoing FAA 
reauthorization conference. That conference I hope will be 
completed soon. We want to focus on the future of air 
transportation in this country. We are all aware of the growth 
in the number of airline passengers, and we have become 
increasingly aware of airline delays. One reason often given 
for these delays and associated costs to the traveling public 
has been the argument that our air traffic control system is 
incapable of meeting the new demands due to outdated systems 
and old technologies. And yet we know that the Federal 
Government has spent more than $30 billion for FAA's 
modernization program since 1983.
    This oversight hearing then asks the basic question: With 
this level of spending and more planned increases, why are we 
still experiencing problems? We must step back and ask 
ourselves if the government's organizational structure for our 
air traffic control system is appropriate for the challenges of 
the new century. Are there different legislative approaches to 
funding the air traffic control system apart from the airlines 
taxes, trust fund, and general fund approach we have used over 
the past three decades?
    Other countries--and we will hear from the Canadian 
government--have moved toward a more commercial approach to air 
traffic control. Should we consider that approach and would it 
even work here in the United States?
    These are the kinds of questions that I hope we will deal 
with today. But I can't avoid on my own adding my compliments 
to the Administrator. Jane Garvey and I have gotten to know 
each other quite well since she has taken that position. We 
flew together on New Year's Eve over the Y2K non-event, very 
happily, and I have great admiration for the job she has done 
as Administrator under very real difficulties. She and her 
agency are, of course, a long way from being out of the woods, 
but I do want to compliment her on a job well done so far.
    Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
    Senator Gorton. With that, Senator Lautenberg.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

    Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It 
is a pleasure to have you operating in this position, not that 
I don't miss Senator Domenici, but I think since you and I have 
some common interests in railroading and other things, life 
could get easier. But we are pleased to see Jane Garvey and 
meet Assistant Secretary Basso here this morning.
    I came to the Senate with a deep interest in 
transportation. Though I was running a company in the computer 
service business, much of my interest emerged in transportation 
as a result of some public service I was doing as a 
Commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 
The Port Authority is quite an agency. They operate three major 
airports: Newark, La Guardia, and Kennedy airports in the 
region. They also have a general aviation airport called 
Teterboro, which gets a lot of traffic.
    And so I was fairly much focused on transportation 
problems. My company experienced them on the roads, and I had 
some significant exposure because the Port Authority also owned 
a railroad called the PATH.
    Then, as now, the Port Authority controlled these airports 
and is responsible for all capital investments in those 
airports, not to mention investments also in the seaport, and 
as I indicated, in other services as well, including bridges, 
tunnels, and you name it in the transportation area.
    I became familiar with the critical importance of 
transportation investments during that period of time, and I 
also learned that one thing we must do--and the Port Authority 
was quite an example--is to make investments in a balanced way. 
As I indicated, we had bridges, tunnels, had an awful lot of 
automobile traffic, bus terminals, the railroad, and, of 
course, the airports.
    So I came to realize that when funds are not allocated 
intelligently, more than money is wasted. Time is wasted, 
critical time during which highways and runways just become 
more congested.
    Mr. Chairman, I believe, like many of our colleagues, that 
increased investment in aviation is necessary. There is no 
question about it. But in all our discussions and debates 
during the last couple of years on how we should provide that 
increased investment, not enough has been said about how we 
ensure that these investments are made for the best interests 
of the traveling public. Not enough has been said how we ensure 
that other needs of our transportation system are adequately 
met.
    And I am pleased to be here with my friend and colleague of 
almost all the years that I have been here in the Senate, 
Senator Shelby. Senator Shelby has my job on the Transportation 
Subcommittee. He is the chairman. But I have allowed him to 
take over these years. I am the ranking member, and the chances 
of a change that I can feel are not very good.
    Not enough has been said about whether the current system 
through which we finance aviation investments is indeed the 
best system.
    As a long-time observer of the spending practices at the 
FAA, I can tell you that there have been too many instances of 
time loss and waste. And our current Administrator, FAA 
Administrator Jane Garvey, deserves a great deal of credit for 
her efforts at bringing these problems under control.
    We must not repeat the mistakes of the past. We must not 
allow air traffic control procurement programs to be 
micromanaged or mismanaged. We can't just blindly throw 
billions of dollars at our Nation's airports and expect the 
congestion to disappear. We can't just throw billions of 
dollars at our aviation equipment manufacturers and expect an 
efficient, state-of-the-art system to emerge at the other end. 
We need to take aggressive efforts to see that investments are 
being made intelligently, that money is not being wasted, and 
that the FAA is being governed by the most modern and sound 
management practices and the equipment that is consistent with 
the technological age in which we now live.
    Mr. Chairman, over 4 years ago, Chairman Mark Hatfield and 
I championed a provision that we hoped would go a long way 
toward reforming the FAA. In a classic case of legislation on 
an appropriations bill, we provided the Federal Aviation 
Administration with the broadest and most far-reaching 
authority to reform its personnel and procurement systems. For 
years, we had been told that the Federal Government's personnel 
rules were inconsistent with the flexibility that FAA needed to 
maximize its potential. And I worked very hard on that, as did 
Senator Hatfield.
    We were also told that the Federal Government's procurement 
rules were hampering FAA's ability to modernize the Air Traffic 
Control System in an efficient and affordable manner. So in 
just a few paragraphs of an appropriations bill, we gave the 
FAA the widest possible permanent exemption from all these 
rules. Four years later, however, it appears that these 
authorities have barely been used.
    So when we see an agency that doesn't find a way to fully 
utilize all the tools at its disposal, we need to question 
whether the time is right to dramatically increase the level of 
spending. And this goes with particular criticism directed to 
Ms. Garvey and her team. It is a big, complicated agency, and 
it needs incremental steps, as I see it, to get things done. 
You can't change it overnight.
    We also have to consider who will pay for a dramatic new 
cash infusion into the FAA. I said it earlier: We must maintain 
an appropriate balance in executing our transportation 
investments. Current proposals to provide an ironclad guarantee 
for future aviation spending at levels well beyond the amounts 
collected into the trust fund will necessarily require funding 
reductions in other areas of transportation and other areas of 
the domestic budget.
    Since the inception of the Airport and Airways Trust Fund, 
Congress has appropriated roughly $65 billion more for aviation 
than has been collected into the trust fund. I repeat, $65 
billion since the inception of the airport and airways trust 
fund has been spent on aviation that--or appropriated than has 
been collected.
    So now we are facing proposals to guarantee even larger 
appropriations of non-trust fund dollars for aviation, general 
fund dollars that could otherwise be used to fund things like 
agriculture and education and health research and defense or 
any other part of the budget.
    If the Transportation Subcommittee is going to be required 
to absorb all of the cuts necessitated by an aviation 
guarantee, then we will surely be heading toward a 
transportation bill that is out of balance. And as we review 
the current situation with the Alaska Airlines crash, it is 
both tragic and ironic that the two agencies that are engaged 
in the recovery and the investigation, the people we are 
looking to for advice and information, the Coast Guard and the 
National Transportation Safety Board, are two of the agencies 
that might have to endure severe funding cuts in order to pay 
for a guaranteed increase in FAA funding.
    Now, no one is talking about granting these agencies a 
funding guarantee. And as I have pointed out many times before, 
if funding for Amtrak is cut, services in the Northeast 
corridor are terminated, we will have to add over 10,000 
additional DC-9 flights a year between Washington and New York 
and Boston, and that kind of service will be felt across this 
country. Whether it is Albuquerque or Los Angeles or what have 
you, you are going to feel it if we have to add that much extra 
capacity to the airplanes filling the air lanes. There simple 
is not the capacity to handle that many flights in what is 
already the most congested air space in the world.
    But, again, its effects are not limited to just that space. 
So we have got to consider the full ramifications of providing 
guaranteed increases in aviation spending at levels well beyond 
those paid into the trust fund, and such a plan that we see 
overhanging could well produce some grossly inefficient and 
destructive results.
    And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have aged since you took 
this chair a little while ago.
    Senator Domenici [presiding]. OK. Let me just talk for a 
minute about how we might proceed. You all know that this is a 
joint hearing, and we have the chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee here sitting at my left. The problem is that a 
joint hearing brings a lot more Senators, and also you have to 
understand that we have two sets of panels, and nobody wants to 
be here until 1:00 or 2:00 this afternoon. I hadn't planned to 
be either. In addition, the leadership has scheduled one vote 
in the middle of this, but we will try to not close down. So I 
am going to try to keep the opening statements down in terms of 
either how long and how many, but I think it is absolutely 
imperative that I do let the chairman of the subcommittee make 
an opening statement. Then we will proceed and hear from the 
witnesses and then we will use our time for opening statements 
as part of our questioning.
    Senator Shelby.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be 
brief, but I think this is a very important hearing, and I 
commend you for bringing it together.
    I would like to thank the panelists for making the time to 
come testify today before these two committees of the Senate. I 
know that administration officials and industry representatives 
do not always relish testifying before either the Budget or the 
Appropriations Committees because our jobs are sometimes to 
minimize the amount of the taxpayers' money that must be spent 
on the functions of government and to make trade-offs among 
competing programs.
    I would also like to thank again the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, a member of the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee, which I chair, for scheduling this joint hearing 
and including my subcommittee. I think this hearing presents a 
unique opportunity for us to discuss the public's commitment to 
aviation and the challenges and pitfalls facing the FAA as we 
continue to modernize the Air Traffic Control System and the 
National Air Space System and to develop the procedures and the 
workforce to meet the government's evolving role in aviation.
    My hope today is that we can explore two broad but simple 
questions. One, what are the aviation challenges that must be 
solved? And, two, what are the potential ways to meet those 
challenges?
    I am mindful of the old axiom that to a hammer every 
problem looks like a nail, but I have a hard time believing 
that the solution to every problem at the FAA or in the 
aviation industry is more money. I know money is important, but 
it is not the answer to everything.
    My research shows that the FAA's appropriation has grown by 
230 percent over the last 20 years, while operations handled by 
the FAA have grown by only 22 percent over the same period. As 
part of this discussion, I also hope that we can get a better 
sense of what use the FAA has made of the procurement and 
personnel reform authority that Congress granted that agency a 
few years ago. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that the FAA has 
the greatest flexibility in procurement and personnel of any 
Federal agency. Yet my sense is that the same problems that 
plagued the agency 20 years ago and $28.8 billion of 
procurement dollars are the same ones that plague them today. I 
would hope that we could have a very candid--very candid, Ms. 
Garvey--and focused discussion on whether throwing more money 
than we already do at the FAA is likely to result in a 
commensurate improvement in air traffic control efficiency and 
modernization. To this point, that formula has not worked.
    Twelve years ago, the Reagan Commission on Privatization 
noted, and I quote,

    that as airline deregulation moves into its second decade 
in the United States, the National Air Transportation System 
faces tremendous challenges. Dissatisfaction over consumer 
service is apparent in the record number of complaints received 
by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the flurry of news 
media attention recently directed toward American aviation, and 
the voluminous aviation legislation introduced in Congress 
during 1987.

    We only need to change the date to make that an accurate 
statement for the current state of the Air Transportation 
System. The concerns expressed in that report in 1987 about the 
difficulties and deficiencies impairing the efficient operation 
of the system are as valid today, I believe, as they were in 
1988.
    Clearly, the problems are persistent and structural. 
Generally, problems of this nature are not overcome by being 
overlooked. Insulating FAA funding from competing with other 
Federal programs will exacerbate the problem rather than 
remedying the real challenges that must be addressed as we 
continue to lead the world into the next generation of air 
navigation, surveillance, and airport and airway safety 
systems.
    Is there a crisis in aviation? If there is, I believe it is 
the same crisis that we have struggled with for the past 20 
years: not enough land-side capacity and how to manage the 
disruption caused by inclement weather on airport operations 
that cascade throughout the National Aviation System.
    Clearly, there is not enough money in any trust fund, in 
any agency department or Federal budget to change the weather. 
The FAA Administrator has explained the relationship between 
weather--thunderstorms, snowstorms, and their aftermath and 
delays in the system.
    Is capacity a problem? It is not a problem at the vast 
majority of airports across the country, but it is a problem in 
some of the airports near major population centers. 
Unfortunately, aviation projects in those places tend to be 
some of the most expensive, environmentally contentious, and 
locally controversial. It is often difficult to convince local 
communities that longer or more runways, high-speed taxiways, 
or other aviation investments that will facilitate more 
aircraft flying above their homes and communities is good for 
them, even if it is in the national interest.
    As a practical matter, I believe that the greatest capacity 
improvements in the short term are likely to come from improved 
approaches made possible by GPS technology and better 
utilization of existing pavement through improved sequencing 
and coordination of flights. To read some of the recent news 
accounts, you would think that lavishing more money on the FAA 
would solve just about every problem that ails us. If you miss 
a flight, it is because there isn't an aviation firewall. If 
airports are shut down by a line of thunderheads, it is because 
there isn't an aviation firewall. If the stock market is off, 
it is because there isn't an aviation firewall. It goes on and 
on.
    I will state categorically here that recent air tragedies 
would not have been averted by an aviation firewall. I wish it 
was that simple. The airlines will continue to cancel flights 
due to mechanical problems and the scheduling considerations 
dictated by reduced fleet size even if there is an aviation 
firewall, and, most importantly, weather disruptions will not 
go away even if there is an aviation firewall.
    I ask that a paper and an update from the Heritage 
Foundation about budget treatment of aviation accounts be 
placed in the hearing record at this point, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Domenici. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

       [From the Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, July 9, 1999]

Moving Aviation Trust Fund ``Off Budget'' Undermines the Budget Process

            (By Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., and Gregg Van Helmond)

    On June 15, 1999, the House passed H.R. 1000 (the Aviation 
Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century, or AIR 21), to reauthorize 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through fiscal year 2004 and 
to increase significantly federal spending in support of commercial 
aviation.\1\ To make room for this additional spending in a federal 
budget in which total spending is tightly limited by congressionally 
approved ``caps,'' Title IX of AIR 21 would move all spending and 
revenues of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund ``off budget.'' As a 
result of this proposed change, federal aviation spending would be 
exempt from all congressional budget control mechanisms and would 
receive a level of protection now provided only to Social Security. 
Spending control mechanisms that no longer would be applicable to 
aviation spending if the aviation trust fund were moved off budget 
include budget caps established by the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 
1997, pay-as-you-go rules, annual congressional oversight and review, 
and other statutory budget limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For a more detailed critique of AIR 21, see Ronald D. Utt, 
Ph.D., ``FAA Reauthorization: Time to Chart a Course for Privatizing 
Airports,'' Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1289, June 4, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the House passed AIR 21 by a veto-proof majority, it is 
not at all certain that the Senate is prepared to accept aviation 
spending plans of this magnitude or a change in the budgetary treatment 
of trust fund spending. Indeed, now under consideration in the Senate 
is a significantly different proposal to reauthorize the FAA: S. 82, 
introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), which would authorize much 
less spending than H.R. 1000, and make no change in aviation's on-
budget status. Because the FAA's current authorization expires this 
August, considerable pressure will be placed on the Senate to match the 
level of spending, and the special off-budget privilege, passed by the 
House.
    Advocates of the proposal to move aviation spending off budget 
argue that this special privilege would protect the tax revenues 
generated by the airline industry and airline passengers from being 
diverted to non-aviation spending, tax relief, or debt reduction. And 
because none of the existing congressional spending limitation efforts 
and mechanisms apply to off-budget spending, this privilege also would 
allow Congress to raise future aviation spending substantially above 
levels that would be permitted for such other, unprotected programs as 
national security, health care, and law enforcement. If ultimately 
adopted by Congress and signed into law, such a change would be a major 
setback in Congress's long struggle to control spending, reduce taxes, 
and balance the budget. It also would be fiscally irresponsible because 
it would make sound federal financial decisions more difficult, weaken 
congressional oversight, create a misleading federal budget, and 
violate the spirit of the BBA. Specifically:
    1. Sound public finance decisions would become more difficult.--
Moving aviation spending off budget would erase any remaining notion of 
fiscal discipline within Congress. Not only would it remove aviation 
spending from any measures of budget control, but it would have the 
further effect of creating opportunities to spend more in other 
programs. Placing aviation spending off budget without a corresponding 
decrease in the discretionary spending caps in effect would bust the 
caps enacted in 1997 by creating a ``gap in the cap.'' This gap, 
amounting to $25.2 billion between 2001 and 2004, would likely be 
filled with increased spending from a variety of other programs seeking 
relief from the discipline imposed by the caps. If the caps were 
adjusted downward to reflect the off-budget move, then an even smaller 
share of the federal budget (now down to just 34 percent of all federal 
spending) would have to shoulder the burden of meeting the budgetary 
targets required by the BBA. Such vital, but unprotected programs as 
Coast Guard drug interdiction, national defense, the Centers for 
Disease Control, and many others could become subject to cuts, while 
federal spending on behalf of commercial airlines and recreational 
pilots would be increased and protected from congressional oversight.
    2. Congressional and presidential oversight of federal programs 
would be weakened.--As the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
Pete Domenici (R-NM), noted recently,

    ``Off-budget gimmicks or ``firewalls'' reduce management and 
oversight of the FAA by taking trust fund spending out of the budget 
process. That's a bad idea--we should not place the FAA and the trust 
fund on permanent autopilot.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Bureau of National Affairs, ``House Passage of AIR-21 Stuns 
Senate; Domenici Mobilizes for Off-Budget Battle,'' Daily Report for 
Executives No. 116, June 17, 1999.

    Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) testified 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
before the House Transportation Subcommittee that

    ``When the [transportation] trust funds were created, Congress did 
not create them as automatic spending trust funds. It chose to retain 
annual oversight and control of spending from those funds in the 
appropriations committees.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill 
fiscal year 2000, Report No. 106-180, June 9, 1999, p. 33.

    With aviation spending moved off budget, and escalating levels of 
funding set for the next five years, both Congress and the President 
would lose what little leverage they have to induce the notoriously 
troubled FAA to strive for higher standards of performance. Providing 
such protection to a government department that this year again earned 
the GAO's ``high-risk'' designation--a distinction it shares with the 
Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development--would be irresponsible.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ U.S. General Accounting Office, High Risk Series: An Update, 
GAO/HR-99-1, January 1999; ``The Department of Transportation's 10 Top 
Priority Management Issues,'' Statement of Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector 
General, U.S. Department of Transportation, before the Subcommittee on 
Transportation, Committee of Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 106th Cong., 
1st Sess., February 25, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    3. Off-budget protection would diminish opportunity for reform.--
Once a program is moved off budget, and no longer is subject to annual 
budget review or periodic authorization, Congress has fewer scheduled 
opportunities to review it and, therefore, fewer opportunities to 
effect needed reforms. The federal government's involvement with 
commercial aviation has changed little since 1971, when the aviation 
trust fund was created as the primary funding vehicle for FAA programs. 
But since the 1971 FAA overhaul, there have been many changes in the 
world of commercial aviation; most of these changes--except for 
President Jimmy Carter's airline deregulation in 1978--have taken place 
abroad. These include the privatization of more than 60 airports in the 
past two years, the denationalization of many former government-owned 
airlines, and the privatization/corporatization of air traffic control 
systems, notably in Canada (1997) and in 16 other countries in recent 
years. By locking up funding for five years and placing such funding 
off budget, as H.R. 1000 would do, neither Congress nor the President 
would have much in the way of opportunity to impose reform, and the 
status quo would prevail until at least 2005.
    4. The federal budget would be even more misleading than it is 
today.--Removing aviation funding from the budget would understate the 
size of the federal government. In fiscal year 1998, off-budget 
spending amounted to over $316 billion. More important, when other non-
discretionary (labeled as ``mandatory'') spending is taken into 
account, over 66 percent, or $1.1 trillion, of the $1.7 trillion in 
federal outlays are essentially untouchable for Congress during the 
annual budget process. Programs not lucky enough to warrant designation 
as ``off budget'' or ``mandatory,'' including national defense, 
education, and other discretionary line items, bear the brunt of any 
budget cuts needed to fulfill deficit/surplus targets, repay the 
national debt, or meet emerging priorities and emergencies.
    5. Supporters of other programs would seek similar protection.--At 
present, only Social Security has received ``off-budget'' protection in 
recognition of the importance of the program for the well-being of many 
retirees and the firm, contractual relationship between the taxes paid 
in and the benefits received. No such significance or relationship 
applies to the FAA's spending programs, whose chief beneficiaries are 
the for-profit airlines, recreational pilots, and weekend hobbyists. 
All reflect a segment of society with the financial means to bear the 
risk of future budget restraint and the impact such uncertainty might 
have on the programs that assist them. Nonetheless, if aviation 
spending programs were placed off budget, other programs of potentially 
greater significance to the well-being of the country or to vulnerable 
constituencies, such as Medicare and national security, would be likely 
to demand the same protection--and could receive it. As a consequence, 
what remains ``on budget'' soon would amount to a minor share of 
federal spending, and much of the rest--now afforded off-budget 
status--would be beyond control, oversight, and reform by either the 
President or Congress.
    6. The spirit of the Balanced Budget Act would be destroyed.--The 
BBA was created to keep runaway spending in check, and to date has 
served as an important source of discipline in slowing the growth of 
discretionary spending. Although it has not always been honored, and 
many tricks and gimmicks have been suggested or utilized to sneak extra 
spending past its controls, the spirit of the BBA has survived and has 
been more effective than previous congressional budget reforms. AIR 21 
could very well end this successful effort. Although not a new ploy, 
off-budget accounting for the Airport and Airway Trust Fund would 
exempt billions of dollars from budgetary restraints at the expense of 
other programs.\5\ By taking the aviation trust fund off budget, 
Congress would risk setting a dangerous precedent. By undermining the 
sense of shared sacrifice that has helped many congressional committees 
to make tough decisions, advocates of other programs could become 
inclined to resist cuts and seek the same or similar privileges and 
protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ The House Transportation Committee attempted to take the 
Highway Trust Fund off budget last year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CONCLUSION

    Although the House voted overwhelmingly to pass AIR 21 (H.R. 1000) 
and to move aviation trust fund spending off budget, the bill's 
prospects in the Senate are uncertain, particularly when considering 
the Senate's record of firm opposition to the sort of budgetary 
gimmicks included in AIR 21. At present, the Senate's version of 
legislation to reauthorize the FAA (S. 82) proposes to spend 
substantially less than AIR 21, and also to leave the trust fund on 
budget and subject to existing spending limits and caps. As such, S. 82 
offers Congress a fiscally responsible choice compared with the 
irresponsible excess of AIR 21.
                                 ______
                                 

   [From the Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum, Feb. 2, 2000]

             Senate Should not Take FAA Spending off Budget

                           (By Ronald D. Utt)

    In 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1000, the 
Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), by a 
veto-proof majority and sent it to the Senate with the expectation that 
the upper chamber would support its unprecedented violation of fiscal 
integrity. Put forth originally by House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster (R-PA), AIR 21 would 
place the Airport and Airway Trust Fund off budget and guarantee 
federal aviation programs minimum funding levels from general federal 
revenues over and above revenues derived from dedicated aviation taxes.
    Strong Senate opposition to AIR 21--led by Senators Pete Domenici 
(R-NM), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Ted Stevens 
(R-AK)--is based on concerns that the bill's proposals are fiscally 
irresponsible and would establish a precedent that other federal 
programs could use to avoid the discipline of the congressional budget 
process. The Senate has passed its own bill, the Air Transportation 
Improvement Act (S. 82), sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), which 
would authorize less spending than AIR 21 and make no change in the 
budgetary status of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 
Achievement of a House-Senate compromise remains elusive, since the 
Senate refuses to accept AIR 21's budget-busting provisions, and 
authorization for FAA's Airport Improvement Programs has expired.
    If AIR 21 were enacted and the aviation trust fund were placed off 
budget, federal aviation spending would be exempt from all 
congressional budget control mechanisms and afforded a level of 
protection now provided only to Social Security. Spending control 
mechanisms that no longer would apply include budget caps established 
by the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997, pay-as-you-go rules, annual 
congressional oversight and review, and other statutory budget 
limitations.
    Advocates of AIR 21 argue that the off-budget privilege would 
prevent the diversion of tax revenues generated by the airline industry 
and its passengers to non-aviation spending, tax relief, or debt 
reduction. But if FAA spending were redefined as off budget, future 
aviation spending could be increased at rates above those permitted for 
such other unprotected programs as national defense, education, and law 
enforcement.
    If AIR 21 were adopted by Congress and signed into law, its 
provisions would mark a major setback in Washington's long struggle to 
control spending, reduce taxes, and pay down the debt. Specifically:
  --Responsible public finance decisionmaking would be more difficult, 
        because one program would be given more protection and 
        privileges than the rest. Moving aviation spending off budget 
        would undermine any remaining notion of fiscal discipline in 
        Congress. Moreover, giving the FAA guaranteed minimum levels of 
        funding out of general revenues would provide it with an 
        added--and costly--privilege.
  --Congressional and presidential oversight of federal programs would 
        be weakened. As Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici 
        has observed, ``Off-budget gimmicks or `firewalls' reduce 
        management and oversight of the FAA by taking trust fund 
        spending out of the budget process. That's a bad idea--we 
        should not place the FAA and the trust fund on permanent 
        autopilot.'' Moving aviation spending off budget would deprive 
        Congress and the President of what little leverage they have to 
        induce the notoriously troubled FAA to achieve higher standards 
        of performance. Diminishing oversight of a federal department 
        that earned a ``high risk'' designation by the U.S. General 
        Accounting Office would be irresponsible.
  --Off-budget protection would diminish opportunities for reform. Once 
        a program is moved off budget, it is no longer subject to 
        annual budget review, appropriations, or periodic 
        authorization. As a result, Congress would have fewer 
        opportunities to review the FAA or encourage it to adopt 
        fundamental reforms that today are sweeping commercial 
        aviation, especially abroad. These include privatization of 
        more than 60 airports in the past three years, outsourcing of 
        various component activities, and privatization-corporatization 
        of the air traffic control systems in Canada and more than a 
        dozen other countries. By locking up the program for five years 
        and placing its funding off budget, AIR 21 would ensure that 
        the earliest reform opportunity could not occur until 2005.
  --The federal budget would be even more misleading than it is today. 
        Removing aviation funding from the budget would understate the 
        size of the federal government by excluding a multibillion-
        dollar program. In fiscal year 1999, off-budget spending 
        amounted to $321 billion; when other non-discretionary 
        (``mandatory'') spending is added to this amount, over 66 
        percent--or $1.2 trillion of the $1.7 trillion in federal 
        outlays--is essentially untouchable in the annual budget 
        process. Programs not lucky enough to warrant ``off budget'' or 
        ``mandatory'' designations, including defense, public health, 
        criminal justice, and education, bear the brunt of any budget 
        restraint necessary to meet overall fiscal objectives.
  --Supporters of other programs would seek similar protection. At 
        present, only Social Security receives off-budget protection in 
        recognition of its extreme political sensitivity and the 
        essential benefits it provides to a large and vulnerable 
        portion of the population. No such significance applies to the 
        FAA's spending programs, the chief beneficiaries of which are 
        for-profit airlines, recreational pilots, and weekend 
        hobbyists. If programs that benefit commercial aviation are 
        placed off budget, other federal programs of potentially 
        greater significance to vulnerable constituencies or the 
        nation's well-being would be likely to demand, and perhaps 
        receive, the same protection.
    Although the House voted overwhelmingly to pass AIR 21 and move 
aviation spending off budget, the bill's prospects are uncertain 
because of the Senate's record of firm opposition to the sort of budget 
gimmicks included in this bill. At present, the Senate-passed 
alternative (S. 82) proposes spending less than AIR 21, offers no 
minimum guarantees from general revenues, and would keep the trust fund 
on budget where it belongs. As such, it offers Washington a fiscally 
responsible alternative to AIR 21's fiscal excess.

    Senator Shelby. In short, the paper makes the points that: 
one, effective oversight would be reduced; reform of the agency 
would be more difficult; and, three, special budget treatment, 
as we all know, is a slippery slope. Special budget treatment 
is a code for reduced accountability and oversight. If the FAA 
were an agency that could be put on autopilot, then 
accountability and oversight might not be so important. But, 
unfortunately, the FAA is an agency with enormous challenges 
that require increased accountability and oversight, as pointed 
out in every study, review, or assessment of the agency in the 
last 20 years, most recently, in the 1997 Coopers & Lybrand 
independent financial assessment. Clearly, changing budget 
treatment is no substitute for responsible policy oversight.
    I would note that a month ago we invited almost all the 
airline CEOs to be here this morning to share their views with 
us on these issues. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, none were 
able to join us today. I think they miss an opportunity to talk 
with two committees of the Senate directly involved in aviation 
spending issues. With all the meetings they have been having 
around the Hill on this issue, I would have thought they would 
have jumped at the opportunity to be here today. I will give 
some of those CEOs another opportunity to testify before my 
Subcommittee on Appropriations later this year about some of 
the issues my constituents have been giving me an earful about. 
Funny to me, my constituents don't seem to care about FAA's 
funding levels or delays as much as they do about the airlines 
living up to commonly expected levels of customer service and 
the implicit promise made by advertised air fare prices.
    Mr. Chairman, I know I have taken too much time, and I 
really am more interested in what the witnesses have to say 
here. Thank you for your indulgence.
    Senator Domenici. Senators, do I understand that it is 
acceptable to everyone that we proceed? I think we ought to 
hear from the witnesses.
    Thank you very much for taking over, Senator Gorton, 
Senator Lautenberg, in my absence.
    Let me just say in addition to the statement which was read 
on my behalf, this is part of our oversight responsibility, 
ongoing oversight that we will do for the next couple of weeks 
in various parts of our government, and it was thought to be 
rather important to get a better understanding of the needs in 
this area because we have not yet resolved the multi-year bill 
for FAA that is in conference. But, in addition, believe it or 
not, we have not resolved how much appropriations money there 
will be available for the entirety of government. We are still 
negotiating and we still have to have meetings on that. And it 
is relevant how much, in addition to any guarantee of trust 
funds which is given in our conference, how much additional 
money might be needed because we don't have a very large pot of 
non-discretionary money to spend on all of government.
    So I hope everybody understands. We don't hold this to 
become technical experts on the subject matter but, rather, the 
broader picture that has been presented in my opening remarks 
and by the distinguished chairman and ranking member.
    Now, the Honorable Jane Garvey, Administrator of the 
Federal Aviation Administration, whomever you have accompanying 
you, they are welcome to speak if you want them to. Their 
presence is noted, and their names. Let me say it has been a 
pleasure to know you for a number of years. I think you have 
taken a challenge here that is very difficult, and to my 
knowledge, thus far, what I know about it, I commend you for 
very, very serious efforts to fix some things that need fixing. 
Would you proceed, please?

                      STATEMENT OF JANE F. GARVEY

    Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a 
pleasure to be here and to be with members of the committee.
    If I could begin by first of all expressing our sympathy to 
the families who experienced really an irreplaceable loss this 
week with Alaska Airline Flight 261, and we are very much aware 
of the ties of Senator Gorton and Chairman Stevens, too, as 
well, to those communities.
    We do have an extraordinary aviation system in this 
country. We serve 600 million passengers a year. But as 
Secretary Slater commented yesterday, in somber moments like 
these, I think it really underscores the importance of the work 
that we do. And I would only add that it also serves to 
encourage us to redouble our commitments to doing absolutely 
the best job that we possibly can. And I know I am speaking 
particularly for the men and women who have joined the NTSB in 
investigating this accident in great detail.
    Mr. Chairman, again, thank you very much for having us here 
today. And if I could--and I will do this as briefly as I 
possibly can, but I would like to try to answer, if I could, 
two fundamental questions this morning. The first is: How are 
we managing, how are we at the FAA managing this enormous 
challenge of modernizing the Air Traffic Control System? And I 
think inherent in that is the question: Are we up to the task?
    Second, I would like to touch on what we see as some of our 
major challenges. First of all, the management approach we are 
taking I think can be summed up in one phrase that I am sure 
many of you have heard by now, and that is, evolution not 
revolution.
    Historically, I think the FAA--and, in fact, government in 
general--takes on projects that are often too massive, too 
ambitious, large, complex projects that never seem to get done. 
So instead of the big bang approach, we are moving 
incrementally, step by step, reducing the potential for cost 
overruns and delays. And we have done this by listening to the 
users of the systems, the airlines who have to use the system, 
and by establishing unprecedented agreements, both with 
industry and with our labor unions. I wanted to underscore that 
because really it is something we will accomplish only if we 
are working together on this issue.
    We think the approach is paying off, and it is paying off 
in three important elements of modernization, again, very 
briefly. First of all, sustaining the system. There are 
thousands of pieces of equipment in the system, and we often 
focus on the very sort of visible projects. But in 1999, for 
example, we replaced over 750 major pieces of equipment in the 
system. We replaced 30-year-old equipment in all of our 
centers, and that is the equipment that is used to manage the 
Air Traffic Control System. HOST was completed and replaced in 
December. DSR will be replaced in all of the centers by May 
2000. We are very happy to say that last week we initiated 
STARS in Syracuse, and El Paso went online 2 or 3 weeks ago.
    So those, again, provide the platforms for the future 
capability. So in terms of sustaining the system, we are doing 
a great deal to replenish the system that is out there. And we 
have done all of this while managing the once-in-a-century 
problem, Y2K.
    The second element of modernization is the whole issue of 
safety enhancements, and that really speaks directly to our 
mission of aviation safety. I think some of the members touched 
on that, the whole issue of weather, and included in our 
modernization effort is a whole series of weather initiatives 
that gives us much more accuracy in producing the weather 
information. Our goal here is to really have in place in all of 
our facilities common weather information, the most state-of-
the-art information. So both in terms of sustaining the system 
and safety enhancements, we are doing it incrementally, and we 
are doing it in a block-by-block fashion.
    The third element for modernization is improving the whole 
system efficiency. Free Flight Phase One really is the 
cornerstone, and I think some of you have heard me speak about 
this before. Again, it could be a very ambitious massive 
project, and what we have said is let's identify a series of 
automation tools which give us increased efficiency and 
increased capability. This has been accomplished. It has been 
accomplished with an unprecedented agreement with industry and 
an unprecedented agreement with our own unions. I am delighted 
to see Bob Baker here, who has been helping us in the whole 
effort with Free Flight.
    We have a very simple, straightforward contract with 
industry. It is, we deploy the technology; and industry helps 
us measure the results. So block by block, step by step, 
incrementally, we are getting modernization done. I think in 
particular, look at some of the investments that Congress--or 
some of the money that Congress has given us in the past 2 
years: HOST, $164 million, and we got it done ahead of 
schedule. I am delighted with that.
    Free Flight is on schedule. We will have those technologies 
deployed to selected sites by the end of 2002, and we are 
moving very aggressively in that area. So the incremental 
approach is important.
    Second, I think there are other ways that we are managing 
differently. Historically, the FAA has taken a stovepipe 
approach to solving problems. We tend to be rather layered and 
hierarchical. The decisionmaking is often diffused in the 
agency. What we are doing now is taking every major initiative, 
organizing it with one point of accountability, and organizing 
it across the lines of business. Y2K I think gives us a great 
model. Free Flight Phase One gives us another model where we 
are pulling these programs together under one point of 
accountability.
    I think another issue that has been very important to us 
and something we have learned well in the last couple of years, 
and that is the importance of human factors. Technology is only 
one part of the challenge. Human factors is another part. 
Getting our controllers and the users involved early on in the 
deployment of these technologies is really key. If you look at 
the Free Flight office or you look at the efforts in STARS 
right now, you will see the controllers working side-by-side 
with the managers. I think that is critical as well.
    Senator Lautenberg spoke of two very, important tools that 
we received from Congress. We are absolutely indebted forever 
for both personnel reform and acquisition reform.
    Personnel reform has already allowed us to streamline the 
recruiting of top people. We have been able to actually recruit 
some people into the agency from industry. I think we would not 
have been able to do that 5 or 10 years ago. We are on the 
right track with personnel reform. We had a terrific pilot 
program last year that really taught us a great deal, and we 
are getting ready to move out on implementing the performance 
based compensation plan for the entire agency in the spring of 
this year.
    Acquisition reform, 50 percent reduction in time, great 
value-added. We are seeing, again, I think some real 
improvements. Now, let me just say that there is more we can 
do. We should be doing more and we are doing more. We have had 
independent reviews from the IG, from Booz Allen, from NAPA. 
All of them have given us some very specific suggestions which 
we are taking and implementing.
    Finally, the issue of cost accounting. In some ways, I 
think that holds the greatest promise for us in the future. We 
are well on our way with cost accounting. I will tell you we 
have had to slow down a bit because of some of the budget 
constraints, but, again, in the area of air traffic control, we 
are well on our way to seeing cost accounting in place.
    Let me just finally mention some of the challenges that we 
have ahead. I think when we look at the large technology, we 
are always going to have issues in managing those large, 
complex projects. I think we need to constantly ask ourselves: 
Have we set the right deadlines? Do we have the right 
milestones? Are we asking the right questions? But we are 
prepared to do that, and I think we are, again, well on the way 
incrementally to getting those projects done.
    I think another great challenge for us is the whole issue 
of delays, and you spoke about that in your testimony, a number 
of you. We are very focused with industry on a Spring-Summer 
Plan that is really going to change the way we approach some of 
the issues of managing the Air Traffic Control, and that in the 
short term is going to give us some very positive benefits. 
Again, that is something we are just about ready to announce, 
we hope by the end of February.
    We will continue to have challenges in personnel reform, in 
acquisition reform, in cost accounting. But the greatest 
challenge is going to be to keep focused on those elements, do 
the best job we can at implementing, and then using those tools 
as flexibly as we possibly can.
    One last word, though, if I could, on reauthorization. From 
our perspective, we see this as one of the great short-term 
challenges. I do want to underscore what Secretary Slater said 
to you, Mr. Chairman, just the other day when he thanked you 
and this committee for your efforts on completing the action on 
the Reauthorization Bill. We are very much aware of some of the 
very difficult issues associated with that bill, particularly 
in the area of funding. We do appreciate your willingness to 
tackle those very tough questions with us.
    The other day I spoke with Don McCarty, the head of 
American Airlines, and he made a statement that has really 
stayed with me. He said that it would be so good to get that 
behind us so that we can continue to focus like a laser on some 
of the issues that really are so challenging to us. I think the 
issue of further reforms is part of that, and we look forward 
to, not only hearing from some of the other witnesses today 
about some of their experiences, but also, we look forward to 
working with this committee in the future on additional reforms 
that we could possibly put in place.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    We do believe that passing the Reauthorization Bill is one 
step in taking the debate and the dialogue to another level, 
and we absolutely look forward to working with members of this 
committee to seeing it through.
    Thank you very much.
    Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
    [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Jane F. Garvey

    Chairmen Domenici, Shelby, and members of the committee and 
subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this 
morning to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration's progress in 
modernizing the National Airspace System (NAS). I am pleased to report 
that in the past 2 years, the FAA's restructured approach for 
modernization has produced promising results--specifically in the 
creation of a manageable short and long-term strategy to modernization 
and in the form of positive responses from our partners in the aviation 
community.
    The FAA is a 24 hour/7 days a week service delivery organization. 
The FAA controls approximately 200,000 takeoffs and landings per day 
and moves over 600 million passengers per year. This latter number is 
expected to reach 1 billion within a decade. Our customers depend on 
the safe and efficient operation of the NAS. Maintaining this system in 
a safe and efficient manner, while providing for the anticipated growth 
in the use of NAS, is the FAA's top priority.
    Our Nation's decade-long economic expansion has produced a 
sustained increase in demand for air traffic control (ATC) services. 
Traffic has grown about 4 percent a year and some locations have seen 
20 percent increases during a year as new flights are added into highly 
competitive airline links. As this economic growth and increase in 
demand for our services continues, increasing pressures will be placed 
on aviation resources.
    The world looks to the FAA for guidance and support not only for 
air traffic control, but for all aviation activities, including 
security and certification. The standards we set will guide 
international aviation for years to come.

                          MANAGING DIFFERENTLY

    Our management approach can be summed up in a phrase that I am sure 
many of you have heard by now: evolution, not revolution. Instead of 
taking a ``big bang'' approach to modernization, we are moving 
incrementally, building upon each step that we have taken, reducing the 
potential for cost overruns and schedule delays. In addition, the FAA 
has established a strong partnership with the aviation industry and 
labor unions. As a result, the FAA has focused resources on areas 
important to industry and has taken steps to coordinate with the 
appropriate labor groups.
    This management approach to NAS modernization is the right one to 
take, given the tight budget constraints in which all Federal agencies 
must operate. As a Federal entity, the FAA must also meet its annual 
performance goals. Our annual performance is also tied to how 
effectively the FAA manages the resources Congress provides. Our NAS 
modernization efforts, built upon incremental steps, is best suited for 
the task of managing the dollars your committees provide to the FAA.
    As I mentioned, the FAA has structured our approach to 
modernization with a particular emphasis on air traffic control 
modernization, the cornerstone of the NAS. We have defined three 
elements to air traffic control modernization: first, sustaining our 
current system and renewing the infrastructure; second, adding safety 
feature, (safety, of course, being the FAA's primary mission); and 
third, improving the system to increase capacity and efficiency.

                            OUR ACHIEVEMENTS

    When it comes to NAS sustainment, I'm sure each member of both 
committees is well aware of our largest and most recent sustainment 
project--Y2K compliance. The FAA had to assess and certify 628 
different systems and programs--a daunting task to say the least. 
Whether you were traveling at 35,000 feet as Senator Gorton and I were 
at year-end, or following worldwide festivities on television, you 
never heard anything alarming or threatening about our transition. It 
was the dedication, time, sufficient funding, and effort of hundreds of 
FAA employees that made our Y2K transition such a success.
    In order to sustain our current systems and renew our aviation 
infrastructure, we have incorporated both major and minor changes to 
the air traffic control system. Thus far, we have installed and 
integrated more than 750 major systems and pieces of equipment into the 
NAS. These efforts to sustain our system produce immediate paybacks. 
For instance, last year the FAA replaced the HOST and oceanic computer 
system equipment used to control air traffic at the 20 en route and 3 
oceanic centers. We are also replacing the associated radar display 
systems at the 20 en route centers, with 12 systems fully operational 
last year.
    Many of our NAS sustainment projects are nearly complete, while 
others are beginning to bear fruit. For example, this coming May we 
will dedicate the last of the Display System Replacements (DSR), 
replacing 30-year old display equipment in the en route centers, and 
completely modernizing controller workstations. DSR provides 
controllers with new hardware and software display systems, and 
provides a platform for future enhancements. We are in the process of 
replacing one system per month, center by center, at all 20 centers.
    In December, I had the pleasure of traveling to El Paso, Texas, to 
see the first use of our new air traffic control automation system in 
the terminal environment with STARS, the Standard Terminal Automation 
Replacement System. STARS is the equivalent of DSR in the terminal 
environment, the most intricate environment in the NAS. Although the 
FAA has faced a number of difficulties with the development of STARS, 
controllers, technicians, and management are working side by side to 
resolve open issues and problems. With the first version of STARS now 
running in both El Paso and in Syracuse, New York, our efforts are 
beginning to pay off in this critical area.
    One of the best examples of how the FAA is managing differently is 
the work of the Human Factors Working Group, a group that grew out of 
our development efforts in STARS. The working group, comprised of 
representatives from the FAA, our labor union leadership, and industry, 
developed a process to identify, monitor, and resolve human factors 
issues throughout the entire acquisition process so that these issues 
do not arise unexpectedly and too late in a program. Since air traffic 
controllers play such a crucial role in the FAA's safety mission, the 
Human Factors Working Group makes sure that they have an early and 
continuing voice in the acquisition of systems that affect the job that 
they are so committed to doing.
    We are also currently testing the Wide Area Augmentation System 
(WAAS). WAAS works with the satellite-based Global Position System 
(GPS). The GPS signal that is available for civil use is accurate but 
requires augmentation for aviation use. The GPS signal by itself does 
not fully satisfy civil aviation navigation requirements. WAAS would 
correct the signal to provide the safety, integrity, and accuracy to 
satisfy civil aviation navigation requirements.
    The FAA and Raytheon's latest testing of WAAS indicates that the 
accuracy of the system exceeds our requirements. However the 
performance to date of the safety monitor function that provides system 
integrity has not yet met requirements. WAAS integrity is an essential 
element in the program. In order to ensure the system meets essential 
safety requirements, the FAA is currently assessing how much work will 
be required.
    Our second element of NAS modernization, adding safety features, is 
an effort that speaks directly to the FAA's primary mission of ensuring 
aviation safety. Our additional safety features include advanced 
weather information systems. These enhancements will provide us with 
more precise, more accurate, and timelier weather information. In our 
modernization blueprint, we have included many weather initiatives, 
such as the Integrated Terminal Weather System and the Weather and 
Radar Processor. These provide increased accuracy in terminal area and 
en route weather information, as well as Terminal Doppler Weather Radar 
for major airports where windshear and microbursts are safety issues.

                         WHAT WE ARE FOCUSED ON

    The third element of modernization, improving the capacity and 
efficiency of the system, means fewer delays, lower costs, and better 
service. The crux of this third element is Free Flight Phase One. Free 
Flight Phase One is the first step to an innovative approach to air 
traffic control, moving from ``control'' to air traffic ``management.'' 
Free Flight Phase One is designed to move the NAS from a centralized 
command-and-control system between pilots and air traffic controllers 
to a distributed system that allows pilots, wherever practical, to 
choose their own route and file a flight plan that follows the most 
efficient and economical route. The overall benefit of these programs 
is to enable our air traffic control system to accommodate the future 
increase in flights and provide more optimum routings for aircraft in 
the Nation's airspace.
    Free Flight Phase One represents an historic point in the FAA's 
history. Under this program, we have reached a consensus with industry 
that is virtually unprecedented: an agreement from all sectors of the 
aviation community. Our agreement with the industry is simple: we 
deploy the systems and the remainder of the community measures the 
results and tells us how they are working. After receiving this 
feedback, we will decide upon our next steps. Maintaining this 
consensus is an enormous challenge for the FAA, particularly in an 
industry where competition is the guiding principle.
    Moreover, Free Flight Phase One is a perfect example of the 
benefits of the FAA's ``evolution, not revolution'' approach to NAS 
modernization. Under this building block approach, we not only reduce 
the risks of cost overruns and schedule delays; we take into account 
the changing nature of emerging technology. The FAA's NAS modernization 
plan is a forward-looking approach that is scheduled to take place over 
the next 15 years. With our new incremental, evolutionary approach, we 
will be able to accommodate changes in technology and incorporate them 
into the NAS in a managed fashion.

                       AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL REFORM

    Finally, I would like to discuss air traffic control reform. At 
this crucial time, when Congress is in conference on important FAA 
reauthorization legislation, I would like to emphasize the 
Administration's commitment to meaningful and necessary air traffic 
control reform, a much needed long term solution. Fundamental reform of 
air traffic control has been an Administration priority for 6 years. 
The goal is to make our air traffic control system as efficient as it 
is safe, a goal we share with this committee. Through the expanded 
capacity that greater efficiency would provide, we can reduce delays, 
better serve under-served communities, and accommodate the enormous 
growth projected for this vibrant industry.
    Although the Administration has proposed different organizational 
structures at different times, our three principles for ATC reform--
business-like management, cost-based pricing, and budget reform--have 
remained the same. They have been endorsed by three blue-ribbon 
commissions; most recently the 1997 congressionally mandated National 
Civil Aviation Review Commission (NCARC). Both the House and the Senate 
recognize the importance of reform to the future of air traffic 
control, and both have some elements of reform in FAA reauthorization 
legislation that is now in conference. The Administration wants to be 
part of the dialogue on the important issue of reform. We believe our 
three principles provide the basis for sound, responsible, achievable 
reform.
    First, the FAA needs to be able to operate the air traffic control 
system more like a business. The Administration is fully supportive of 
the NCARC recommendation that FAA management must become performance 
based. Congress has already given us key elements of management reform 
in the form of streamlined personnel and procurement authority. A key 
reform still needed is the establishment of a chief operating officer 
(COO) whose salary and tenure are linked to concrete performance 
measures. We recognize and appreciate that both the House and Senate 
bills would create a COO.
    Second, the FAA's ATC revenue stream must become cost-based. The 
Administration believes that Congress should replace the current 
financing mechanism, an excise tax on airline passengers, with a system 
in which the actual commercial users of air traffic control services 
pay for them based on the cost of those services. (Like NCARC, the 
Administration agrees that general aviation should continue to pay a 
fuel tax.) As stated in the NCARC report, ``A cost-based system of 
charges will change the way the government, as the provider of ATC 
services, and the aviation industry, as the user of ATC services, 
develop their respective policy and management decisions. Using such a 
system, in and of itself, will bring about a very significant 
management improvement.'' In other words, cost-based pricing is 
necessary to drive management reform.
    Third, in exchange for pricing reform, Congress should ensure that 
the resulting cost-based revenue from air traffic control users is 
spent exclusively on air traffic control. Such a guarantee will make it 
easier for the FAA and its customers to meet operational and capital 
spending needs for ATC.
    Air travel is a critical engine of economic growth, whether it is 
the leisure travelers who fuel tourism or the many business travelers 
who depend on reliable, convenient air service. If we do not reform ATC 
to enable it to accommodate the anticipated growth of air travel, we 
will be making a fundamental decision to limit our Nation's economic 
growth during the 21st century.

                                SUMMARY

    As for our next steps in modernization, we are currently exploring 
several possibilities. Here, we strive to strike the right balance 
between looking towards the future and not biting off more than we 
can--or should--chew. As we modernize the NAS, we continue to 
anticipate future needs, assessing how viable various options are.
    FAA's future actions must be to look at improving our management 
tools. Our initiatives in cost accounting, personnel and acquisition 
reform, and our strong partnership with industry will enable us to 
effectively manage our current resources and future demands placed on 
the NAS.
    The challenge facing the FAA is to finance the capital investments 
that will allow the agency to make key safety improvements, keep up 
with growing air travel demand, and improve efficiency of aircraft 
operations. This requires a level of funding that will allow new 
initiatives as well as provide stable funding for existing projects. 
The FAA currently makes choices among several valuable projects, all of 
which can provide significant benefits to aviation.
    Making choices is not unique to the FAA, but the aviation industry 
senses that valuable new initiatives are vital to improving aviation 
efficiency. We are working to address these in the fiscal year 2001 
budget, while sustaining the levels of capital investment sufficient to 
make solid progress towards modernizing the NAS.
    Modernization and maintenance of the NAS is a significant challenge 
for the FAA. Congress has supported the FAA in its efforts toward 
modernization and reform, and I look forward to continuing that working 
relationship with you, Mr. Chairmen, and the members of both 
committees.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. 
That concludes my prepared remarks and I would be pleased to answer any 
questions you may have.

    Senator Domenici. Senators I received a note from Senator 
Grassley that he is on a very short time frame. He would like 
to make a brief opening statement.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES E. GRASSLEY

    Senator Grassley. Yes; It will be very brief. The reason I 
am doing it, for the benefit of my colleagues, is because I 
have a constituent before the Finance Committee at 11 o'clock. 
This statement is in regard to the funding for the FAA.
    I sent you a letter, Mr. Chairman, that asked that minimum 
funding be made available to meet the President's fiscal year 
2001 FAA budget request. Maximum funding for the amount fully 
authorized by law would be the ideal that I support.
    I should further explain that I do not include in my 
request any of the reported fees that the President may be 
asking for in his budget request. To the extent necessary, FAA 
funding should come from the general fund.
    All of this should be done through the regular budget and 
appropriations process. There should not be a firewall or other 
mechanisms to segregate these funds. I believe that this 
request is within the position which you, Mr. Chairman, have so 
clearly stated many times of late, and I hope it will be 
possible for you to accommodate the request.
    My letter states satisfactory resolution of air 
transportation problems will take more than increased Federal 
funding. I agree with what Senator Shelby has said in his 
statement today. I believe that these efforts will take more 
than a massive infusion of public funds. It will take 
structural and cultural changes within the agency. I will note 
that the FAA has received increased Federal funds in the past, 
and there is some question as to how wisely those funds have 
been spent.
    I thank all my colleagues for accommodating me.
    Senator Domenici. I wanted to thank you for your comments 
and thank you for the support for the position we have taken in 
conference, which is precisely what you have said. And you are 
aware of what has been offered, and you are aware of what hangs 
us up. And I don't know when it will be completed, but we 
surely want to finish it. And you are urging us to finish it, 
but obviously you are urging us to finish it on the grounds 
that you consider sensible. And I thank you for them, and they 
will be used by me. When people ask about what other Senators 
think, I will be able to quote someone that knows precisely the 
problem, as you have stated.
    Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Domenici. Let's now move to the Inspector General, 
the Honorable Ken Mead, Department of Transportation.

                      STATEMENT OF KENNETH M. MEAD

    Mr. Mead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express our 
appreciation for your having this hearing today. I think the 
hearing is a statement not just about the need for adequate 
investment, which we all want in our aviation system. This 
hearing is also about accountability and oversight for money 
the FAA already receives, as well as any plus-ups that may come 
along.
    I think it is important to outline the context here. FAA 
oversees the largest, busiest, safest air transportation system 
in the world. Until Monday night, we had a remarkable safety 
record going for 2 years. I think that was a real credit to FAA 
and the airlines as well.
    I would like to focus, though, on three issues: 
restructuring the FAA, progress with acquisition and personnel 
reforms, and a word or two about FAA financing. All of these 
issues were mentioned in the committee's invite letter.
    On restructuring, there are a number of proposals being 
discussed that suggest FAA ought to operate more like a 
business. Some of these proposals suggest a corporation and 
some suggest privatization. There is a variety.
    I want to make clear that I don't envision any 
circumstances where DOT's role in safety oversight ought to be 
transferred outside of the Federal government. I think it ought 
to be taken off the table. Further any proposal to restructure 
FAA or have air traffic control spun off and run by a 
commercial type of organization ought to be carefully examined.
    I think the experiences of other countries that have done 
this are instructive, such as NAV Canada. But it is difficult 
to use them as a conclusive frame of reference because our air 
traffic control system is so much larger, more diverse, and 
more complex. Just a number as a point of reference here. The 
United States handled nearly 44 million aircraft in the en 
route environment in 1998, and that is compared to about 5 
million for Canada. This doesn't mean that we should avoid 
inquiry into new ways of doing business and how to be more 
efficient and effective.
    Now, if the Congress should choose to make major changes to 
FAA's structure or commercialize air traffic control services, 
I urge great caution. We already have a safe system, despite 
all the bumps, warts, needs for improvement, and so forth. And 
I don't think there is any substitute for firsthand experience 
in a limited air traffic control environment.
    Before you consider expansive changes or wholesale changes 
to our entire system, the oceanic air traffic control 
environment might provide an area that could be explored in 
that regard. While exploring oceanic air traffic control would 
be very cautious and conservative approach, it would give us 
all a much surer footing on which to proceed in the future.
    Why oceanic? There are a number of reasons. Oceanic 
services are operationally distinct from domestic air traffic 
control. The oceanic environment is a growth market in need of 
modernization. The United States is behind, and changes in this 
area would affect only 300 of FAA's 15,000 controllers. Also it 
would have very limited impact on most airports, small 
carriers, general aviation, and air taxis. I am not making a 
recommendation here, but just putting on the table an issue 
that the Congress may wish to explore.
    I would like to make some comments on acquisition and 
personnel reform. It was in late 1995 that Congress provided 
the FAA with the tools to operate in a more businesslike 
manner. Essentially, Congress exempted FAA from the procurement 
and personnel rules. There has been some progress--I don't want 
to deny that at all--but there has been limited impact on 
bottom-line results.
    To its credit, FAA has adopted a ``build a little, test a 
little'' approach to some acquisitions and has made progress in 
reducing the time to award contracts and the time to amend 
contracts. And some systems have been deployed on time. At the 
same time, however, problems persist with technologically 
challenging systems like STARS, which would replace computers 
in the terminal environment, a system called WAAS, which 
pertains to satellite navigation, and AMASS, which would help 
prevent runway incursions, which is a very important area of 
safety risk. These systems have a cumulative value of over $4 
billion, and they are experiencing severe cost and schedule 
problems.
    The problems with these acquisitions, Mr. Chairman, are 
unambiguously not related to a lack of funding or the result of 
burdensome procurement or personnel rules. The common thread of 
the problems with these acquisitions are problems in developing 
software-intensive computer systems and addressing human-
computer interface issues.
    In the case of STARS that I mentioned, the human factor 
issues were identified much too late in the process. So, 
regardless of the amount of money that FAA gets, the agency 
needs to do more to protect the government's investment, make 
contractors more accountable, and address human factor issues 
earlier in the development process. It is very costly to 
address human factors at the 11th hour and doing so can lead to 
major design changes. I believe the Administration is moving to 
address this problem.
    Personnel reform. FAA has had some success with personnel 
reform, but by far the most visible result of personnel reform 
has been the new compensation agreement with the controllers. 
This agreement has markedly improved relationships between FAA 
management and the union, the controllers. But it comes at a 
price. The new agreement will require nearly $1 billion in 
additional funding over the life of the agreement, and it has 
led to sharp increases in the agency's operations costs.
    What I want to illustrate with this chart--and it is also 
in the testimony--is that for fiscal years 1998 through 2004 
there has been sharp increases in the agency's cost of 
operations, which are principally salaries. Operations is the 
blue line. As you can see, the cost of operations constrains 
the dollars available for modernization, which is the yellow 
line, and dollars for airports, which is the green line.


    It is a fact, Mr. Chairman, that the United States invested 
more in fiscal year 1992 in modernization than it will in 
fiscal year 2000. But it is also true that at the same time 
operations costs increased about 40 percent, from $4 billion to 
$6 billion.
    Finally, on financing FAA, I know there are various 
proposals, but they all have one common thread: to increase the 
amount of funds available to the agency.
    This other chart shows the FAA budget by program for fiscal 
years 1988, 1994, 2000 and 2001. While FAA's overall budget has 
grown, funding for airports and capital improvements have 
remained relatively steady. Because operations costs have 
increased, FAA faces significant risk in meeting its operation 
costs without crowding out capital investments.


    I also want to point out that on the trust fund issue, the 
actual receipts received by that trust fund from taxes aren't 
enough to finance all of FAA. It is about $700 million short. 
That doesn't include the interest earned.
    I would like to close with a word about FAA's cost 
accounting system. The cost accounting system was first 
required of FAA in 1996. It had been talked about for many 
years before. A cost accounting system would help the agency 
keep track of its costs. Most businesses would go into 
bankruptcy if they didn't have one. FAA recently deferred its 
implementation date for a cost accounting system to 2002. I 
think that decision ought to be reversed, and it ought to be 
done sooner rather than later. If you can't track where your 
money is going, like in your checkbook, how much money you are 
getting, and what you are spending it for, it is very difficult 
to make a persuasive case as to where you place additional 
investment and what you are going to get out of that 
investment.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    So I would urge the FAA and the Department to get on with 
that cost accounting system, and I think that would put them in 
a better position to frame the case for additional investment.
    That concludes my statement.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Kenneth M. Mead

    MODERNIZING THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: CHALLENGES AND 
                               SOLUTIONS

    Mr. Chairmen and members of the full committee and subcommittee: We 
appreciate the opportunity to discuss ``Modernizing the Federal 
Aviation Administration: Challenges and Solutions.''
    FAA oversees the largest, busiest and safest air transportation 
system in the world. FAA also is responsible for operating air traffic 
control, which is the nerve center of the Nation's air transportation 
system. Until Monday night, the safety record for the last 2 years was 
remarkable. This is a credit to FAA and all segments of the aviation 
community. At the same time, FAA and the aviation community are facing 
a number of challenges. The demand for air travel has doubled since 
1980 and is expected to continue to grow through 2015. Unfortunately, 
with the growth in demand has come growth in delays, and consumer 
dissatisfaction with airline service is high. In the last 5 years, 
delays have increased by over 50 percent.
    Against this backdrop, FAA's air traffic control modernization 
efforts and airport capacity have not kept pace with the demand for air 
travel. These are legitimate concerns and they are not new. 
Congressional hearings dating back to the mid-1980's focused on the 
same subjects. As there were then, there are now proposals to 
restructure FAA's air traffic functions to perform more like a 
commercial business and to provide additional funding for air traffic 
control modernization and airport improvement programs.
    Today, I would like to make three points.
    First, there is no air traffic system in the world as large and 
complex as that of the United States. It is safe, but actions are 
needed to make it more efficient. Any proposal to restructure FAA or 
have air traffic control run by a commercial type organization must be 
carefully examined. Furthermore, the oversight of aviation safety 
should not be transferred outside the Department of Transportation. 
This is an inherently governmental function for which the traveling 
public deserves the highest level of independent scrutiny and 
assurances.
    If the Congress should choose to make any major changes to FAA's 
structure or commercialize air traffic control services, we would urge 
great caution. Having first-hand experience in a limited air traffic 
control environment is essential before any expansive changes are 
considered. FAA's oceanic air traffic control could provide this 
experience. Oceanic services are operationally distinct from domestic 
services and there would be limited impact on small carriers, general 
aviation, and air taxis. It is an area where the United States could 
solicit lessons learned from other countries that have already taken 
steps to commercialize air traffic control operations.
    Second, Congress has already provided FAA with the tools necessary 
to modernize the National Airspace System and obtain the necessary 
skills to operate effectively.
    In 1995, Congress exempted FAA from Federal procurement and 
personnel rules. After 4 years, there has been some progress, but 
overall, these reforms have had limited impact on bottom line results.
    To its credit, FAA has adopted a ``build a little, test a little'' 
approach to its acquisitions and has made progress in reducing the time 
to award contracts under acquisition reform. In addition, FAA has 
deployed systems such as the Display System Replacement (new color 
displays for en route controllers) on time and within budget. However, 
cost and schedule problems persist with key modernization projects, 
such as efforts to install new computer systems in the terminal 
environment and move toward satellite-based navigation.
    FAA has also had some success with personnel reform in that 
managers have been able to hire qualified candidates faster than under 
the Federal Personnel System. By far, however, the most visible result 
of personnel reform to date has been the new compensation agreement 
with its controllers, which has improved management-labor relations. 
However, this agreement also has led to sharp increases in the agency's 
operations costs, principally salaries, which now constrain funding for 
air traffic control modernization and airport development. It is a fact 
that the United States invested more in fiscal year 1992 in 
modernization than it will in fiscal year 2000. But at the same time, 
operations costs increased almost 40 percent from $4.4 billion to an 
estimated $6.0 billion.
    Exemptions from Federal rules may facilitate success, but 
management accountability, strong contractor oversight, effective cost 
controls, and a sound cost accounting system are the essential 
ingredients to modernize and effectively manage the air traffic control 
system.
    Finally, several proposals have surfaced over the past year to 
finance FAA, all of which had one common thread--to increase the amount 
of funds available for FAA operations and air traffic control 
modernization efforts. Based on FAA's estimates, by 2004 its total 
budget requirements will be over $12 billion or 20 percent greater than 
in fiscal year 2000. FAA faces significant risks in meeting its 
operations costs (primarily salaries) without crowding out capital 
investments. The means for financing these requirements is a major 
issue that the Department, Congress, and aviation users continue to 
debate.
    There are investment opportunities that will significantly decrease 
airline costs, provide better and safer service to the flying public, 
and reduce FAA's operating costs. These include data link 
communications, collaborative decision-making systems, and efforts to 
reduce runway incursions, a major area of safety risk, but additional 
funding alone will not get the desired results. For example, FAA must 
control its operating costs, do a better job of negotiating contracts 
for large software-intensive efforts that include appropriate measures 
to withhold payments if progress is not satisfactory, and implement a 
sound cost accounting system.
    FAA originally planned for its cost accounting system to be fully 
implemented by October 1, 1998, but has yet to implement the system. 
FAA recently delayed the completion schedule until some time in fiscal 
year 2002 because of Operations funding constraints. This decision 
should be reversed. FAA needs a reliable cost accounting system sooner, 
not later. Any business that fails to track and control its costs would 
most likely go into bankruptcy.
    In addition to implementing a cost accounting system, FAA needs to 
develop a strategic business plan--a key tool for any successful 
business. The plan should provide key corporate strategies and 
operating plans over the next several years, and describe the timing 
and impact of those strategies. The plan should outline agency 
strategies for investing in future technologies, as well as how the 
agency will control the rising costs of operations and bring about 
productivity enhancements.

                           RESTRUCTURING FAA

    There are a number of proposals under discussion regarding 
restructuring FAA to operate and perform more like a business. However, 
we want to make clear that there are no circumstances we can envision 
in which the Department of Transportation's role in oversight of 
aviation safety should be transferred outside the Federal Government. 
Safety oversight is an inherently governmental function for which the 
citizens of the country expect and deserve the highest level of 
independent scrutiny and assurances. But this does not mean we should 
not try to find ways to deliver air traffic control services and 
implement new technologies more efficiently and effectively. However, 
in light of the size, complexity, and safety record of FAA, any 
proposal to restructure or have air traffic control run by a commercial 
type organization must be very carefully examined.
    There are primarily three concerns with proposals that would spin 
off air traffic control (ATC), air traffic controllers, and ATC 
infrastructure development and investment to a commercial enterprise, 
while simultaneously retaining safety oversight within FAA. These 
concerns include: (1) how a commercial enterprise would balance safety 
against costs and ensure that decisions come down on the side of 
safety; (2) whether a commercial enterprise would have the incentive to 
initiate research and development in cutting-edge technologies; and (3) 
whether a commercial operation could adequately protect and respond to 
the needs of all stakeholders, including passengers, in our diverse 
aviation system. FAA's stakeholders include over 194,000 general 
aviation aircraft, more than 5,000 public use airports, and over 12,000 
small carriers and air taxis.
    Numerous other countries, including Canada, Germany, Australia, and 
New Zealand, have assigned their ATC System, once provided by 
government to entities having administrative and often financial 
autonomy. Canada transferred its civil air navigation services to NAV 
Canada in November 1996, and some have cited it as a role model for FAA 
to follow. We greatly appreciate the information NAV Canada has shared 
with us on their experiences in commercializing air traffic services. 
The experiences of NAV Canada and other countries are instructive, but 
it is difficult to use their experiences as a conclusive point of 
reference because our air traffic control system is so much larger, 
diverse, and complex. Several differences are shown on the following 
chart. 


    In the area of research and development, NAV Canada officials told 
us that they avoid large research and development initiatives in favor 
of acquisitions that can return their investment in a shorter period of 
time. NAV Canada is relying on FAA for key emerging technologies, 
including satellite-based navigation systems and a new automated 
controller tool called the Center TRACON Automation System that 
provides controllers with sequences for landing aircraft.
    Although relatively small in comparison to FAA, NAV Canada has made 
progress in developing new technologies for oceanic air traffic and 
eliminating the use of paper flight strips for controlling aircraft at 
some domestic facilities. NAV Canada's oceanic development efforts 
include aircraft surveillance and data link communications that are 
planned to be in use this fall. A similar effort for oceanic air 
traffic control in the United States--the Oceanic System Development 
and Support contract--was significantly reduced, largely due to 
technical and contractor performance issues, not a lack of funding. 
With regard to paper flight strips, FAA was unable to eliminate them in 
its domestic airspace because of controller concerns.
    Because there is no frame of reference or experience base 
comparable to our ATC System that we can rely on for guidance, we urge 
great caution before proposing a major restructuring of what is already 
a very safe system, but a system also in need of improvement. In our 
opinion, the first course of action would be to implement a sound cost 
accounting system and effectively utilize the procurement and personnel 
reforms Congress has already given FAA. Second, if Congress decides to 
move toward commercialization, it must be done gradually in order to 
gain first-hand experience, and in a limited ATC environment, such as 
oceanic air traffic control in the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. The 
traffic load and mix handled by the United States oceanic environment 
is comparable in some important respects to that handled by some 
commercialized ATC enterprises, such as NAV Canada and Airservices 
Australia.
    By proceeding in this manner, Congress and the aviation community 
would be able to judge what works well and what does not, identify 
refinements that need to be made, and assess whether a commercialized 
ATC organization should or should not be considered for broader 
application in the United States.
Oceanic Air Traffic Control
    The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) delegated to 
the United States responsibility for providing ATC services in over 80 
percent of the world's controlled oceanic airspace. There are labor, 
governance, financing, and transition issues that would have to be 
addressed if our oceanic ATC were to be operated by a commercial 
organization, but these issues are easier to resolve because the 
oceanic ATC environment is limited in scope. The commercialization of 
oceanic ATC would not be free from controversy; however, the issues 
involved are not nearly as complex or contentious as would be the case 
in the domestic ATC environment.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

            Attributes of FAA's Oceanic Air Traffic Control

    Mostly affects the large carriers who are suggesting 
commericalizing or privatizing ATC.
    Operationally distinct from domestic ATC services.
    Major ATC modernization and avionics standardization 
opportunities--FAA's schedules have slipped, modernization solution is 
not settled, and financing decisions have not been made.
    Oceanic ATC operations projected to increase 5.4 percent annually.
    Greater acceptance of user fees--Congress has already approved the 
collection of overflight fees, and other countries already collect fees 
for oceanic services.
    Limited impact on controllers and labor agreements--only 300 of 
FAA's 14,900 controllers provide oceanic services.
    Little impact on private (non-business) general aviation, small 
carriers, regional airlines, and air taxis.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

                   ACQUISITION AND PERSONNEL REFORMS

    In October 1995, Congress exempted FAA from the Federal procurement 
and personnel rules that FAA said hindered its ability to effectively 
modernize the Air Traffic System and acquire the staff and skills it 
needed to operate effectively. After 4 years, there has been some 
progress and FAA learned valuable lessons from its experience with the 
Advanced Automation System (the centerpiece of FAA modernization 
efforts in the late 1980's and early 1990's), but overall, these 
reforms have had limited impact on bottom line results.
    At about the time these reforms were enacted, the Office of 
Inspector General, the General Accounting Office and others cautioned 
that neither procurement and personnel rules nor lack of funding were 
the source of the problems FAA was experiencing with its ATC 
modernization initiatives. Exemptions from Federal rules may facilitate 
success, but exemptions and additional funding are not substitutes for 
strong management including oversight of contractors, effective cost 
controls, and a sound cost accounting system. We find that FAA still 
has much work to do in these management areas, so we reiterate these 
cautionary notes today.
Acquisition Reform
    The driving forces behind granting FAA relief from acquisition 
rules and regulations were escalating costs and schedule slips with 
FAA's air traffic control modernization efforts. Between 1992 and 1994 
alone, the overall estimated costs of the modernization effort 
increased annually by about $1.2 billion due in large part to problems 
with key projects. For example, the expected cost of FAA's Advanced 
Automation System (AAS) had increased from $4.8 billion to over $7 
billion with key segments behind schedule by more than 8 years. Of the 
$2.6 billion spent on AAS before it was restructured in 1994, about 
$1.5 billion could not be salvaged for use in other modernization 
projects.
    Since the advent of acquisition reform, problems with major 
acquisitions have been less severe, but major benefits have yet to be 
realized. To its credit FAA has adopted a ``build a little, test a 
little'' approach to its acquisitions and has made progress in reducing 
the time to award contracts. FAA has deployed systems, such as the 
Display System Replacement (new en route controller displays) and the 
HOST (computers that receive, process, and track aircraft movement 
throughout the domestic en route and oceanic airspace), on time and 
within budget. Also, long-range surveillance radars, as well as 
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar that detects hazardous weather around 
airports, have been fielded. In the past these systems experienced 
significant cost and schedule problems.
    However, problems persist with technologically challenging systems, 
such as the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), Standard Terminal 
Automation Replacement System (STARS), and Airport Movement Area Safety 
System (AMASS). WAAS is a satellite-based navigation system; STARS is a 
replacement that will provide new color displays, processors, and 
computer software for terminal facilities; and AMASS is a key safety 
technology designed to help controllers prevent accidents on airport 
runways. These three systems alone have cumulative program costs of 
over $4 billion, and are experiencing cost and schedule difficulties.


    The problems with these acquisitions are not the result of a lack 
of funding or the result of burdensome procurement and personnel rules. 
What all these systems have in common are difficulties with software 
development and human factors. For example, WAAS has experienced 
development difficulty in a critical software safety package that, 
among other things, determines the effects of the ionosphere on the 
WAAS signal and the validity of the WAAS message. The STARS schedule 
has been impacted by the software development needed to resolve 
computer-human interface issues and other new requirements. As a result 
of these problems, schedules have proven to be unrealistic and costs 
have increased.
    FAA has taken steps to address problems with WAAS, STARS, and AMASS 
but only after major problems have surfaced. FAA can do more to protect 
the Government, make contractors more accountable, and address human 
factors issues earlier in the development and acquisition processes.
    Our recent work on Free Flight Phase I--an initiative to introduce 
new automated controller tools and new information systems for FAA and 
airlines--shows the need to enhance contractor accountability and 
institute cost control mechanisms for software-intensive contracts. For 
example, two contracts for a software-intensive controller tool are 
time and material contracts. With these types of contracts, there is 
little positive incentive for cost control or labor efficiency--all 
risk is with the Government. FAA should negotiate contracts for 
software development with appropriate measures (cost ceilings, 
incentives, and earned value management techniques \1\) as well as 
methods for withholding payment if progress is not satisfactory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Earned Value Management is a widely recognized way to measure 
technical progress with large scale, software intensive acquisitions. 
This management tool forecasts how much a program will cost and when it 
will be delivered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, FAA needs to identify and resolve human factors 
concerns early in the acquisition process to avoid cost overruns and 
schedule delays. The need for human factors work extends beyond the 
traditional computer-human interface issues for FAA systems, such as 
STARS, and has important safety and workforce implications. Key issues 
that require FAA's attention include the impacts on the selection and 
training of controllers as a result of new automated controller tools 
as well as the impacts on pilots from new data link communications and 
cockpit display technologies.
    Key emerging technologies, such as data link communications for 
controllers and pilots, new automated controller tools, and new cockpit 
display technologies have far-reaching human factors implications. In 
addition to resolving these issues, a key management issue for FAA is 
to know when ``enough is enough'' with respect to human factors. FAA 
cannot satisfy everyone, and exit criteria is needed to make the tough 
decisions. In our opinion, without exit criteria, FAA's costs to 
resolve human factors issues in the STARS Program will continue to 
increase.
    In fairness to FAA, we must recognize that the development of new 
technologies, particularly those involving complex software and new 
aircraft avionics, involve research and development risks for which the 
United States bears much of the cost. Many of the firms developing 
these systems for FAA rank among the most technologically sophisticated 
in the world. Once developed, this technology is considered ``off the 
shelf'' and can be sold at a fraction of the costs to other ATC 
providers.
Personnel Reform
    Personnel reform was designed to provide greater flexibility in 
hiring, training, compensating, and placing employees. FAA has had some 
success in that managers have been able to hire qualified candidates 
faster than they could under the Federal Personnel System. But, by far, 
the most visible result of personnel reform to date is a 5-year 
collective bargaining and compensation agreement reached with the 
controllers in 1998.
    This agreement has markedly improved management-labor relations 
with the controllers, contains assurances of productivity gains in the 
future, and establishes a ceiling of 15,000 air traffic controllers. 
However, the price tag for this agreement is large, resulting in a 
sharp increase in the agency's costs of operations. FAA now faces 
significant risks in funding the new controller pay system while, at 
the same time, meeting other critical agency requirements funded by the 
Operations Account, such as hiring safety inspectors and developing a 
cost accounting system. These risks are compounded as FAA negotiates 
new wage agreements with its other workforces, such as maintenance 
technicians, who want similar treatment.
    The costs associated with the new system are consequential from 
several points of view--the impact on a controller's wages; continued 
increases in the portion of the agency's total budget that goes to the 
Operations Account, comprised mostly of salaries; and the effects of 
the agreement on FAA's capacity to increase investment in ATC 
modernization.
    First, to illustrate the effect on an individual controller's 
wages, we looked at controller compensation before and after the 
agreement. Prior to October 1, 1998, the effective date of the new 
compensation package, air traffic controllers in the busiest facilities 
earned a base salary of up to $86,000. With the new compensation 
system, these controllers received a pay increase as high as 20 percent 
in base pay distributed over 3 years plus the annual Government cost of 
living increases. Currently, those air traffic controllers assigned to 
FAA's busiest air traffic facilities can earn about $111,000 before any 
premium pay is earned. When premium pay such as holiday, locality, and 
overtime are added, some of these controllers earn over $142,000 
annually. By October of this year, they will earn over $147,000.
    FAA estimates that its new compensation system will require nearly 
$1 billion in additional funding over the 5-year life of the new 
agreement. This additional cost takes into account anticipated savings 
from a gradual reduction in the number of air traffic supervisors.
    Second, to illustrate the effect of the agreement on operations 
costs and capital investments in modernization, it is important to 
recognize that FAA's operations costs have been rising since 1992, with 
significant increases in the last 3 years. In fact, the United States 
invested more in fiscal year 1992 in modernization than it did in 
fiscal year 2000 ($2.4 billion in 1992 vs. $2.1 billion in 2000). But 
at the same time, the United States spent $4.4 billion on operations 
(mostly salaries) in fiscal year 1992, compared to an estimated $6.0 
billion in fiscal year 2000. This trend shows no sign of abating.
    The chart below illustrates increases in the cost of FAA 
operations, principally salaries, and the increasing disparity between 
the cost of operations (blue line) and the dollars available for 
modernization (yellow line). The chart shows why the increasing costs 
of FAA's operations must be contained.


    FAA believes this problem will be partially mitigated by offsetting 
productivity gains, such as freezing the staffing level of 15,000 air 
traffic controllers for 3 years, eliminating 4-day work weeks at 24-
hour facilities, and the performance of collateral duties by air 
traffic controllers. However, over a year after signing the agreement 
FAA is still trying to identify and quantify productivity gains.
    Last year, we recommended that FAA project the productivity offsets 
over the life of the agreement to better manage its future funding 
requirements. FAA did not agree, stating that a 5-year estimate would 
be speculative at best, relying too much on estimates regarding future 
aviation activity. In our opinion, it is not unreasonable to expect FAA 
to anticipate and plan for the costs associated with multi-year 
commitments. FAA needs to forecast and monitor projected revenues, 
savings, and productivity gains.

                             FINANCING FAA

    Several proposals have surfaced over the past several years to 
finance FAA, all of which had one common thread--to increase the amount 
of funds available for FAA operations and air traffic control 
modernization efforts. While there are investment opportunities, 
additional funding alone will not improve FAA. There is a need for 
strong management controls, greater risk sharing with contractors, and 
a cost accounting system.
    FAA's budget has increased nearly 73 percent from fiscal year 1988 
to fiscal year 2000. Based on FAA's estimates, by 2004 its total budget 
requirements will be over $12 billion or 20 percent greater than fiscal 
year 2000. The means for financing these requirements is a major issue 
that the Department, Congress, and aviation users continue to debate.


    FAA faces significant risks in meeting its operations cost 
increases without crowding out capital investments. As shown in the 
above chart, growth in the operations portion of FAA's total budget has 
constrained the funding available for modernization and airports. This 
occurs in an environment in which FAA's overall budget has continued to 
increase. Congress will need assurances that any additional funding for 
FAA will actually translate into capital investment and not be absorbed 
by FAA's operations.
    For fiscal year 2000, FAA was financed entirely from the Aviation 
Trust Fund. However, this is only a short-term measure because FAA's 
projected expenditures exceed revenues generated through excise taxes. 
For example, this year, projected expenditures exceed revenue from 
taxes by over $700 million--this does not include interest earned.
    Alternative methods or a mix of methods will therefore be needed to 
meet all of FAA's requirements. Suggestions include raising aviation 
taxes so that the trust fund receives an adequate infusion of receipts 
to cover the aviation budget; establishing user fees--an approach 
proposed by the Administration; tapping the general fund, which relies 
largely on Federal income taxes; and creating a general fund 
entitlement for FAA.
    The method of financing FAA and the level of increased funding is a 
policy matter that ultimately is a judgment for the Congress. There are 
investment opportunities with data link communications, collaborative 
decision-making systems, and efforts to reduce runway incursions. It 
would be a disappointment for all if additional funds went to cover 
cost growth in existing acquisitions or if capital investments could 
not be made because they were crowded out by the increasing costs of 
salaries and related expenses. FAA should address three key fiscal 
issues in managing its current budget as well as any increases it may 
receive.
    First, FAA's operations costs must be contained.--FAA's budget 
requirements continue to increase largely due to the rising costs in 
FAA's Operations Account. This account represents 60 percent of FAA's 
fiscal year 2000 budget and is expected to grow to nearly $7.6 billion 
or about 62 percent of FAA's budget by fiscal year 2004.
    Second, risks with FAA's modernization efforts need to be shared.--
Contractors share risks with FAA but more can be done, particularly 
with software intensive acquisitions. This becomes increasingly 
important as FAA moves forward with several major software-intensive 
acquisitions, such as WAAS and Free Flight Phase 1 automated controller 
tools. As we noted earlier, FAA should negotiate contracts with 
appropriate controls to require contractors to share risks as well as 
provisions for withholding payments if progress is not satisfactory.
    Third, a reliable cost accounting system must be in place.--FAA 
needs a cost accounting system to make sound financial and managerial 
decisions and support user fees. A cost accounting system helps an 
organization to accurately track and control its costs, which results 
in better decisions. However, the basic financial data have to be 
accurate and reliable. In past years, FAA's financial data were not 
reliable, which is why we have been unable to render a ``clean'' audit 
opinion on its financial statements. During fiscal year 1999, FAA made 
an extraordinary and labor-intensive effort to produce better financial 
data. We are currently auditing these data.
    FAA is making progress in the development of its cost accounting 
system. FAA is currently developing the costs for providing its Oceanic 
and En Route services. FAA also intends to develop user fees, using its 
cost accounting system, to charge customers for the various services it 
provides. For example, FAA is currently developing user fees for 
flights that fly over the United States, but do not take off or land in 
the United States.
    FAA originally planned for its cost accounting system to be fully 
implemented by October 1, 1998, but implementation is not complete. 
Earlier this year, FAA estimated its system would be fully implemented 
by September 30, 2001. However, FAA recently delayed the completion 
schedule until sometime in fiscal year 2002 because of funding 
constraints. FAA needs a reliable cost accounting system sooner, not 
later. FAA should reverse its decision and accelerate the 
implementation schedule for its cost accounting system.
    In addition to implementing a cost accounting system, FAA needs to 
develop a strategic business plan--a key tool for any successful 
business. The plan should provide key corporate strategies and 
operating plans over the next several years, and describe the timing 
and impact of those strategies. The plan should outline agency 
strategies for investing in future technologies, as well as how the 
agency will control the rising costs of operations and bring about 
productivity enhancements.
    Mr. Chairmen, this concludes our statement. I would be pleased to 
answer any questions.

    Senator Lautenberg. We are interested but we are voting, 
and so please hold our interest in check and we will be back.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. I have 
spoken to Senator Domenici, who will be returning shortly. I 
voted and came back to ask a few questions.
    I thank you for your testimony today and for your service 
to our Nation in one of the most important agencies of the 
Federal Government. And I want to just say to Ms. Garvey that I 
have appreciated the contribution that you have made, and I 
have enjoyed working with you.
    I hope that this Congress really establishes as its first 
priority the passing of the FAA Reauthorization Bill. There is 
so much at stake in this bill, beyond the obvious, construction 
at airports, safety modernization, and so many other issues.
    In my home State of Illinois, we are watching closely 
because many downstate communities are unserved or underserved, 
and the slot rule at O'Hare is really the nexus of this debate. 
So we are hoping to see that resolved quickly.
    I have three or four specific safety issues that I would 
like to get into. First I would like to discuss at this meeting 
what we have discussed privately. That is my suggestion that we 
consider adding new technology to the cockpits of our 
airplanes, and perhaps in other parts of the airplane, 
specifically, we are talking about video cameras in the 
cockpits.
    Some 30 years ago, Congress, working with the airlines and 
the pilots, decided that in order to have valid investigation 
of accidents, audio recording and data flight recorders would 
provide the kind of information that might lead to a higher 
level of safety and fewer crashes. I think that they have 
served us well.
    There was a compromise made at the time in the legislation, 
a 30-minute loop on the voice recorder. As it stands, I think 
it has served us well.
    In 30 years, technology has changed dramatically. We are 
now facing video cameras when we go to ATM machines and 
convenience stores. We put them on school buses, in virtually 
every office building. They are ubiquitous. And we have to, I 
think, acknowledge that they have some value.
    Certainly in the EgyptAir crash and other, more recent 
crashes, they might have provided information to resolve some 
very fundamental questions. What happened in that cockpit 
before that plane crashed? What can we do in the future to make 
it safer?
    I have spoken to you about this and spoken to others, and I 
would like to ask you, Ms. Garvey: What is your position on 
this technology in the cockpit? If you believe that it could 
make our flights safer for American passengers and those from 
other countries who use our airlines, what can we do to 
implement this technology as quickly as possible?
    Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much, Senator. First of all, we 
think it holds great potential and should be looked at very, 
very seriously. Subsequent to our conversation, I met with 
Chairman Jim Hall from the National Transportation Safety 
Board, and he is in agreement. We are chairing together a group 
headed by John O'Brien from the Airline Pilot Association and 
also a government official. They are looking at all of the 
additional technologies, including the video cameras, that 
could be used to gather more information. And that is really 
what we are all about, trying to gather as much accurate 
information as we can. So that is very high on their list of 
issues to be considered.
    We are expecting a report back from that committee later 
this spring or into the month of June, but we are very 
encouraged. We have talked with them and met with them a couple 
of times. I know they are taking this technology very 
seriously. I also would not be surprised to see even a more 
formal recommendation coming from the NTSB, but I think the 
chairman is also interested in seeing some additional 
recommendations that may come out of that group.
    Senator Durbin. And how soon can we expect a response, 
positive or negative, on this issue?
    Ms. Garvey. Well, I really think this summer, and perhaps 
we can even get it before then, but I know this summer is when 
they are presenting the formal report back to the chairman and 
to myself. So we will certainly have it by that time. But we 
will certainly talk with the committee members and see if there 
may be a couple of issues that they might want to advance, and 
that might be one. I will speak with Chairman Hall about that 
as well.
    Senator Durbin. I am not pushing for any particular 
technology or company, but I have met with some that are 
exploring this, and they have convinced me that these cameras, 
the lenses, can be unobtrusive and no obstacle to the orderly 
operation of an aircraft. They have also suggested that the 
video might be put in the cargo hold and some other places on 
the airplane that could be beneficial to determine the cause of 
accidents or perhaps even for insurance purposes to monitor 
whether or not--this is a problem, unfortunately, but to 
monitor whether or not there are people smuggling on 
contraband, drugs and the like. This sort of thing might have 
many benefits beyond accident investigation, and I hope that 
that will be viewed seriously.
    May I ask two or three other questions? When I get on an 
airplane and am urged by the flight attendants to put down my 
newspaper and listen to their instructions. One of the things 
that they focus on is the evacuation of an airplane--lighting 
along the aisles and where the exits are located and the like.
    I would like to ask you a few questions about how much the 
FAA knows about the evacuation of airplanes. Someone told me 
recently they had flown in a Canadian airplane and found 
something very interesting. They don't put any seats in front 
of their exit rows. And, in fact, in the rows nearby, instead 
of three seats abreast, there are only two.
    Yet if you get on an American plane--and not using American 
Airlines, but one in our country--that is regulated by our FAA, 
I think you would find it very difficult many times to get to 
that exit row. It is a very tiny passage, small passage for a 
lot of people who are supposed to evacuate in a short period of 
time.
    What does the FAA do to establish whether or not you can 
evacuate a plane with 400 passengers? What kind of time frame 
do you have in place? What kind of decisions have you made 
about clearing that exit row that obviously the Canadians see a 
lot differently than we do?
    Ms. Garvey. Well, let me speak to that issue. We do a lot 
of testing in our offices in Oklahoma City, the Civil 
Aeromedical Institute (CAMI), which is--our research group does 
an enormous amount of testing, real-life testing, to see----
    Senator Durbin. With real people on airplanes coming off?
    Ms. Garvey. Yes, absolutely.
    Senator Durbin. How frequent? Has that been done on a 
regular basis?
    Ms. Garvey. It is on a pretty regular basis. I would have 
to get back to you with the most recent one.
    Senator Durbin. Well, I will tell you what I am told. I am 
told that that was done in years gone by, and now instead they 
are using computer models and theories. And I am just curious 
as to whether that is a fact.
    Ms. Garvey. Right. We are using some computer models, but 
we are also still doing the live testing at CAMI, and I can get 
the most recent.
    But I can also tell you that we work very closely with a 
woman by the name of Helen Murrer, who is in Europe and who is 
one of the premier experts in this area, and have worked very, 
very closely both using our computer models and also having her 
review the kinds of evacuation testing that we are doing. She 
is recognized internationally. I have had the pleasure of 
meeting and talking with her. But I do think that is an issue 
you have to constantly look at. There are changes sometimes to 
the airplanes that make it worth re-examining.
    [The information follows:]

    The regulations (14 CFR 25.803 and Appendix J, Part 25) require 
that transport airplanes with more than 44 passengers be able to be 
evacuated in less than 90 seconds, under prescribed conditions. The 
regulations permit actual tests, or a combination of tests and 
analysis. We believe our certification regulations ensure a safe 
evacuation given U.S. airlines' current passenger-seating 
configurations. For brand new airplane types, actual demonstrations 
with full passenger loads are almost exclusively required. Derivative, 
or follow-on, models are often substantiated with a combination of 
tests and analysis. Since all U.S. transport airplanes meet this 90-
second evacuation requirement, we see no reason to require specific 
exit-row seating configurations. At this time, there is no computer 
model approved that would replace a full-scale demonstration, although 
this is an active area of research and development.
    The FAA continues to conduct live evacuation testing at the Civil 
Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) in Oklahoma City. Testing is conducted on 
a regular basis of 3 to 4 times annually. Computer models are in 
development, however, those models have not proven effective to date, 
In May of 1999, CAMI published a research paper entitled ``Passenger 
Management Strategies for Emergency Egress through Airliner Over Wing 
Exit''. This paper was presented at the 1999 Airspace Medical 
Association meeting. CAMI is currently building a wide-body evacuation 
facility. Live testing will continue to be conducted and CAMI will also 
use the live testing to develop the parameter data for more reliable 
computer models.

    Senator Durbin. Are you under pressure from the 
manufacturers of airplanes or the airlines to keep those seats 
in the exit row so that they can have more revenue?
    Ms. Garvey. No, not at all, and I need to check--in fact, I 
am glad John is here. I will ask John Crichton a little bit 
later. But I need to check with what the Canadian experience is 
and why that is. I am just not familiar enough with it. But we 
are not under any--I mean, our issue is safety, and it has to 
be safety. So making sure there is an appropriate time for 
evacuation is absolutely critical.
    There may be some point of differences with some of the 
flight attendants about whether or not we should use the 
computer models. We are pretty comfortable with the ones we 
have used. We have checked them out with international experts. 
But we are, again, continuing the real-life testing of CAMI as 
well.
    [The information follows:]

    The FAA has conducted extensive research to establish the minimum 
required passageway dimensions to Type III over-wing exits. The 
airlines have stated recently that they will provide additional leg 
room, which has prompted interest in the space provided at exits. The 
FAA has also begun the harmonization process with the European Joint 
Aviation Authorities to arrive at a common standard. There is a 
perception that airlines are willing to provide leg room to capture 
market share.

    Senator Durbin. May I ask one last question? I see my time 
is running out. A few years ago, I introduced a bill that 
banned smoking on airplane.
    Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
    Senator Durbin. You are welcome. And I took after the 
Canadian model. Again, they were ahead of us on this issue, and 
I give them credit. Northwest Airlines was the first domestic 
carrier to do this voluntarily, to ban smoking on airplanes, 
and now it is universal on our domestic flights. I hope that we 
can extend it in some fashion to international flights.
    But let me ask you a question about air quality in general. 
I am told that not that long ago the transfer of air within a 
cabin of the aircraft used to occur every 3 or 4 minutes and 
that we have been degrading that standard to now 15 minutes for 
the transfer of air in a cabin because of some efforts to have 
fuel economy.
    Now, I understand the airlines' problem. The cost of fuel 
has gone up some 25 percent. They have to deal with that as one 
of their costs of operation.
    Can you tell me whether or not you have established a 
standard for air transfer in the cabins of aircraft and what it 
might be and whether it has changed?
    Ms. Garvey. Well, it is interesting that you raise this 
issue because I saw Senator Feinstein this morning, and she----
    Senator Durbin. She feels very strongly about this, too.
    Ms. Garvey. She spoke with me about that as well. Our 
medical unit within the FAA has been looking at this issue. I 
know we are working closely with the flight attendants on this 
issue. In fact, the Senator and I were speaking about it this 
morning. The most recent study that we are all familiar with I 
think has a standard that is a little lower than we are used 
to, and she raised some questions that we really, need to go 
back and take another look at that.
    Senator Durbin. Well, I wish you would.
    Ms. Garvey. We will do that for you.
    Senator Durbin. I think it goes beyond the obvious, stale 
air, the health aspects of it. Flight attendants, unlike those 
of us sitting in seats being waited on, are up and around and 
moving, and if they do not have a regular transfer of air and 
fresh air, it could impede their judgment or their ability to 
perform their jobs. And I hope that the FAA will look at that 
aspect of it.
    Ms. Garvey. We will get back to you both with the most 
recent studies and where we are going from here.
    Senator Durbin. OK. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]

    On July 5, 1996, Amendment 25-87, ``Ventilation,'' to Title 14 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.831, became effective. This 
amendment introduced a requirement for new aircraft ventilation systems 
which states: ``For normal operating conditions, the ventilation system 
must be designed to provide each occupant with an airflow containing at 
least 0.55 pounds of fresh air per minute.'' This is equivalent to 10 
cubic feet per minute (cfm) for each occupant, which, prior to this 
amendment, was required only for crewmembers. It also ensures a more 
effective distribution of the air inside the aircraft cabin by 
providing each occupant, regardless of seating, with a minimum of 10 
cfm of fresh air. While this requirement does not apply to existing 
aircraft, all newly certificated transport category aircraft are 
required to meet this new standard.
    On September 9, 1994, an existing interagency agreement between the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the 
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FAA was amended to 
include a plan to determine the feasibility of designing and conducting 
a study of the chemical, physical, and microbiological aspects of 
aircraft cabin air quality. The research program implementation plans 
were included in a July 1995 initial report to Congress (attached).
    The FAA continues to submit an annual report to Congress 
delineating the plans and actions the FAA has taken. The report also 
describes the participation of other groups interested in this FAA-
NIOSH project. The fourth annual report will be sent to Congress at the 
end of March 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
                 U.S. Department of Transportation,
                           Federal Aviation Administration,
                                 Washington, DC, December 29, 1998.
The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. President: This is the third annual report of actions the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken in response to Section 
304 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, 
Public Law 103-305. Section 304 requires the FAA to conduct cabin air 
quality research and report to Congress annually on the progress. The 
FAA was also directed to contract with the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention and other appropriate agencies to carry out any studies 
necessary to meet the goals of the research program and to invite 
representatives of manufacturers, airlines, employee organizations, 
passengers, and academia to participate in the research program.
    The third annual report contains information on the plans and 
actions the FAA has undertaken to study aircraft cabin air conditions, 
including aircraft cabin exposure assessments, cosmic radiation 
exposures, biological contaminant characterization, and in-flight 
disease transmission and symptomology research. Most of the research 
effort is being conducted by the FAA in collaboration with the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The report also 
describes the participation of other groups interested in this FAA-
NIOSH project.
    An identical letter has been sent to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives.
            Sincerely,
                                            Jane F. Garvey,
                                                     Administrator.
                                 ______
                                 
                 U.S. Department of Transportation,
                           Federal Aviation Administration,
                                 Washington, DC, December 29, 1998.
The Honorable Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: This is the third annual report of actions the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken in response to Section 
304 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, 
Public Law 103-305. Section 304 requires the FAA to conduct cabin air 
quality research and report to Congress annually on the progress. The 
FAA was also directed to contract with the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention and other appropriate agencies to carry out any studies 
necessary to meet the goals of the research program and to invite 
representatives of manufacturers, airlines, employee organizations, 
passengers, and academia to participate in the research program.
    The third annual report contains information on the plans and 
actions the FAA has undertaken to study aircraft cabin air conditions, 
including aircraft cabin exposure assessments, cosmic radiation 
exposures, biological contaminant characterization, and in flight 
disease transmission and symptomology research. Most of the research 
effort is being conducted by the FAA in collaboration with the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The report also 
describes the participation of other groups interested in this FAA-
NIOSH project.
    An identical letter has been sent to the President of the Senate.
            Sincerely,
                                            Jane F. Garvey,
                                                     Administrator.
                                 ______
                                 

 Federal Aviation Administration Report to Congress on Aircraft Cabin 
                      Air Quality Research Program

                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    Section 304 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization 
Act of 1994, Public Law 103-305, requires the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) to establish a research program and to report to 
Congress annually on its findings in aircraft cabin air quality 
research. This is the third annual report. On September 9, 1994, an 
existing Interagency Agreement between the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, and the FAA, was amended to include a plan to determine the 
feasibility of designing and conducting a study of the chemical, 
physical, and microbiological aspects of aircraft cabin air quality. 
The research program implementation plans were included in a July 1995 
initial report to Congress. This report updates the status of the 
research program and details our future research plans.

                               BACKGROUND

    In 1993 and 1994, Congress held hearings to address complaints from 
flight attendants and passengers regarding aircraft cabin air quality. 
Those individuals stated their belief that there is less fresh air in 
aircraft because air is recirculated to conserve fuel. Concerns were 
also expressed about a possible relationship between cabin air quality 
and the contraction (transmission) of infectious diseases and causation 
of other medical symptoms.
    On July 5, 1996, an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations, 
14 CFR 25.831, Amendment 25-87, entitled ``Ventilation,'' became 
effective. This amendment introduced a requirement for new aircraft 
ventilation systems that reads as follows: ``For normal operating 
conditions, the ventilation system must be designed to provide each 
occupant with an airflow containing at least 0.55 pounds of fresh air 
per minute.'' This is equivalent to 10 cubic feet per minute per 
occupant, which, prior to this amendment, was required only for 
crewmembers. While the new requirement does not apply to existing 
aircraft, all newly certificated transport category aircraft are 
required to meet this standard.
    Transport category aircraft are pressurized by introducing fresh 
air through the aircraft's air conditioning system and into the cabin 
and cockpit of the aircraft. The pressure altitude inside the aircraft 
is maintained by electronically controlling the exit of air from the 
fuselage through an outlet valve. For crew and passenger comfort and 
safety, the regulations for certification of transport category 
aircraft require that the cabin pressure altitude be maintained at no 
higher than 8,000 feet, when the aircraft is at its maximum altitude. 
The original aircraft design, established at the time of certification, 
dictates the minimum fresh airflow rate that must be supplied to meet 
certification requirements. The flightcrew has the flexibility to vary 
the amount of fresh air introduced into the aircraft while still 
meeting the required minimum dictated by the aircraft design. The 
certification requirements addressing limits on carbon dioxide, carbon 
monoxide, and ozone concentrations in the aircraft cabin, however, must 
still be met.
    While certain measures may be taken by an air carrier to conserve 
fuel, these measures must not result in a violation of the regulations 
or create unacceptable or hazardous cabin air conditions for aircraft 
occupants. Past studies that have included measurements of cabin air 
quality conditions during aircraft flights have focused on gaseous 
components, and have revealed that cabin air quality was within 
acceptable and safe limits. However, the new FAA-NIOSH research has 
also incorporated analysis of bioaerosols, cosmic radiation, circadian 
shifts, and ergonomic factors to address remaining health concerns.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), ``Allowable 
Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Transport Category Airplane Cabins,'' 
which was published in the Federal Register on May 2, 1994. This notice 
proposed revisions to the standards for maximum allowable carbon 
dioxide concentration by reducing the allowable maximum concentration 
from 3 percent to 0.5 percent in occupied areas of transport category 
aircraft. A final rule became effective on January 2, 1997.

                  ACTIONS TO IMPROVE CABIN AIR QUALITY

    The existing Interagency Agreement between NIOSH and the FAA, as 
amended on September 9, 1994, authorized efforts to design and conduct 
studies of chemical, physical, and microbiological aspects of aircraft 
cabin air quality. An additional Interagency Agreement was signed in 
January 1997. This agreement incorporates two new studies providing 
indirect approaches to the understanding of possible disease 
transmission within the aircraft cabin, in-flight symptoms, and other 
health effects that may result from changes in cabin air quality (GAO) 
or other environmental factors. Systematic epidemiological studies of 
broad categories of disease transmission in the aircraft cabin 
environment were not considered feasible with available technology. 
Additionally, appropriate biomarkers for transmission of upper 
respiratory diseases and microbiological detection methodologies were 
not considered adequately developed to support direct field study 
designs. In addition to the CAQ activities described in this report, 
FAA and NIOSH investigators agreed that during fiscal year 98-99 they 
would revisit and update their understanding of the technical issues 
concerning the study of in-flight disease transmission.

      ORIGINAL FAA-NIOSH AIRCRAFT CABIN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT STUDY

    During 1995, the Cabin Exposure Assessment Study plan was drafted 
after a thorough assessment of the methods and instrumentation for 
evaluating cabin air quality, including exhaustive performance tests in 
standard laboratory and in hypobaric atmospheres. The objectives of the 
continuing 1996-1999 Exposure Assessment Study are to: (1) characterize 
cabin air quality parameters and cosmic radiation exposures onboard 
commercial aircraft for a variety of flight routes, duration of flight 
time, and aircraft types, and (2) provide exposure data for the 
epidemiological study of reproductive health in female flight 
attendants. The dual objectives of characterizing cosmic radiation 
exposures (which depend heavily on altitude and proximity to 
geomagnetic poles) and aircraft cabin air quality require a study 
design with flights stratified across different routes, latitudes, 
aircraft types, and flight durations. Short (<2 hours), medium (2-8 
hours), and long (>8 hours) flights were planned over north-south 
routes and east-west routes including equatorial and near-polar 
flights. Eleven of the most common aircraft types, as identified in Air 
Transport Association (ATA) U.S. fleet demographics, were included. 
Measurements of cabin air quality and cosmic radiation data were 
collected on commercial flights of four airline companies. Indoor air 
quality parameters monitored on each flight include carbon dioxide, 
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, environmental tobacco smoke (as 
nicotine), ozone, volatile organic hydrocarbons, temperature, humidity, 
relative pressure, airborne total particulate mass, and inhalable 
particulate mass. A combination of validated active sampling methods 
and direct-reading data-logging instruments were used for continuous 
cabin environment data collection during each flight.
    Data collection on eight flights was completed in 1996 on two 
airlines as part of a feasibility study. After scientific peer review 
of the protocol in 1996, exposure monitoring on an additional 25 flight 
segments commenced in April 1997 and was completed in June 1998. 
Laboratory analyses of samples was completed in October 1998. Data 
analyses will be completed by summer of 1999.
    Data and results from the full complement of 33 flights will be 
presented in the FAA's 1999 annual report to Congress. A preliminary 
review of some of the cabin air quality data has shown that 1-minute 
average concentration ranges were: carbon dioxide 540-2879 ppm; ozone 
<0.01-0.47 ppm; carbon monoxide <1.0-4.4 ppm; nitrogen oxides <0.3-0.7 
ppm; and total particulates <0.02-0.04 mg/m\3\. Carbon dioxide 
exposures were highest during periods of passenger activity and varied 
among different aircraft models. Once all results are available for 
analysis, the relationships between contaminant levels and aircraft 
type, passenger load, flight length, and other factors can be explored.

                       COSMIC RADIATION EXPOSURES

    In the Cabin Exposure Assessment study, characterization of cosmic 
radiation exposure is accomplished using two portable tissue equivalent 
proportional counters (TEPC). The TEPC instruments, built by Battelle 
Pacific Northwest Laboratory under contract to the FAA, are capable of 
recording the energy deposition spectra from the TEPC into 256 channels 
of data. The instrument fits within the confines of a carry-on 
suitcase. The instruments are placed near each other in the overhead 
bins of the aircraft to provide a measure of reproducibility and 
precision in cosmic radiation dose. The TEPC is considered the best 
instrument for measuring biological harm in the cosmic radiation 
environment.
    The epidemiology study requires estimates of cosmic radiation 
exposure for many thousands of flights. The best available method for 
estimating these exposures is a program developed at the Civil 
Aeromedical Institute. Calculations to date, with the latest version of 
the program, are within +9 to -32 percent of TEPC measurements. 
However, the program calculates effective dose, whereas the instruments 
measure dose equivalent. Effective dose is the preferred quantity for 
radiation protection purposes. Although dose equivalent and effective 
dose are both estimates of biological harm, the quantitative 
relationship between the two is unknown (and will be investigated). No 
instrument currently available measures effective dose. Considering the 
uncertainties in the measurements and calculations, the use of two 
independent methods of estimating biological harm was considered 
desirable. Comparisons between the two methods indicate they are in 
reasonably close agreement.
    Average TEPC dose equivalent measurements for the first 17 flight 
segments (conducted during 1997-1998) ranged from 0.64 to 57.7 
microsieverts. Dose equivalent rates based on block hours ranged from 
0.91 microsieverts/hour (Kotzebue, Alaska, to Nome, Alaska) to 6 
microsieverts/hour (Seattle to Miami). Based on these data, annual 
radiation dose equivalents for a flight attendant flying 900 block 
hours per year would range from 0.819 to 5.4 millisieverts, well below 
the occupational limit of 20 millisieverts/year (5 year average) 
recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection 
and the FAA.

                BIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION

    Endotoxins were selected from the broad class of biocontaminants 
for monitoring aboard aircraft on four flights. Endotoxins are a 
component of the membrane of gram-negative bacteria (GNB) and are 
composed of lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Upon inhalation, endotoxins may 
induce intracellular changes in inflammatory and immune system cells 
through macrophage activation. Several studies have investigated the 
relationship between endotoxin and health effects or symptoms in indoor 
environments. In a study of 19 Dutch office buildings, a dose-response 
relationship was found between airborne endotoxin levels and building-
related (including respiratory) symptoms, with air concentrations six 
times higher in high symptom prevalence buildings compared to low 
symptom prevalence buildings. A study of 12 Danish town halls found the 
prevalence of GNB in floor dust was significantly correlated to general 
symptoms and to mucous membrane symptoms. A Swedish study of endotoxin 
levels in air and dust from homes showed a dose-response relationship 
for airborne endotoxin and cough, breathing difficulties, itchy eyes, 
and tiredness. Although studies of endotoxin levels in homes, office 
buildings, and other indoor environments have been conducted, no data 
are available for commercial aircraft cabins.
    Although endotoxin bioactivity quantitation via the standard 
Limulus bioassay has been applied in many environments, an emerging 
chemical assay for endotoxin via 3-hydroxy-fatty acid (3-OHFA) 
quantitation provides additional information about possible bacterial 
sources of LPS. Three-OHFA's are characteristic for endotoxin-
associated LPS, and the relative distributions of individual 3-OHFA's 
differ among species of GNB. This chemical assay shows promise as a 
more stable method than the Limulus assay. Analyses of 3-OHFA's may 
lead to a better understanding of the health implications of the 
endotoxin-associated dust since the ratio of endotoxin activity to 
total 3-OHFA is an indication of the potency of the dust sampled, which 
may differ by environment.
    Air and dust samples were collected during four flights on 
commercial aircraft in June 1998. Air samples were collected in coach 
class at 4 locations per flight with 2 replicates per location (32 
total on 4 flights). Surface sampling of dust was performed on both 
seats and carpet. Eight seats and 8 carpet locations were sampled per 
flight (32 total seats and 32 total carpet samples). Analyses will be 
completed by October 1998. The results should permit comparisons of 
endotoxin activity and 3-OHFA's in aircraft cabins to other indoor 
environments where dose-response relationships between endotoxin levels 
and building-related symptoms have been demonstrated.

       IN-FLIGHT DISEASE TRANSMISSION AND SYMPTOMATOLOGY RESEARCH

    With the signing of the January 1997 Interagency Agreement between 
the FAA and NIOSH, work began on in-flight disease transmission and 
symptomatology research. In a related effort, the FAA Office of 
Aviation Medicine worked closely with the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention and the Air Transport Association on the issue of 
transmission of tuberculosis in aircraft.
    A 5-year FAA-NIOSH research program to address broader disease 
transmission issues has been developed for the fiscal year 1997-fiscal 
year 2002 timeframe. Two studies have been proposed to evaluate the 
possibility of disease transmission, symptoms, and health effects from 
changes in cabin air quality or other factors.
    The first disease transmission study incorporates a respiratory 
symptomatology assessment into ongoing FAA-NIOSH research. The original 
research, in partnership with the Department of Defense (DOD) Women's 
Health Research Program, was primarily focused on reproductive health 
issues of female flight attendants. As part of this program, in fiscal 
year 1998, approximately 7,000 women (flight attendants and teachers) 
were asked in a 1-hour telephone interview to answer a reproductive 
history questionnaire to examine past reproductive outcomes. The 
teachers serve as a comparison population for the study. Precise work 
history and personnel data are being collected from three airlines and 
corresponding teacher unions. Data analyses will begin in early fiscal 
year 1999.
    The reproductive history questionnaire, referenced in the previous 
section, now contains a panel of respiratory symptomatology questions 
excerpted from national surveys, including the National Health 
Interview Survey (NHIS). These questions address respiratory 
symptomatology (of both infectious and noninfectious etiology) for 
current and last-year time periods. In the context of complete work 
(flight) history data and lifestyle factor data, these symptoms can be 
analyzed in depth, evaluating the relationship between flight activity 
and symptomatology and controlling for lifestyle factors. In addition 
to the predominantly nonflying comparison group of teachers, a second 
large comparison population is available from the NHIS questionnaire 
data. It is unlikely that a respiratory system symptom survey of this 
depth or quality could be independently conducted outside the ongoing 
study, since concurrent collection and analysis of detailed work 
history data is rarely conducted outside NIOSH. Additionally, this 
would be prohibitively expensive if structured as a freestanding 
effort.
    The second disease transmission study in fiscal year 1997 through 
fiscal year 2002 utilizes cabin air exposure modeling. Very little 
information regarding infectious diseases in the cabin air environment 
and their potential for person-to-person transmission is available. The 
number and size of occupant-generated bioaerosols and their dispersal 
and removal from the aircraft cabin are not known. This project 
evaluates the dispersal and removal of bioaerosols generated by 
aircraft cabin occupants in order to answer two important questions: 
(1) What are the major factors that determine the spread of human 
bioaerosols in the cabin air environment? and (2) How can this 
information be used to improve new aircraft design or to retrofit 
existing equipment?
    Experimental methodology from current NIOSH projects can be 
appropriately modified to determine the factors that may affect the 
transmission and level of bioaerosols in an aircraft cabin. These 
factors may include airflow patterns, ventilation characteristics, the 
number of particles in expired air, humidity, filter efficiencies, and 
breathing patterns. Software is under development to control 
simultaneously multiple aerosol measuring devices while video recording 
human activities responsible for bioaerosol generation. The system is 
capable of activities for the upcoming fiscal year include conducting 
the adapted tracer gas tests to measure the age of air in aircraft that 
are on the ground with their ventilation systems operating. CFD 
modeling of cabin airflows will begin. Also, experimental work to 
evaluate aircraft cabin airflows using a variety of techniques will 
begin in cabin mockups. The results of the biological literature and 
methods survey will be available. These results will be used to 
formulate a sampling plan for bioaerosols on commercial aircraft.

         PARTICIPATION OF OTHER GROUPS IN THE FAA-NIOSH PROJECT

    The FAA Office of Aviation Medicine (AAM) also continued 
collaborating on aircraft cabin environmental quality issues. AAM 
participates in the Aviation Subcommittee of the ASHRAE Technical 
Committee (TC 9.3) and, as a nonvoting member of the ASHRAE Standards 
Committee, SPC 161, Air Quality Within Commercial Aircraft. In June 
1997, the ASHRAE Aviation Subcommittee contracted for a cabin air 
quality study ($150,000), which is designed to complement the FAA-NIOSH 
research. Through FAA's interaction with ASHRAE, FAA's Civil 
Aeromedical Institute provided valuable guidance and assurance that 
products from the ASHRAE research contract would be integrated into the 
ongoing FAA-NIOSH study. As specific examples, the FAA member 
recommended that air contaminant samples be collected in the breathing 
zone of aircraft occupants; that samples be analyzed by the same method 
that is used by the organization that promulgated the standard; and 
that occupant exposures be evaluated on a time-weighted average basis 
from closing the cabin door--throughout the flight--to opening the 
cabin door. The FAA member also recommended the minimum ventilation 
requirements (cubic feet per minute per occupant) to ensure that 
maximum sustained levels of carbon dioxide exposure and cabin air 
changes per hour meet the requirements of FAR 25.831, ``Ventilation.''
    The airline trade associations and unions have been supportive of 
this project, encouraging their members to participate in critical 
retrievals of work history and in questionnaire participation. Much of 
this support was garnered through the ``trust building activity'' of 
NIOSH personnel supporting this project.
    The FAA will continue to conduct a cabin air quality research 
program and report to Congress annually on its findings.
                                 ______
                                 
                 U.S. Department of Transportation,
                           Federal Aviation Administration,
                                     Washington, DC, July 24, 1995.
The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. President: This is the initial report of actions the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken in response to Section 
304 of the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1994, Public Law 103-
305. Section 304 requires FAA to conduct cabin air quality research and 
report to Congress annually on the progress made. The FAA was also 
directed to contract with the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention to carry out any studies necessary to meet the goals of the 
research program and invite representatives of manufacturers, airlines, 
employee organizations, passengers, and academia to participate in the 
research program.
    The initial report contains information on the plans and actions 
FAA has undertaken to study certain factors related to cabin air 
conditions, including pressure altitude systems, temperature, air 
circulation rates, and potential health impacts. The first annual 
report will be provided to Congress in August 1996.
    An identical letter has been sent to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives.
            Sincerely,
                                           David R. Hinson,
                                                     Administrator.
                                 ______
                                 
                 U.S. Department of Transportation,
                           Federal Aviation Administration,
                                     Washington, DC, July 24, 1995.
The Honorable Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: This is the initial report of actions the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken in response to Section 304 of 
the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1994, Public Law 103-305. 
Section 304 requires FAA to conduct cabin air quality research and 
report to Congress annually on the progress made. The FAA was also 
directed to contract with the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention to carry out any studies necessary to meet the goals of the 
research program and invite representatives of manufacturers, airlines, 
employee organizations, passengers, and academia to participate in the 
research program.
    The initial report contains information on the plans and actions 
FAA has undertaken to study certain factors related to cabin air 
conditions, including pressure altitude systems, temperature, air 
circulation rates, and potential health impacts. The first annual 
report will be provided to Congress in August 1996.
    An identical letter has been sent to the President of the Senate.
            Sincerely,
                                           David R. Hinson,
                                                     Administrator.
                                 ______
                                 

Report to Congress on the Federal Aviation Administration's Actions on 
              Aircraft Cabin Air Quality Research Program

  REPORT OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TO THE UNITED STATES 
  CONGRESS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW 103-305, SECTION 304 OF THE FEDERAL 
                 AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION

                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    Section 304 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization 
Act of 1994, Public Law 103-305, requires the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) to establish a research program and report to 
Congress annually on the actions it is taking to conduct aircraft cabin 
air quality research. FAA was also directed to provide Congress with an 
initial plan to implement the program. This report contains information 
on the program actions FAA has taken to comply with these directions 
and with the requirement to contract with the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention to conduct this study.

                               BACKGROUND

    In 1993 and 1994, Congress held hearings to address complaints from 
flight attendants and passengers regarding air carrier cabin air 
quality. These individuals expressed concern about cabin air quality 
and stated their belief that there is a reduction of fresh air in 
aircraft because air is recirculated to conserve fuel. Other concerns 
were raised about the possible relationship between cabin air quality 
and occupant symptoms, as well as the contracting of infectious 
diseases.
    Currently, the language in 14 CFR 25.831, ``Ventilation,'' states 
that each passenger and crew compartment must be ventilated, and each 
crew compartment must have enough fresh air (but not less than 10 cu. 
ft. per minute per crewmember) to enable crewmembers to perform their 
duties without undue discomfort or fatigue. Transport aircraft are 
pressurized by introducing fresh air through the aircraft air 
conditioning system and into the cabin and cockpit of the airplane. The 
``altitude'' inside the aircraft is controlled by allowing air to exit 
the fuselage through an electronically controlled valve. The 
regulations which are used to certify transport category aircraft 
require that the cabin altitude be maintained at not more than 8,000 
feet, when the aircraft is at its maximum altitude, for crew and 
passenger comfort and safety. The original aircraft design, established 
at the time of certification, dictates the minimum fresh airflow rate 
that must be, supplied to meet certification requirements, but there is 
some flexibility allowed in meeting these requirements. The flightcrew 
can vary the amount of fresh air introduced into the aircraft while 
still meeting the required minimum dictated by the aircraft design. The 
certification requirements addressing limits on carbon dioxide, carbon 
monoxide, and ozone concentrations in the aircraft cabin, however, must 
still be met.
    While certain measures may be taken by an air carrier to conserve 
fuel, these measures are not expected to result in a violation of the 
regulations or unacceptable or hazardous cabin air conditions for 
aircraft occupants. Studies have been conducted in the past to measure 
conditions of cabin air quality on airline flights. These studies have 
shown that the cabin air quality was within acceptable and safe limits.

                  ACTIONS TO IMPROVE CABIN AIR QUALITY

    In November 1989, Notice 89-31, Standards for Approval for High 
Altitude Operation of Subsonic Transport Airplanes, was published in 
the Federal Register. The intent was to incorporate the requirements in 
the FAR for a number of special conditions that had been issued for 
operation of several (mostly small) jet transports to enable operation 
above 41,000 feet up to and including 51,000 feet. The current Part 25 
requirements do not cover such high altitude operations.
    One of the proposals in Notice 89-31 was to revise section 
25.831(a) of the FAR to require that each occupant be supplied with 0.6 
pounds of fresh air per minute, which is approximately 10 cubic feet 
per minute (CFM). The current rule requires 10 CFM per crewmember. With 
this higher airflow, using accepted analysis methods, the carbon 
dioxide level in the passenger cabin would be 0.125 percent. The 
proposed new rule would apply to all new airplanes in the certification 
process. The final rule is now in coordination and is expected to be 
issued in 1995.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) which was 
published in the Federal Register on May 2, 1994, titled ``Allowable 
Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Transport Category Airplane Cabins.'' 
This notice proposed revisions to the standards for maximum allowable 
carbon dioxide concentration by reducing the allowable maximum 
concentration from 3 percent to 0.5 percent in occupied areas of 
transport category airplanes. Such modifications could reduce the 
complaints of poor air quality and the sense or perception of 
``stuffiness,'' associated with higher concentrations of carbon 
dioxide. Comments on the NPRM have been received and are under review. 
A final rule is anticipated in 1995.

                 RESEARCH PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    FAA's plan to perform aircraft cabin air quality research contains 
a number of elements. These include modifying, by amendment, the formal 
agreement with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to conduct 
an epidemiological study and undertake other study activities; 
establishing research protocols, including survey flights and sampling; 
and initiating liaison with both Government and non-Government 
organizations to assist in this study, develop test protocols, and 
provide peer review. These program plans are described below.
    The statute directing FAA to conduct a research program on cabin 
air quality, including pressure altitude systems, calls for an 
examination of conditions that could be harmful to the health of 
airline passengers and crew, as well as the risk of airline passengers 
and crew for contracting infectious diseases during flight.

    On September 9, 1994, an existing Interagency Agreement between 
NIOSH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FAA, was 
amended to include a plan to determine the feasibility of designing and 
conducting a study of chemical, physical, and microbiological aspects 
of cabin air quality. NIOSH has initiated a literature review of cabin 
air quality studies and, in addition, sampling methods for the analysis 
of all relevant aircraft cabin contaminants are being evaluated to 
establish the most efficient and meaningful research protocol.
    FAA has established liaison with appropriate technical specialists 
at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Boeing, and other 
organizations to assist the agency in development of the optimal 
testing protocols and to obtain peer review for the cabin air quality 
research. Special relationships have also been established with the 
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning 
Engineers Aviation Subcommittee. This group has undertaken an 
initiative to establish consensus standards for minimum fresh air 
ventilation rates in the air carrier aircraft cabin environment.
    The FAA is proposing that NIOSH undertake a 5-year epidemiological 
study to address disease transmission in the cabin environment.
    In fiscal year 1995, approximately six to eight survey flights will 
be conducted to develop protocols for the collection of chemical and 
physical air quality data and to test instrumentation to be used in the 
data collection. A proposed total of 22 to 24 survey flights will be 
conducted and are scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 1996. 
Flights will be chosen depending on aircraft model and flight duration, 
taking into account other factors which impact aircraft cabin air 
quality, such as passenger load, smoking exposure, and filter 
efficiency.
    Demographics of the major U.S. airlines will be used to determine 
which aircraft types should be evaluated in the study. For example, the 
six aircraft types most prevalent in U.S. operating airline fleets are 
the B727, B737, MD80, DC9, B757, and DC10. A key component of the new 
study will be the selection of optimal measurements to determine 
microbial loads onboard aircraft. These measurements will be critical 
to the related study that addresses the relationships between aircraft 
cabin environmental conditions and occupant symptomatology and the risk 
of contracting infectious diseases.
    The FAA/NIOSH Research Program has been designed to meet the goals 
stated in Section 304 of Public Law 103-305. This research program will 
specifically determine what, if any, aircraft cabin air conditions, 
including pressure altitude systems on flights within the United 
States, are harmful to the health of airline passengers and crew, as 
indicated by physical symptoms such as headaches, nausea, fatigue, and 
lightheadedness. It will also assess the risk of airline passengers and 
crew contracting infectious diseases during flight.

    Senator Conrad. Thank you for being here today, and I want 
to thank, in absentia, Chairman Domenici for holding this 
hearing and Chairman Shelby for being here as well. I think 
this is critically important.
    I am on the FAA reauthorization conference committee as a 
member of the Budget Committee, and I would like to share a 
somewhat different perspective than we have heard, at least 
while I was here this morning before I had to leave for the 
vote. We heard a lot of talk about money not being able to 
solve problems. That is certainly the case. Money doesn't solve 
all problems. But an absence of money, when there is real need, 
creates its own problem. And I want to say I believe we need 
more money for airport expansion or airport modernization for 
FAA, and the need is just as clear as it can be.
    We have 600 million air passengers a year now. We are being 
told it will be a billion passengers within the next decade.
    Now, you are not going to service those passengers. You are 
not going to be able to deal with the capacity needs of the 
airports of this country. You are not going to be able to 
prevent enormous gridlock in the Air Transportation System of 
the United States without substantial increases in funding. And 
anybody that has worked with me over the 14 years I have served 
in the United States Senate knows that I am a deficit hawk, 
that I have been relentless in wanting to eliminate the 
deficits, and we are at that day, thank goodness. We are able 
to balance our budget without counting Social Security, which 
is a dramatic improvement over where we were just 8 years ago.
    But as a deficit hawk, I also recognize there are other 
needs in this country as well. And unless we address this one, 
we are going to hamper the economic efficiency of this economy 
because transportation is right at the heart of an effective 
economic system in America. And I defy anybody to explain to me 
how you go from 600 million air passengers a year to a billion 
and not spend more money to deal with the challenges.
    Those of us who fly frequently know what is happening. 
Delays of more than 15 minutes are up 20 percent--something 
over 20 percent. I tell you, I am experiencing it. This last 
weekend I was flying home to North Dakota, got up at 5 o'clock 
in the morning for a 6 o'clock flight, and, you know, we all 
get on the plane, and then they come with their announcement 
that I have had many, many times: We have a mechanical problem; 
it will be 15 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes, and we will 
have it fixed. We all get off the plane. After 45 minutes, they 
come on and say: It will be 15 minutes to an hour and 15 
minutes before we are able to leave. You know, then they get 
into it and they find there is more problems than they 
anticipated, and it is 3\1/2\ hours before you leave.
    Now, that meant that I missed a series of commitments, and 
it meant all the other folks in that plane probably missed 
commitments. That has a real effect on the efficient 
functioning of our economy. And the fact is reliability is 
declining, and we are going to have to put more money into this 
system. That doesn't mean you just throw money at the system. 
It does have to be done in a way that people are held 
accountable.
    I want to salute you for the work that was done to avoid 
the Y2K problems that all of us were anticipating. Goodness, 
what a remarkable event that turned out to be. We all woke up, 
virtually no problems. And I salute you for the excellent work 
that you did. I know enormous time and energy was spent on 
making certain that the air transportation system in this 
country was safe and functioned without problem. And I think 
you deserve public credit.
    There are three matters that I would like to raise with you 
that affect my State. First of all, I want to thank you for 
dealing with the air traffic control situation that affects 
Minot Air Force Base in Minot, North Dakota. You acted, and 
acted properly, I believe, to leave that matter of air traffic 
control with the Minot Air Force Base because of the nuclear 
deterrence responsibilities of that Air Force base. And I very 
much appreciate the way you responded to that need. And I can 
tell you that the commander of that Air Force base and the head 
of the Air Force appreciates the cooperative spirit of the FAA 
in resolving that matter.
    Second, on essential air service, we have four North Dakota 
communities that are covered by the EAS Program, but we are 
having very significant problems with respect to the 
reliability of that service in North Dakota, especially with 
respect to Great Lakes aviation: repeated cancellation of 
flights, repeated failure to provide service, and problems 
really that need to be addressed during.
    During consideration of FAA reauthorization, I got an 
amendment passed that requires DOT and FAA to come up with a 
plan to make EAS more sustainable, more reliable, and I would 
just encourage you, even though that bill is still in 
conference, to proceed to review those issues.
    Is that something that you could do pending the completion 
of FAA reauthorization?
    Ms. Garvey. Senator, certainly we can review them. Those 
are really understand the jurisdiction of the Secretary's 
office, the Department of Transportation, but both Assistant 
Secretary Basso and I will make sure that gets back to the 
right office and make sure that that review takes place. We are 
very much aware of those issues, as you were describing them, 
and the criticality of having that kind of service for 
communities really is--essential air service is exactly the 
right name for it.
    So we appreciate those issues, and we will respond and deal 
with them.
    Senator Conrad. Well, we do have serious problems.
    On a final note, I want to also thank you for dealing with 
the question of the width of the runway at Minot Airport.
    Ms. Garvey. Yes.
    Senator Conrad. FAA had been indicating they would only 
fund a 100-foot-wide runway, and when we were able to get 
written confirmation from Northwest Airlines that they intended 
to serve that market with Airbus A320 aircraft that required a 
150-foot runway, FAA responded and indicated that they would 
fund a 150-foot-wide runway. And I would just like to confirm 
that again here this morning.
    Ms. Garvey. That is correct. Yes, exactly right, Senator.
    Senator Conrad. Well, I appreciate that.
    Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
    Senator Conrad. I would just like to add a final if I could 
on the point that Senator Durbin made.
    Senator Domenici. It is your time.
    Senator Conrad. This air recirculation question I think is 
an important question. I have constituents that mention this to 
me, and I believe it is a problem. I would very much hope that 
the FAA would go back and revisit the question of what the 
requirements are and that we have a recirculation more 
frequently of air in these aircraft.
    I have had doctors tell me that there is an epidemic of 
illness as a result of the close confines of aircraft. In fact, 
the Capitol physician has told us that they are seeing just an 
epidemic of communicable illnesses being spread in aircraft and 
that part of the reason is that we are not recirculating the 
air frequently enough. And I very much hope that that would be 
investigated.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Domenici. Let me apologize for my absence. I hope--
in fact, I know matters were handled very well in my absence, 
and nobody went to war, nobody got mad at each other. Isn't 
that nice?
    I want to just suggest that one of the reasons that I have 
undertaken oversight hearings this year--and I am sorry that I 
don't have 3 months instead of one to do some oversight 
hearings--is not because we have authority to write laws in 
these areas. Everyone here knows we don't. But I have been part 
of producing a budget and 13 appropriation bills for 25 of the 
27 years I have served here. And I have come to the conclusion 
that our procedures do not allow enough time for authorizing 
committees to have hearings about the matters within their 
jurisdiction and to actually find out whether the programs they 
are funding and that they have authorized sometimes 50 years 
ago, 30, 20, whether they are still worthwhile.
    Well, I am pleased to announce that in the United States 
House they are way beyond a majority of members who have joined 
in a resolution saying let's have appropriations and budgeting 
every 2 years, and thus, that would leave some time for 
something else, like oversight.
    I submit, however, that from your standpoint, as being on 
the executive side--and I would ask if I am correct--if you 
didn't have to submit a budget every year, it would permit you 
a great deal more time to oversight the department that you 
run.
    I just got a note yesterday that a little tiny funding in 
one of my bills, Corps of Engineers at $3.7 billion a year, 
they must do a budget every year. The budget is eight volumes 
long. Eight volumes, 20,000 pages, for $3.7 billion, one small 
department of the government every year, every year. Then they 
must do hearings on appropriations, then appropriating, then we 
all go back and have a Christmas sleep. And guess what? Budget 
appropriation again.
    I think a lot of the problems that are falling in your laps 
are your own problems of not managing correctly, and you have 
been one very willing to tell us where things must be improved. 
But I think part of the problem is a 1-year cycle for producing 
budgets for appropriations.
    Could you comment? That is a question I did not tell you I 
was going to ask you, but could you comment on it if you have 
anything relevant?
    Ms. Garvey. And I may ask Mr. Basso if he would like to 
comment from the Department's perspective. But I would say 
certainly from a programmatic perspective, a multi-year 
predictable stream of funding is certainly something that we 
would find extraordinarily helpful to give us that kind of 
flexibility.
    Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, just speaking for myself as 
opposed to the Administration, I have had 35 years to observe 
this process, and one thing I am sure of is every year the 
cycle gets longer and more continuous. So I would have to agree 
with you, that having more time, more oversight, more 
deliberation, couldn't help but deal with a $1 trillion issue. 
And certainly I agree with you from my perspective on that.
    Senator Domenici. Senator Gorton, did you get to ask 
questions?
    Senator Gorton. No, I did not.
    Senator Domenici. Please do so.
    Senator Gorton. I have only a couple.
    Ms. Garvey, what is the status of the Wide Area 
Augmentation System Program? And are the recent delays part of 
any larger structural challenge?
    Ms. Garvey. WAAS is definitely one of the most complex and 
most challenging projects we have. We did a series of testing, 
or actually, Raytheon, our contractor, did some testing for us 
in the fall and into the early winter months. Two issues or two 
elements, two factors arose. One is--and this is the good 
news--there is much greater accuracy with WAAS than we had 
anticipated. So the accuracy is even greater than what we had 
expected. That is the good news.
    The part that is not so good is the whole issue of our 
safety monitoring, and it is very critical and very important 
for us to have the highest levels of safety as we are looking 
at this kind of equipment. We have no room for any mistakes in 
that area, so we have very high standards in the safety arena.
    The testing is showing that WAAS is not able to meet those 
standards at this point, so we have that challenge for us. And, 
quite honestly, if it means a schedule slip or compromising the 
safety, we would obviously take the schedule slip. But we have 
scheduled next week, for 3 days, a technical review committee. 
It is made up of a contractor, FAA officials, and I was just 
mentioning to Mr. Mead earlier that we are inviting people from 
outside to help participate in this, to really identify a path 
for success here. How do we deal with this issue? How serious 
is it, and how do we deal with it? So we will have more to 
report on this after that group meets.
    But good news on the accuracy. The safety standards, and it 
really involves the alarms going off more frequently than they 
should. We have to deal with that before we can move ahead.
    Mr. Mead. I would like to just say a word about WAAS from 
our work. As you know, we are independent of FAA. This is one 
of the programs that is having problems. This program started 
out with a program cost estimate of $893 million. We are now 
looking at about $3 billion.
    This is also one of those programs experiencing schedule 
slippages. WAAS started out in 1996. In 1998 we were supposed 
to start deploying it now, it is going to be 2000 or later.
    I have noticed some real improvements in FAA's oversight of 
the WAAS contractor here. This is one procurement where a lot 
of risk sharing is going to be needed because it is a very 
expensive contract. I think the contractor bears now a 
responsibility here, just like FAA.
    WAAS is also a very important program in terms of 
technology development and in terms of transitioning to 
satellite navigation.
    Senator Gorton. Thank you.
    Another subject, Ms. Garvey. The recent contract with the 
controllers, is it affecting your ability to meet budgetary 
targets? Is it going to tighten your ability to do other things 
at a time of rather constrained budgets?
    Ms. Garvey. Well, thank you very much for asking that 
question. If you will bear with me--because this is an 
important issue to me. I think it--it is something I get asked 
very frequently.
    First of all, we did have a 12 percent increase in our 
operations budget, but I think we need to say that there also 
was over 8 percent increase in mandatory spending. The 
controller contract is less than one-quarter of that, so I 
don't want to say it doesn't have an impact, but I also want to 
point out that it is a very small impact overall.
    And I want to take a step back for a minute because we had 
some very important goals when we went into the controller 
contract negotiations. One was that we wanted to get some 
productivity gains. That was very critical to us. And I am 
happy to say that for the first time we have a contract that 
does include some cost savings and cost avoidance. We have 
never had that before. That is significant.
    Second--and I think that some of the speakers earlier 
referred to this--we have not always had the best relationship 
with the controllers. Management and union have not been always 
in sync at the FAA. I think this contract has established an 
atmosphere for us in the FAA where the labor-management 
relationship has never been better. They are full partners as 
we are moving ahead on modernization, absolutely full partners. 
And from my perspective, that is critical. We don't need to 
look far to see other places where the labor-management 
relationship is such that it really does sort of poison the 
well, if you will.
    So we wanted productivity gains, and we wanted full buy-in 
for modernization. We wanted to take a look at some ways that 
we might be able to give up alternate work weeks and so forth. 
That is very tough for a 24-hour-a-day operation. We have been 
able to achieve those. And so I think it is extraordinarily 
positive.
    We also wanted to be able to classify our facilities in 
different ways. We wanted to be able to say that San Francisco, 
Chicago, New York, those are very busy, and the controllers 
there ought to be paid in relationship to the number of 
operations that they had to control. So I think the contract is 
a solid, good document, and I think it will allow us to move 
ahead in a way that we probably could not but for a contract.
    Senator Gorton. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
    Senator Domenici. For your information, Senator, you were 
not present when the Inspector General put up a rather 
significant chart with three lines on it. One of them had to do 
with the increased costs attributable to the contract of 
employment versus the growth in other accounts because of it. I 
am not suggesting that the chart attempted to say we were 
harming one part because we have a good labor contract, but it 
did show that it is a very big part of expenditures that we are 
now online to keep giving for quite some time. If it works out 
that there is a much better relationship with employees and if 
it turns out to have added productivity, I think that would be 
exciting, and I congratulate you for it.
    I have just two questions. I happened, just by coincidence, 
to have located in the city of Albuquerque one of your aging 
aircraft centers wherein the scientists at Sandia National 
Laboratory work with the private sector in determining the 
significance of aging on certain components of American 
conventional, ordinary airplanes that we have in our stockpile 
that we are using. I have asked them for some evaluations in 
the past. Clearly, even though we are building more new 
airplanes, we are also living on a stockpile of airplanes that 
are getting very old as people are flying around in rather old 
airplanes. And we need to know more about what that means.
    Could you just talk to the record on that?
    Ms. Garvey. Senator, that is an absolutely significant 
issue. You are absolutely right that as our aircraft ages, that 
whole issue becomes even more paramount. We have worked very 
closely with the NTSB around the whole issue of aging aircraft, 
and we have a very aggressive program underway. Again, we have 
brought in some wonderful experts.
    I am not as familiar with the Sandia Lab's efforts in this 
area. I am very familiar from my highway days of wonderful work 
that they have done, and I think it would be good for us to 
follow up and perhaps see if there is a way to include some of 
their information in what we are doing.
    Senator Domenici. I believe there are two similar ones. I 
think there is one in the State of Iowa, if I am not mistaken. 
But, in any event, they are now pursuing some very exciting 
work on some of the very modern airplanes and testing just 
individual parts for their longevity, their strength. After 30 
years, what is happening to them? And I think you have to be a 
big player in that.
    Ms. Garvey. Absolutely.
    Senator Domenici. Because you have to tell the American 
people the planes are safe. It is not going to be so easy to 
keep doing that with planes that are growing older and older if 
you don't know the answer. Right?
    Ms. Garvey. Absolutely. An important issue for us.
    [The information follows:]

    Since the Aloha 737 accident in May 1988, the FAA has worked with 
the transport airplane manufacturers and airlines to improve the 
technology of inspecting for corrosion and fatigue damage, developed 
improved structural inspection requirements, and issued many 
airworthiness directives to correct aging problems on various types of 
aircraft. This continuous improvement in aging aircraft safety will be 
expanded by rulemaking that will require older airplanes to be 
evaluated, and monitored in service, for the development of any new 
sources of widespread fatigue damage (the type of damage that caused 
the Aloha accident).
    The FAA continues to work aging aircraft problems through the 
Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence (AACE), through which 
Sandia National Laboratories plays a key role. In the AACE the FAA has 
set up a partnership that brings leading talent in government, 
academia, and industry to focus on maintaining the high level of safety 
in the aging fleet (along with other airworthiness problems).
    At the Sandia National Laboratories, the FAA has set up an 
inspection system Validation Center. Sandia's group of samples with 
known flaws provides real aircraft structures to test new laboratory 
developed inspection methods. This provides the FAA with a way to 
ensure that newly proposed methods will meet their expected levels of 
performance in practice. This philosophy of validation is already 
working well in the area of airframe inspection. It has also been 
applied to engine inspection technologies, and will be used on the 
aging systems program that the FAA now has underway.
    The research work at the AACE and, in particular at the Validation 
Center, is crucial to supporting the FAA's core capabilities and 
ensuring that the latest technology is correctly applied to maintaining 
the aging fleet.
    Iowa State University is the co-leader with Ohio University of 
Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence and through their Center 
for Aviation Safety Reliability (CASR), they are working with the FAA's 
William J. Hughes Technical Center primarily on the development of new 
inspection methods for aircraft structures.
    The effectiveness of the Center for Aviation Systems Reliability 
(CASR) and the Airworthiness Assurance NDT Validation Center (AANC) is 
intertwined with the certification, operational and maintenance 
requirements for aircraft structures. Nondestructive Inspection (NDI) 
technology has improved our ability to detect structural flaws and 
corrosion. The probability of detection establishes the inspection 
intervals for operators. Safe operation of aircraft beyond the design 
service goal is predicated on detection and modification of aircraft 
structure due to fatigue and corrosion. The real benefit of improved 
NDI is that of increased reliability of detecting flaws before the 
residual strength of the structure degrades to an unsafe level. We are 
able to extend the life of structures and repair or replace them within 
a safe time frame as a direct result of NDI advancements.

    Senator Domenici. One of our Senators--I think Senator 
Conrad--made an issue of airplanes not being on time and the 
kind of problems people are having. I just want to clarify: Is 
that attributable to the fact that we don't have enough money, 
or is that attributable to something else?
    Ms. Garvey. Well, I would certainly say that--and let me 
step back for a minute. I think there were really three 
critical areas. Last summer we saw a 20 percent increase in 
delays, and there were, I think, three significant reasons for 
that. One is, as Don McCarty said this morning, we all 
experienced some significant weather last year, and that was an 
issue. Second, the transition to modern equipment--we moved 
into DSR last year, and that created some problems for us as 
well. And, third, there were a number of significant runway 
projects that were taking place throughout the country that 
also had an impact, particularly at those critical centers.
    I think the efforts that have been underway have been 
significant. We have been working closely with the airlines 
every single week in coming up with a Spring-Summer Plan for 
this year. We don't want to have the same repeat of what we 
experienced last year. We have come up with a very significant 
plan around procedures, around ways to manage the air traffic 
much differently, and that is going to be announced at the end 
of this year.
    I can tell you some elements include giving our command 
center in Herndon more control--they know the whole system--and 
looking at a number of procedures as well. I will say that is 
the short-term fix. We still believe that the long-term fix is 
the long-term modernization efforts that we are also committed 
to. So that clearly is the long-term answer as we move forward.
    Senator Lautenberg. If I might, Mr. Chairman, how about 
just the general increase in the flying public?
    Ms. Garvey. Absolutely.
    Senator Lautenberg. Airplanes are filling and they are busy 
and slots are blocked and the gates are unavailable.
    Ms. Garvey. We are seeing that particularly at some of the 
hubs, as you know, at some of the airports near and dear to 
your heart, Senator. So we are seeing that as well, the growth 
in traffic.
    Mr. Mead. We don't have two things in this country 
pertaining to the delay issue that are very important, 
particularly as you are considering FAA's reauthorization. 
First, we do not have a common definition of what a delay is. 
Second, we do not analyze the causes of delays in a systematic 
way. This is irony of Shakespearean proportions, almost. Did 
you know that you are considered departing ``on time'' if that 
plane backs away from the gate within 15 minutes of its 
scheduled departure? But if you sit on that runway for 2 
additional hours, even though you have pulled away, you are 
still leaving ``on time''.
    Now, the person in that plane doesn't think they are 
leaving on time, but the Federal Government counts, and it 
shows up in USA Today and everywhere else as a departure on 
time. I think that ought to be changed.
    Senator Domenici. Well, we thank you for that observation. 
I was wondering why they did that to us, why they didn't bring 
us back, since we were going to be there 2 hours, why they 
didn't turn us free. But obviously it would be a late 
departure.
    Mr. Mead. That is another issue.
    Senator Domenici. It could be that is the reason they do 
it. They don't do it as much anymore, though, which is very 
interesting to me. Something has happened in the meantime. 
Planes are not pulling out as many times and them telling you 
as soon as you get away from the gate, well, we are going to be 
here for an hour before we take off. I haven't heard that as 
much lately. Have you?
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, I got on an airplane the other 
day despite the precaution that said, look, we are going to get 
you on the airplane, we are going to close the door, but I can 
tell you now it is 55 minutes before we are going to be given 
clearance to take off. And it was excessive traffic going into 
the New York region.
    So delays are alive and well, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Domenici. At least that one they told you clearly 
in advance, and I think they are doing a better job at that.
    Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
    Senator Domenici. I have no further questions. I guess I 
would like--do you want to go another round?
    Senator Lautenberg. I haven't asked any questions.
    Senator Domenici. Oh, I am sorry. I thought you asked them 
while I was gone. I am going to yield in one moment.
    I wonder if you would mind, Administrator Garvey, 
responding to the last comments made by Mr. Mead with reference 
to the commonality that he suggested we don't have in some of 
these areas. Can you address that for the record?
    Ms. Garvey. Do you mean in terms of the delay issue?
    Senator Domenici. Yes, where he just described the things 
that he recommended?
    Ms. Garvey. I think one of the issues that Mr. Mead has 
referred to is the common definition of delays and so forth.
    Senator Domenici. Correct.
    Ms. Garvey. One very good and interesting result of the 
work that we are doing with the airlines right now, is we have 
sort of put some of that aside, and we have said, ``Let us take 
a new look at this, and let us measure how the system is doing. 
Let us agree upon an established set of metrics.'' We have done 
that, and actually, they are pretty straightforward and pretty 
simple, and we now have sort of a common definition between the 
two of us.
    We still have, as Mr. Mead suggested, the issue about DOT's 
definition of it. I think that is something we still need to 
work on, but we have agreed on the common definition with the 
airlines about how we are going to measure how well we do this 
summer, so we will be able to do that together.
    Senator Domenici. Now, Madam Administrator, the Inspector 
General explained at length one of the major projects you have 
going, procurement contracts for new equipment, and I 
understand from my friends who know, that that is a very, very 
important new part of modernizing the system. He explained its 
original bid price and how much it ended up costing, and its 
original committed delivery date and how long it took. Now, I 
am not surprised. Believe it or not, we funded the Internal 
Revenue Service for new equipment for all America, only to find 
that they could not get it done If ever I was frustrated as an 
appropriator in those days was to say, ``OK, we just put up $4 
billion. We can now tell our citizens we are going to have a 
modern system at the IRS.'' IRS wondered for a few years why 
Congress defunded them in certain areas, and I can tell you it 
was because of what I just described. Now, thank God, it looks 
like that is over, but there are similar stories in Social 
Security and other areas, where there are big machines, and 
modernizing has been attempted in huge jumps, not just little 
incremental steps. But I guess it would be important to at 
least know, since the subject came up, whether the FAA has 
analyzed this and if you know why that happened and can tell us 
that it will not happen again?
    Ms. Garvey. Mr. Chairman, I think the approach that we are 
taking on these big projects incrementally, step by step, is in 
large part the answer. I think that is absolutely critical as 
we are moving forward. Mr. Mead and I have talked a great deal 
about that, and I think that is a very positive step forward.
    Second, I think that the whole issue of procurement reform, 
I want to stress again it has allowed us to make changes and 
made some differences to us. We are able to get contracts on 
board in 50 percent less time. The other--and Mr. Mead is 
absolutely right, there are about 5 projects at the FAA that 
are very big projects and need to be watched very carefully. He 
mentioned a couple, WAAS, STARS, OASIS and so forth. There are 
5 of them.
    But I also want to put that in perspective. We have a $2 
billion budget in F&E. Those 5 projects make up about 15 
percent, so there is still a large number of projects being 
done. And I think in those areas in particular, procurement 
reform has been beneficial. Having said that, I want to give 
you my absolute commitment that those 5 problem projects, if 
you will, are being watched very carefully. They are being 
managed differently with clear points of accountability. There 
are absolute deadlines that we have to meet, and we are doing 
that.
    I think we need to do a better job in terms of procurement 
reform of building in life cycle cost, and that is something we 
have talked with Chairman Shelby's committee about as well. We 
need to bring that in, and that is one of the suggestions we 
have got, and we are doing that as well.
    Senator Domenici. All right.
    Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Domenici. Mr. Lautenberg, excuse me for not--
assuming. I thought you might have----
    Senator Lautenberg. Not at all. Our schedule has been mixed 
up, and I apologize for having to run off for a couple minutes.
    Senator Shelby, do you want to----
    Senator Shelby. No, go ahead. I defer to you.

                          PREPARED STATEMENTS

    Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I have three statements 
that--one by Senator Hollings, one by Richard Durbin, one by 
Senator Johnson--that we would like to have inserted in the 
record.
    Senator Domenici. They will be inserted and at this time, I 
would like to insert a statement from Senator Snowe.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
    [The statements follow:]

            Prepared Statement of Senator Ernest F. Hollings

    Good morning and welcome to our distinguished guests, Administrator 
Garvey, Inspector General Mead and Mr. Crichton. I am very pleased that 
you are able to appear at this joint hearing before the Budget and 
Appropriations Committee. ``Modernizing the Federal Aviation 
Administration: Challenges and Solutions'' is the title of today's 
hearing, an apt and timely one at that. As many of you know, we have 
been conferencing on the FAA bill since fall and funding has lapsed on 
the Airport Improvement Program portion of the FAA's budget. Spring--
the beginning of the construction season is almost here and we seem to 
be headed no where soon on this issue.
    We may pose theoretical questions concerning privatization and the 
role of government. What we cannot do, however, is dispute the duties 
incumbent upon us at this moment: properly funding the FAA so that it 
can carry out its primary mission of ensuring safety, and properly 
funding our Nation's aviation infrastructure. Few will dispute the role 
of transportation in commerce. Admittedly, shipping and rail initially 
were responsible for building our Nation's wealth and shaping its 
cities; however, with the past century, aviation has become the primary 
and most important means for moving people. In fact, it has 
revolutionized the way we do business. In 1998, U.S. air carriers 
enplaned 607 million passengers. According to the FAA, this number will 
grow to an estimated 1 billion passengers in 2010. This explosive 
growth does not even include cargo flights.
    Congestion in the skies and on the ground at our Nation's airports 
is also increasing exponentially. According to the Air Transport 
Association, delays were up by 36 percent this summer. The prediction 
of gridlock as was noted in the National Civil Aviation Review 
Commission's 1997 Report seemed to be coming to early fruition. While 
it is fortunate that we have Canada's system as an example of 
privatized air traffic control, the United States' airspace has 
dramatically more complicated flight paths, in addtion to a more 
diverse body of users. Deregulation of the airlines industry left many 
winners and losers. We have planes flying all over the place, including 
a large number that are classified as general aviation. Our population 
is greater and extends throughout our borders. We have 86 commercial 
air carriers compared to Canada's one. And with the exception of a few, 
the majority of U.S. carrier operations use the hub and spoke system, 
allowing them to serve a larger number of passengers. We can not afford 
to have another set of winners and losers by turning air traffic 
control over to the private sector.
    Although it is important that we engage in discussion on ways to 
facilitate modernization of the FAA, it is imperative we do not trade 
academic discussions for action. We must step up to the plate and do 
our duty--pass the FAA bill.
                                 ______
                                 

            Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin

    Chairmen Domenici and Shelby, thank you for calling this important 
hearing on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) modernization. 
Obviously, the State of Illinois, home to one the world's busiest 
airports, has a great interest in achieving the most efficient and 
safest air traffic control system possible. I thank Administrator 
Garvey for joining us today.
    I also want to mention my strong desire to see the conferees on the 
FAA Reauthorization Bill finish their work as soon as possible. In 
downstate Illinois, we're facing an air service crisis. The High 
Density Rule at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport is jeopardizing 
service to smaller communities. It is my hope that the conference 
report will bring some relief to these communities who desperately need 
access to the Chicago market for economic development and tourism.
    I'd like to use my time this morning to talk about an important, 
commonsense safety and accident prevention issue--video cameras in 
airplane cockpits.
    The tragic and mysterious crash of EgyptAir 990 in November and the 
recent crashes of Kenya Airways and Alaska Airlines give us a solemn 
reminder that air travel can never be made too safe. As crash 
investigators attempt to sort out the circumstances surrounding these 
accidents, the Federal Government continues to look for new and 
innovative ways to enhance air safety and prevent future accidents.
    Cockpit voice recorders help us understand the causes of many 
crashes. But sometimes they still leave us mystified. I believe the 
missing link to a clearer and fuller understanding of why airplanes 
crash is video camera technology in the cockpits and on planes.
    In an era where video cameras are commonplace in grocery stores, 
office buildings, public buses, and at ATMs, it is time to modernize 
the tools of air safety. The voice recorder was once state of the art, 
and it still can be an important tool for investigating accidents. 
However, a video camera could provide invaluable information for 
analyzing accidents and creating a safer environment for airline 
passengers. Visual recordings could also shorten the length of an 
investigation at a time when the public is anxious and eager to 
understand what happened.
    The crash of EgyptAir flight 990 unfortunately illustrates the need 
to improve flight recording devices. Although the audio record provided 
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) with some important 
clues about what might have occurred just before the crash, the 
recording appears to raise many more questions than it answers. Visual 
recording equipment could provide more practical information in such 
circumstances.
    I understand the concerns raised by the opponents. Video recordings 
should and must be treated in the same manner as cockpit voice 
recordings. Privacy concerns and compassion for victims' families must 
be appropriately addressed.
    This week, I met with the chairmen of both American and United 
Airlines. They're open to the concept. I've had the opportunity to meet 
with and raise this subject with today's witness, FAA Administrator 
Garvey, and with NTSB Chairman Jim Hall. Both are interested.
    In fact, Chairman Hall wrote, ``The Safety Board shares your belief 
that a video recording could provide invaluable information for 
analyzing accidents and creating a safer environment for airline 
passengers.'' NTSB's Office of Research and Engineering is currently 
looking into this matter.
    Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government, specifically the FAA, must 
lead the way. I am asking Administrator Garvey to continue to push the 
agency to consider this concept and the latest available technology.
    However, Congress has a role as well. We should ensure that both 
the FAA and NTSB Reauthorization Bills include language that prepares 
the way for the possibility of video cameras and recordings. We should 
not wait for another accident.
    I thank the Budget Committee and the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee for holding this important hearing. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues as well as with the FAA and NTSB to advance 
this commonsense concept.
    Thank you.
                                 ______
                                 

               Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this hearing and 
thank the witnesses for being here this morning. I want to take a 
moment to express my concerns regarding the status of the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization. As we all know, the 
authorization lapsed last fall and consequently, our airports currently 
are operating with some uncertainty about the future.
    Several of South Dakota's airports receive funding through the 
Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which funds a variety of critical 
projects across the country including safety, security, capacity, and 
noise projects. In recent years, AIP funds were used for a number of 
important projects, including the rehabilitation and lighting of a 
runway in Pierre and runway rehabilitation projects in Watertown, Sioux 
Falls, Rapid City, Mitchell, Huron, Brookings, Aberdeen, Redfield, 
Flandreau, Custer County, and Platte. Many critically important 
projects are slated for construction when the funds are made available 
and I hope that a resolution to the conference is found in a timely 
manner so that our entire construction season, which is often fairly 
short because of the harsh midwestern winters, can be utilized.
    Essential Air Service (EAS) also is a critical program for South 
Dakota. Yankton's airport depends on EAS for air transportation, and 
the cities of Brookings and Mitchell also are served by this program. 
EAS has proved to be crucial to ensuring that rural America remains 
economically viable, by allowing scheduled air service to exist at many 
rural airports across the Nation that otherwise could not support 
commercial air service. If funding for EAS lapses, South Dakota's rural 
airports, and the communities they serve, will be adversely affected.
    Finally, regarding the controversial issue of how to best ensure 
airports receive adequate, reliable funding in the future, I support 
using all revenues generated by aviation taxes for aviation needs. 
Using all aviation trust fund monies to meet the unmet needs in our 
aviation infrastructure and the growing needs of the flying public 
makes common sense. I want to commend Chairman Domenici for attempting 
to find a compromise on the complex issue of aviation funding. I hope 
that the conference can resolve this complex issue as soon as possible, 
and, again, I appreciate the Chairman's efforts to find a compromise.
    I hope the FAA reauthorization conference will be able to resolve 
the extremely complex and critically important issues involved in the 
FAA reauthorization conference so that our airport managers will no 
longer be held hostage by congressional inaction. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
                                 ______
                                 

             Prepared Statement of Senator Olympia J. Snowe

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to express my appreciation to 
you for scheduling this hearing. This is a very important issue.
    As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee and Aviation 
Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the Federal Aviation 
Administration, I recognize the extraordinary importance of the FAA 
reform and modernization issue.
    Just last month, a relatively minor computer glitch in the Air 
Traffic Control System virtually halted air travel in the East. This 
past summer, flight delays were at an all time high. This is our wake-
up call. Modernization is critical. After all, by some estimates, air 
traffic congestion is expected to grow by upwards of 50 percent through 
2008. I do not believe that we are currently prepared to handle growth 
of this magnitude.
    Of course, some of the problems in the Air Traffic System are 
caused by factors beyond our control, such as weather. However, other 
factors, including over-scheduling, antiquated technology, and 
bureaucratic management can and must be addressed.
    To this end, the FAA has in recent decades developed modernization 
initiatives to improve its programs and upgrade its systems. However, 
these efforts have been plagued by chronic cost and schedule overruns, 
due at least in part to what many believe was an overly ambitious 
strategy. The GAO, for example, identified the FAA's failure to follow 
a ``phased'' versus an ``incremental'' approach to modernization. While 
the FAA has taken steps to address some of these criticisms--adopting 
short- and long-term modernization goals and working toward those goals 
through incremental change, for example--I am not sure that all of the 
outstanding issues have been addressed.
    A key issue, of course, is air traffic control modernization. The 
FAA has outlined three components to its air traffic control 
modernization strategy: (1) maintaining current systems and upgrading 
infrastructure; (2) enhancing safety; and (3) developing new mechanisms 
to increase capacity and efficiency in the system.
    These are fundamental themes, and I strongly believe that we need 
to focus our attention and follow through before its too late. I look 
forward to what I hope will be a frank and constructive exchange of 
ideas on how to confront the FAA's challenges through adoption of new 
technologies, better management practices, and perhaps restructuring.
    I am interested in hearing from the FAA on what the costs and long-
term outlook for modernization are, what efforts the agency has made to 
counter criticism from the GAO and others, and what affect all of these 
changes will have on consumers.
    The FAA certainly faces enormous challenges as it attempts to keep 
pace with the rapid changes taking place in aviation.
    Once again, I would like to express my appreciation to the Chairman 
and my thanks to the witnesses for sharing their insights.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Garvey, one of the things that I 
was kind of curious about, and including the discussion--
included in the discussion of delays was some concern about the 
lack of clear definition what constitutes delays, and I think 
that would be very helpful to the passenger market, because 
they just do not get it. They know when they are late, and they 
know what the OAG or they were told when they called to make 
their reservation, and if it is not there, it is late. It does 
not need more defining than that. But how much--and you have 
identified weather as a significant factor. We ought to be able 
to identify how much delays cost by weather, and I think that 
would be a good thing to do. It does not mean we can throw up 
our hands and ignore it. The fact of the matter is there is 
better and better weather equipment out there. We do not want 
airplanes flying in risky conditions, but if the public knew 
that, they would say, ``Boy, that is a good idea that they 
delayed that.''
    You were talking about procurement, and you know, Senator 
Hatfield and I and others worked hard at getting the 
procurement process reform, and yet, things are not in place, 
and you had a discussion just now, Senator Domenici, and are 
there any legal obstacles there that you have, any regulatory 
problems that you have in implementing the procurement process 
as we like to see it?
    Ms. Garvey. Senator, I am not aware of any, and again, I 
actually think we have made some very good progress in it. The 
recent review that we had by Booz-Allen--it was an independent 
review--made 18 suggestions to us, including, by the way, 
getting the life cycle costing included. They essentially said, 
``Look, you are on track. You are doing the right stuff.''
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, I think our friend, Ken Mead, may 
differ with you a little bit on that.
    Ms. Garvey. I am not sure.
    Senator Lautenberg. Is there a difference in view?
    Mr. Mead. No; I was musing that in our observations of 
procurement reform, it is interesting that people sometimes do 
not know what to do with freedom when they get it. When 
Congress gave FAA freedom, there was a period of time, it seems 
to me--I was at GAO for part of this time--now being at the 
Department where the agency did not know what to do with this 
newfound freedom. FAA is still struggling with it to this day. 
I hear from Mr. Belger and others about this but I see 
improvements on the innovations. I really do. I am not sure FAA 
really believed it when they had freedom from Federal 
acquisition and personnel rules.
    Ms. Garvey. If I could just mention I was at Highways then. 
And I do not want to leave the impression that there is not 
more we can do. I think we have to constantly ask ourselves: 
are we using it as flexibly as we can, and can we push the 
envelope a little bit more? So we need to constantly do that. 
Mr. Mead's staff is terrific about working with us and making 
some suggestions. I think for the most part we have implemented 
just about all of those or well on the way to.
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, some aviation observers have 
complained that the Appropriations Committee has not granted 
FAA enough procurement funding. Now, my experience has been 
that when the Appropriations Committee reduces funding for a 
particular procurement, it is based on FAA's testimony 
indicating that a project has been delayed or is otherwise put 
on a different track. Do you believe that granting FAA an 
unlimited pot of procurement funds is going to put an end to 
your contracting problems in a hurry?
    Ms. Garvey. I would agree with the statements that were 
made earlier. I do not think money is the only answer. I will 
say that I think this year in 2000 we have had some real 
shortfalls. We are looking at some programs that may be slowed 
up a bit, but I would certainly agree with the earlier 
comments, it is not the only answer. I hope we can get what the 
President asked for this year, but----
    Senator Lautenberg. Is any part of the problem inability 
for suppliers to deliver product, whether it be software, 
hardware, otherwise?
    Ms. Garvey. That is a very good question. I am not sure I 
know the answer to that. I am not aware of any, but I will 
check with people. There may be some cases where that is an 
issue. I will tell you one area I have been a little concerned 
about. The kind of freedom we have had and flexibility we have 
had has created some problems for some small businesses, and 
that is an issue we have been wrestling with lately, whether or 
not our sort of eagerness to get some contracts out, whether we 
may have inadvertently not been quite as fair to some of the 
small businesses as we should be. So that is something we are 
looking carefully at and dealing with as well.
    [The information follows:]

    No. We are not aware of any inability on the part of our supplier 
to deliver products.

    Mr. Mead. I recall, Mr. Lautenberg, you were on the 
committee at the time and saw firsthand what happened to the 
Advance Automation System. AAS was the centerpiece of FAA's air 
traffic control effort in the late 1980's and early 1990's. And 
I recall in appropriations hearings that year that FAA came up 
and asked you for money. Actually, I think the committee 
largely funded that request, only to have, the plug pulled on 
the entire program 11 months later as a result of an intensive 
study by Deputy Administrator Daschle and Administrator Hinson. 
And going back further to the Microwave Landing System, which 
was a multi-billion dollar program, which was also terminated. 
The Micro Wave Landing System was terminated because of 
pressure from the airline industry.
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, it is interesting, because, Ms. 
Garvey, you have the unique experience of serving both as a 
Deputy Highway Administrator as well as the FAA Administrator. 
And in the procurement process I saw something unique happen in 
New Jersey last year. When we gave a contract for a major 
interchange--perhaps you remember, major 417--and I think 
Secretary Basso was there to celebrate the completion a year 
early, a year early, and essentially under budget for the work 
that was done, because we gave a contract out there, we gave 
the contractor a lot of headway, and there was a bonus promise, 
and the bonus promise that we had to pay--I think it was about 
$3 million--was insignificant compared to the pre-Christmas 
rush that was taking place on these highways and a lot of 
retail shopping. And I think we begin to learn things, and I 
have seen it also on a light-rail system that is being now done 
in New Jersey, in North Jersey, where the contract is fairly 
open-ended--not without all the audit trails that one would 
expect--but the fact of the matter is that if we kind of got 
out of the way, we found out that if we had reliable 
contractors, we could get the job done, and there is a tendency 
among all of us here to micro-manage at times, because we get 
frustrated at the lack of completion of things.
    Now, do you think that our interstate highway system 
provides the kind of benefits to our economy that perhaps 
investments in FAA might provide? Is it appropriate for FAA to 
get guaranteed amounts of general funding when the Federal 
Highway Administration receives no general funding whatsoever? 
The point I make, I assume, is obvious at this juncture, and 
that is, what about this concept of assuring FAA that it gets 
whatever funds it needs, and jeopardizing investments in 
highway or rail or other parts of the transportation system, or 
accounts way beyond that?
    Ms. Garvey. This is where I turn over to Dr. Basso.
    Dr. Basso. Senator, it is a very good question. First just 
briefly on the Interstate Highway System, I think it has been 
unprecedented what the system has done for the country, and in 
particular, I enjoyed being with you in New Jersey a few weeks 
ago when we had a chance to see all of that firsthand, very 
important.
    On the question of guaranteed funding, I think clearly the 
Administration has not called for guaranteed general funding 
for the FAA. The other point that I think I should make is that 
clearly the trust fund alone, with the receipts that are coming 
in now, do not or would not just simply meet our budget needs, 
and when I am able to talk more about this on Monday, I can be 
more specific about our approaches to how we would meet those 
needs.
    Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Mead, your testimony includes some 
sobering data regarding the cost growth and three of FAA's 
major procurements. Do you think that there is a risk that 
dramatically increased appropriations to the FAA Facilities and 
Equipment budget will cause the cost of these programs to grow 
even more? Does it suggest that it will increase the appetite 
for spending with some less control involved?
    Mr. Mead. If the Congress is going to give FAA more money, 
I would suggest that you put in some controls to ensure that 
additional funds are not absorbed by salaries and related 
expenses and cost growth. I think we would all come away from 
the table a bit disappointed if additional funds intended for 
modernization went to cover cost growth in other areas.
    I do think that in tandem with the FAA reauthorization and 
appropriation process, there should be a very explicit linkage 
to a cost accounting system. If someone comes and asks you or 
me for money, you probably like to say, ``Well, what exactly 
would you use it for and what will you get out of it?'' To 
arrive at the answers to those questions, you need a cost 
accounting system. Most businesses have them. While it is 
fairly unusual in the Federal Government, businesses have them, 
FAA, in many respects, is a 365 day a year business. And we are 
talking about a lot of money. So I think there are investment 
opportunities--I can rattle off a whole list of them--but it 
would be very important that the money be spent wisely.
    Senator Lautenberg. What do you think, Ms. Garvey?
    Ms. Garvey. Well, first of all, I could not agree more on 
the cost accounting system. In fact, I think that holds, as I 
mentioned, the most promise for helping us control our costs, 
because we have accounting like every government agency right 
now, but it is not to the level that we need it. It is not in 
the same way that business has it.
    Senator Lautenberg. But inhibits the development or the 
influence----
    Ms. Garvey. We actually are well on the way. I will tell 
you that this year we did--and Mr. Mead referred to that--we 
did delay implementation for everything other than the Air 
Traffic Control System, and that was because of the budget 
constraints. We worked very hard though to make sure that the 
air traffic control piece, which is in our view the most 
critical piece, that we are on track with that. We have a 
framework in place. We are already beginning to collect data 
for both the en route and the oceanic domains. The flight 
services stations will be later this year. So we are beginning 
to collect that data now. We have tested with industry. That 
is, are we headed in the right direction? We have got 
extraordinarily complimentary comments from industry. One 
representative from American Airlines said that it ought to be 
a model to be used internationally. It is that level of detail. 
So do I wish it were in place today? Absolutely. But are we on 
the right track? Yes, we are, and I think it holds great 
promise for us.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say that the thinking 
necessary to correct some of the problem there is in place, so 
we encourage you to move forward with these changes, and speak 
emphatically about them when you meet with the committees of 
the Congress, and make sure that they understand where you are 
going and what the mission is.
    Thank you very much.
    Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Shelby.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Ms. Garvey, you have been at the FAA long enough now to 
have a pretty good sense of the challenges that have to be 
addressed to make that organization more efficient, more 
accountable and responsive to its customers. I believe you 
received good marks from insiders at the FAA, from most 
industry experts, and generally a good reception here on the 
Hill, including from my committee.
    Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Some claim that you are the best 
administrator that the agency has ever had. Yet, the FAA of 
2000 has many, if not all of the problems I mentioned earlier, 
that have plagued it for the past 20 years.
    Basically, is this too big a job for any one person? Is the 
air traffic control function a task that would be better 
executed by non-governmental management structure, or are all 
the naysayers out there predicting gridlock and doom wrong?
    Ms. Garvey. Well, thank you first of all for the kind 
comments.
    I will tell you, by the way, that I am reaching my midpoint 
of the 5-year term tomorrow.
    Senator Shelby. Congratulations.
    Ms. Garvey. Thank you, thank you. And I expect to see it 
through.
    I think the whole issue about whether or not there ought to 
be a different structure is absolutely the right kind of debate 
to have in this Congress, absolutely the right kind of debate. 
The Administration has proposed, as we know, in 1995, a 
corporation, a performance-based organization, but there are 
lots of ideas out there, and to have them debated is 
appropriate. But I do want to say--and I hope you will bear 
with me--but I really do think we have made some progress. It 
is difficult to change a 47,000-people agency, but I think we 
have made some enormous strides forward. I really do not want 
to go home today without saying that I think the work that is 
being done at the FAA and the kind of decisions that people 
make on a daily basis have not produced some positive changes 
in the last 2 years. We are doing things differently, and I 
think we are getting some very significant work done.
    Senator Shelby. BNA reported just this morning that the 
President's budget request for FAA operations is $6.6 billion. 
That is in excess of what is currently being contemplated in 
the FAA reauthorization conference. Is that correct? And if 
that is correct, is the reauthorization inadequate or is the 
President's budget request bloated?
    Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, let me just answer by saying I am 
not in a position to confirm the number today. I will be on 
Monday and----
    Senator Shelby. Are the numbers in the ball park?
    Mr. Basso. They are clearly in the ball park, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Good.
    Mr. Basso. I think I have to give you that, and I would 
like to promptly on Monday advise you----
    Senator Shelby. Will you get back with us on that?
    Mr. Basso. Sir?
    Senator Shelby. Will you get back with us on that?
    Mr. Basso. Absolutely. I will call you Monday morning first 
thing.
    Senator Shelby. What is the status of the contract tower 
plan that Congress has requested the FAA? Ken, do you want to 
comment on that?
    Mr. Mead. I think there is kind of an odd issue that has 
come up on this Contract Tower Program. We have reviewed it. We 
found that these low-level towers, the program was essentially 
sound for low-level towers. We did find that FAA has to stay on 
top of the contractors to make sure that they come through and 
live up to their staffing obligations. Safety did not seem to 
be affected.
    Now, your committee, the House, the Conference Committee, 
directed FAA to do a study of whether that Contract Tower 
Program could be expanded to further towers. FAA's study was 
not done properly, in my view. And you turned around and 
directed us to do it, in the Inspector General's Office. We are 
in the process of doing it.
    One issue that has come up is that the controller agreement 
establishes 15,000 controllers, either as a ceiling or a floor 
or both. We were told that, ``Well, if FAA were to contract out 
any more towers, that is, privatize them, well then, you would 
be abrogating the controller agreement because some of the 
controllers would have to come from these towers.'' I am not so 
sure that that is a correct analysis, because those controllers 
could go to some other tower, or they could leave. FAA could 
hire more controllers and put them where they are needed most--
at the busier facilities. This is a very controversial issue.
    I think that Contract Tower Program at low-level 
facilities, where they are not getting a lot of traffic, is a 
sound program, and deserves support.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, would you be concerned that the 
necessary FAA reform would be less likely if an aviation 
firewall was erected?
    Mr. Mead. I do not see the issue as a firewall, and with 
all respect.
    Senator Shelby. What do you see as being the issue?
    Mr. Mead. Because if you gave FAA all the money that comes 
in every year from the trust fund, they would be getting less 
money now than you have appropriated. I think they would get 
about $700 million less, unless you took all the interest. So I 
think the real issue here is whether general income taxes from 
the general fund ought to be going to FAA as an entitlement. I 
know that is a policy judgment for the Congress. Over the years 
I think that the appropriators have done a good job at 
exercising oversight, I cannot point to a lack of money as 
being the problem with major systems that have had problems. 
But again, I know there are additional investment opportunities 
out there.
    Senator Shelby. Your statement indicated that in 1995 the 
GAO and the Office of Inspector General cautioned that neither 
procurement or personnel rules, nor lack of funding were the 
source of the problems the FAA was experiencing with this ATC 
modernization. Is that still true?
    Mr. Mead. Yes, it is largely still true, sir.
    Senator Shelby. OK. Your statement also indicates that the 
FAA originally planned its cost accounting system to be fully 
implemented by October the 1st, 1998, but that the FAA has yet 
to implement this system. Why is a cost accounting system so 
critical to the effective management of the agency and for 
making responsible modernization decisions? Should the FAA 
request supplemental funding or reprogramming to complete the 
development and implementation of a cost accounting system?
    Mr. Mead. Part one of your question, a cost accounting 
system is important, because it tells you how much you are 
spending for what----
    Senator Shelby. It is accountability, is it not?
    Mr. Mead. As its name would suggest, yes, sir.
    Senator Shelby. Accountability.
    Mr. Mead. And if you do not have one, and you get more and 
more money, what is the real incentive for having a cost 
accounting system?
    Senator Shelby. I agree with you.
    Mr. Mead. So I think--as Ms. Garvey was saying, you have to 
keep the accelerator to the floor on that.
    And as to your second part of your question, FAA has a 
roughly $10 billion a year budget, and it is difficult for me 
to believe that out of that large sum of money the extra $2 
million that would be required to do something that is so 
fundamental, that even a company in bankruptcy must have, that 
FAA could find that money. Now, maybe they do need the 
supplemental, but I do think it is very important for work on a 
cost accounting system to go on.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Domenici. All right. If there are any other 
questions, Senators can submit them, and we would ask you to 
answer the questions as quickly as you can, because we are on 
about a 2\1/2\ week deadline.
    Before you leave, Madam Administrator, I wanted to 
compliment you on your personal hiring practices. A year ago 
your director of the budget was sitting there behind you----
    Ms. Garvey. Wonderful job.
    Senator Domenici. Mr. Riley was sitting back here giving us 
advice, and you actually found somebody very, very good. We are 
very sorry that we lost him, but it is your gain and obviously 
our loss.
    Ms. Garvey. It is our gain.

                     Additional committee questions

    Senator Domenici. And we wish him well as he attempts to 
help you do your job.
    Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]

                   Questions Submitted to Ms. Garvey

            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                   TECHNOLOGY AND FUTURE OF AVIATION

    Question. The world is changing. Technological advances have 
transformed our lives and provided benefits to the aviation community. 
Does the current structure of FAA allow it to fully harness 
technological advances and adequately respond to changes?
    Answer. As the experience of the private sector shows, there is no 
one best structure to advance technology and respond to technological 
change. The FAA has had good success in breaking up large, technically 
challenging changes into manageable pieces so as to ``build a little, 
test a little, change a little'' in what is called spiral development. 
This is the approach for Free Flight Phase 1 (FFP1). We are partnering 
with the airlines and the Europeans on development of data link. 
Through our involvement with the International Civil Aviation 
Organization and RTCA Incorporated, formerly Radio Technical Commission 
for Aeronautics, and in partnership with our aviation industry, we are 
setting standards for use of new technology. In our Safe Flight 21 
initiative, the FAA and the aviation community are developing the 
aircraft avionics for the future. The FAA has placed a heavy emphasis 
in its acquisitions to buy commercial off-the-shelf products, shifting 
the risk for development to industry. This causes the FAA to plan and 
implement technological refresh cycles with our systems with greater 
frequency than in the past.
    While development is on the cutting edge, implementation takes more 
time, The National Airspace System (NAS) must evolve, not change in a 
revolutionary way. The users must have time to transition and make 
their capital investments. The transition must be safe, and we must 
have experience with the new technology before we phase out the old. 
This contributes to increased operations and maintenance costs that are 
not seen in other industry segments when they retool or replace 
automation with much shorter life cycles.

                      FAA'S MODERNIZATION PROGRAM

    Question. In the early 1980's the Administration began a 
modernization program to upgrade the antiquated Air Traffic Control 
System. Historically modernization projects have experienced 
significant cost over-runs and schedule delays. What mistakes were made 
during FAA's modernization efforts of the past? How have these lessons 
been applied to today and future efforts?
    Answer. The FAA has learned that large projects must be broken down 
into manageable implementation steps. We have demonstrated this with 
FFP1 and spiral development. Each step must produce measurable 
benefits, either to the users or the FAA or both.
    Data link has been broken down into a series of discrete steps and 
the airlines are participating in early phases of development and 
implementation. We have started with four common message sets. We will 
expand to 18, and then add additional messages based on joint data link 
trials that are underway with Eurocontrol.
    We must adequately sustain our current infrastructure while we 
continue to modernize. To jump start modernization and to reach 
consensus that formed the basis of FFP1, we had to make a number of 
investments at the expense of our infrastructure. This was necessary to 
reach consensus on modernization and formed the basis of FFP1. We are 
now increasing our investments in critical infrastructure to produce a 
more balanced portfolio. This investment includes funding power system 
upgrades, facility improvements, communications improvements, physical 
security, and information security.
    Close collaboration with our user community is essential. We must 
do better mid-range (3 to 5 years) planning for modernization. We value 
our continuing collaboration with the users on the NAS architecture. We 
have been dealing with urgent problems first. Priorities such as Year 
2000 fixes and increased security at our Nation's airports ($100 
million per year) have drawn funding away from modernization 
activities.
    Question. What management reforms have been instituted within the 
FAA to prevent FAA's current modernization efforts from being over 
budget and delayed? Are there other actions you are now considering?
    Answer. The FAA initiated several different reform efforts aimed at 
improving the operational environment within the Agency and 
programmatic performance.
    Performance plans are linked to specific modernization goals and 
monitored on a quarterly basis. The FAA took an important step in 
support of culture change and improved performance by developing annual 
outcome-based, mission-focused performance goals and indicators in line 
of business performance plans.
    The Integrated Product Development System establishes cross-
functional teams throughout each FAA line of business to produce 
effective and efficient products and services that satisfy customer/
user needs.
    The FAA Integrated Capability Maturity Model integrates a unified 
approach for evaluating FAA's processes and improving them. Early in 
the implementation process, we expect results to contribute to 
increased efficiency and higher quality products and services.
    The requirement process re-engineered and established a single 
organizational entity to better manage system requirements and ensure 
improved collaboration with the teams.
    Acquisition reform established corporate-level decision making for 
FAA needs and investments and substantially streamlined procurement 
processes. It created an improved structure and process for defining 
FAA needs and investments.
    The portfolio management aggregates investment candidates into 
funding categories to facilitate managing the capital investment 
portfolio as a whole. It increases benefits and helps manage risks.
    Two examples of programmatic success working within this changing 
operational environment include the Display System Replacement (DSR) 
and the Host and Oceanic Computer System Replacement (HOCSR) Programs. 
These two programs successfully delivered their products within their 
acquisition program baselines. Among some of the benefits they derived 
from reform initiatives were:
  --Stable requirements.
  --Hiring new personnel faster.
  --Attracting new staff using the new flexible compensation system.
  --Using cross-functional team concepts to improve teamwork and 
        communications.
  --Using Acquisition Management System (AMS) to talk with industry 
        more openly, involve industry in their acquisition process, and 
        engage in teaming with industry.
    Question. What are your goals and vision for FAA modernization over 
the next 5 to 10 years?
    Answer. Two documents used to describe the FAA's vision for NAS 
modernization, both long and short term, are the NAS Architecture and 
the Capital Investment Plan (CIP).
    The NAS Architecture, released in January 1999, is the United 
States aviation community's comprehensive, long-term plan for improving 
the NAS. The NAS Architecture is based on the joint FAA and industry 
operational concept for planning and conducting flight operations. Our 
shared goal is to increase safety, security, and efficiency of the NAS.
    The CIP is an overview of FAA's NAS Architecture. It summarizes the 
FAA's capital resource expenditure plans for fiscal year 2001 through 
fiscal year 2005 and is based on the Office of Management and Budget's 
5-year estimates. The plan shows the extent to which the Agency expects 
to modernize for the next 5 years. Our modernization goals are 
described as follows:
  --Upgrade our infrastructure to add new safety and security 
        capabilities, and to add new efficiency capabilities. System 
        outages have the potential to erase the benefits derived from 
        new capabilities as evidenced by our recent outage at Leesburg 
        Air Route Traffic Control Center.
  --In addition to new capabilities, we must continuously improve the 
        services we provide to the Nation. We must also expand on how 
        we deliver these services to gain user benefits. Benefits are 
        realized through increased safety, delay reduction, improved 
        access to the airspace by all users, increased predictability 
        in delivery of our services, improved flexibility to the users 
        in planning and flying through the NAS; and more return on 
        investment to gain efficiency.
  --Assuming funding levels close to the President's budget and outyear 
        projections, over the next 5 years, we can accomplish many of 
        the modernization activities that will improve the safety, 
        security, and efficiency of the NAS. Some of these are as 
        follows:
    --Be well on our way to the implementation of satellite navigation;
    --FFP1 will have been completed in fiscal year 2002 and by fiscal 
            year 2005 these automation tools will have expanded to 
            other locations in the NAS;
    --Additional surface movement radars will have been deployed at 
            airports having high numbers of runway incursions starting 
            with contract award this year;
    --Initial controller-pilot data link services will commence in 
            fiscal year 2003 and be expanded to a larger message set by 
            fiscal year 2005;
    --Most terminal radars and secondary surveillance beacons will be 
            replaced by fiscal year 2005;
    --Modernized oceanic services will begin operations in fiscal year 
            2002 and be fully updated by fiscal year 2006;
    --Critical en route infrastructure (Direct Access Radar Channel/
            DARC and Peripheral Adapter Module Replacement Item/PAMRI) 
            will be replaced by fiscal year 2004 and after a 
            significant development investment, the en route software 
            will be replaced by fiscal year 2007;
    --We have turned the corner with Standard Terminal Automation 
            Replacement System (STARS);
    --We will have approximately one-half of all terminal facilities 
            deployed and operational by fiscal year 2005; and
    --Our infrastructure investments in power systems and facility 
            upgrades will keep pace with service demands to reduce 
            outage related delay.
                   recent air traffic control outages
    Question. On January 6, FAA's air traffic control equipment at the 
Leesburg, VA, location failed, causing hundreds of flights all over the 
East Coast to be delayed. On December 19, 1999, the primary FAA radar 
system in Palm Springs, CA was declared unusable. Please describe the 
recent outages of air traffic control equipment in Leesburg and Palm 
Springs. What caused these outages?
    Answer. The daily certification of the HOST System was performed at 
Washington Center in Leesburg. A manual refresh of the HOST System was 
initiated; however, the refresh interrupted the computer processing and 
created the subsequent outage. The HOST Computer Program remained 
locked up and extended the outage. The flight plan table overloaded and 
service degraded on January 6, 2000. Washington Center transitioned to 
an independent backup system and resumed normal operations.
    The radar at Palm Springs, CA was declared unusable on December 19, 
1999 due to equipment deterioration and environmental conditions. FAA 
provided interim service using military radar. Airway Facilities 
optimized the Palm Springs radar performance and replaced the Air 
Traffic Control Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI)-4 with an ATCBI-5. 
Information from the ATCBI-5 and surveillance radar is now fed directly 
into the terminal radar. Normal operations resumed at the Palm Springs 
radar on February 21, 2000.
    Question. How quickly were the problems fixed?
    Answer. At Washington Center, normal operations resumed after 3 
hours and 34 minutes, At Palm Springs, Airways Facilities used 80 hours 
to optimize performance of the radar.
    Question. How are you ensuring that this will not occur in the 
future?
    Answer. A software fix was developed and installed at Washington 
Center to prevent this problem from recurring. The software fix is 
being distributed to all en route centers.
    At Palm Springs, the installed systems have been optimized and are 
operating within design parameters. The FAA will continue to review the 
complex local environmental issues at Palm Springs. These include 
unusual atmospheric conditions, local topography, and a number of 
electricity-generating windmills that create a unique environment. An 
Airport Surveillance Radar-11 is scheduled for installation in fiscal 
year 2005. The FAA is developing a transition plan to further improve 
radar service at Palm Springs.
    Question. Do you agree with the statement that additional funding 
or enactment of a specific bill would have prevented this?
    Answer. No; outages occur for a variety of reasons. Additional 
funding would neither prevent these events from occurring nor can the 
events be tied to insufficient funding.
              results of personnel and procurement reforms
    Question. In 1996, Congress provided FAA the ability to develop and 
implement acquisition and personnel reforms to address the unique 
demand on, as well as the needs of, the agency. What flexibility did 
these reforms provide the FAA?
    Answer. Acquisition and personnel reform have been very beneficial 
to the FAA. Under personnel reform, we have designed and implemented a 
new human resource system. Initial efforts focused on ``quick hit'' 
changes to policies and processes such as delegating authority for 
personnel decisions to line organizations and managers, and offering 
additional flexibility in filling positions. We have developed a 
comprehensive compensation framework, which establishes the overall 
objectives and tenets of FAA's compensation programs. We have designed 
an evaluation plan to assess progress in meeting the objectives of 
personnel reform, and we have developed proposals for more 
comprehensive long-term program changes. These improvements represent 
the first steps in moving from decades-old personnel programs to a new 
system.
    Acquisition reform has provided the FAA the following:
  --Flexible policy and guidance;
  --Reasonable competition among two or more sources is the preferred 
        method of source selection;
  --Single source method is still an option when it makes good business 
        sense to do so;
  --Best value method is used as the basis of award for most contracts;
  --Any method of cost or price analysis may be used to determine fair 
        and reasonable prices with price analysis being the preferred 
        method for evaluating competitive proposals;
  --Policy does not require Cost Accounting Standards on contracts for 
        commercial items;
  --Protests and disputes are decided within FAA's Office of Dispute 
        Resolution;
  --The Administrator has final decision authority; and
  --Direct access to the small business community, i.e., the Small 
        Business Administration is not involved in the contracting 
        process.
    Question. It has been 4 years since Congress passed the provision. 
What tangible results has the FAA achieved directly related to these 
reforms?
    Answer. Personnel Reform.--Since 1996, FAA has made many 
improvements that represent the first steps in moving from the decades-
old personnel program to a new system. Reform has enabled us to 
accomplish the following:
  --Reduce the time it takes to fill positions and effect personnel 
        actions. The average time to hire a new employee has been cut 
        from 6 months to 6 weeks.
  --Establish an automated system that reduces the time to classify a 
        position from a previous average of three weeks to a current 
        average of 1 day.
  --Streamline establishment and recruitment for senior leadership 
        position (e.g., hired 70 executives, 17 percent of whom came 
        from outside of government; hired 17 world-class experts in 
        critical scientific and technology positions through use of 
        streamlined executive staffing procedures).
  --Use more innovative recruitment methods to attract better 
        candidates.
  --Design and pilot a new performance-based compensation plan for 
        employees and executives, which include:
    --A 5-year contract with controllers union and implementation of a 
            new pay plan.
    --Increased emphasis on performance management and recognition of 
            contributions.
    --Implemented a new agency training policy, which provides more 
            efficient and effective training by increasing flexibility 
            in training design and delivery and by delegating decisions 
            about training to lines of business.
    --Began implementation of a new job evaluation system that 
            eliminates thousands of pages of job grading standards and 
            position descriptions, and replaces them with concise 
            definitions tailored to FAA work.
    --Replaced 150 separate Federal classification guides and 
            instructions (over 11,000 pages) with 50 pages of FAA-
            specific criteria.
    --Simplified temporary travel and permanent move policies, which 
            provide equitable reimbursement to employees.
    --Reduced administrative requirements and costs for travel and 
            relocation.
    --Communicated personnel reform changes to managers and employees, 
            so that they fully understand changes and how to take 
            advantage of personnel reform flexibility.
    Acquisition Reform.--Acquisition reform has helped simplify, 
integrate, and unify elements of the life cycle acquisition management 
into a more effective system. For example, now all acquisition policy 
is located in one streamlined policy document located on the Internet 
with automated tools and guidance. Acquisition reform has shifted focus 
to life cycle management of programs, created an improved structure and 
process for defining FAA needs and investments. It has established 
corporate-level decision making for FAA needs and investments, and 
increased involvement of stakeholders in decisions.
    Two examples of programmatic success working within this changing 
operational environment include the DSR and the HOCSR Programs. These 
two programs successfully delivered their products within their 
acquisition program baselines. Among some of the benefits they derived 
from reform initiatives were:
  --stable requirements;
  --hiring new personnel faster;
  --attracting new staff using the new flexible compensation system;
  --using cross-functional team concepts to improve team work and 
        communications;
  --using AMS to talk with industry more openly, involving industry in 
        their acquisition process; and
  --engaging in teaming with industry.
    Substantially streamlined procurement processes produced a 50 
percent reduction in the time to award contracts and has increased the 
percentage of contracts awarded competitively. Based on best value, it 
has improved communications with FAA vendors and has made significant 
improvement to the contract protest and dispute resolution process. 
Award time and vendor's bid and proposal costs have been reduced 
through the use of qualified vendor's list for repetitive and 
simplified requirements. Some examples of procurements that gained from 
this streamlined process are:
  --Transient Voltage Surge Arrestors.--This acquisition was announced 
        and awarded in a 3-day period instead of the 180 days under the 
        old system. Public announcement time was one day versus 51 
        days. A purchase order was used instead of a formal Request for 
        Proposal (RFP) award document, which saved both the FAA and 
        contractor time and resources.
  --Low Level Windshear Alert System.--A sub team evaluated offers and 
        recommended a vendor within 2 weeks instead of at least 6 weeks 
        under the old process.
      On a commercial buy of very high frequency omni-directional range 
        items, FAA achieved a 42-day savings in total processing time 
        by issuing a Screening Information Request (SIR) on the 
        Internet (rather than going the Commence Business Daily 
        process) and using the streamlined selection and award process.
    Continued implementation of these reform efforts is necessary to 
realize their full impact on improving operations and delivery of 
products and services. In addition, full and stable funding for the 
entire lifecycle of FAA programs is critical to NAS modernization 
efforts.
    Question. Does the FAA need additional reforms or flexibility to 
manage efficiently?
    Answer. The FAA reauthorization proposals submitted to Congress in 
1998 and 1999 contained requests for both financial and managerial 
reforms. While the agency is grateful for both personnel and 
procurement reform, these are but two elements necessary to elevate the 
FAA to the level that will be required by both the aviation industry 
and the flying public in the 21st Century. Study after study, report 
after report has shown that the FAA must become more business-like in 
its approach to operations, capital investment, and research and 
development. This covers all aspects of the day-to-day activities of 
the FAA. If the FAA is to be more efficient, financial and managerial 
reforms are necessary. Specifically, three changes are key.
    1. Management reform.--Congress needs to provide for a chief 
operating office and other organization changes to allow the Air 
Traffic Control System to operate more like a business--that is, 
performance-based and customer-oriented.
    2. Pricing reform.--Congress needs to replace the current excise 
tax on airline passengers with cost-based charges on commercial users 
of air traffic control. This will provide the FAA with the information 
necessary to respond to its customers, which result in, faster adoption 
of capacity-enhancing technology and expansion of services in response 
to market demand. It will also create an incentive for more efficient 
operation and use of the Air Traffic Control System.
    3. Congressional Mandates.--Congress needs to put in place an 
appropriate financial mechanism to ensure that cost-based receipts from 
air traffic control users are spent exclusively on air traffic control.

                 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS PAY INCREASES

    Question. On September 15, 1998, FAA agreed to a 5-year labor 
agreement that promised the United States air traffic controllers 
substantial raises as well as established a ceiling of 15,000 air 
traffic controllers. The agreement, which expires in 2002, is estimated 
to have a net cost of $1.0 billion. How would you describe FAA's 
relationship with its unionized work forces?
    Answer. The relationship with the National Air Traffic Controllers 
Association (NATCA) is better today than it has been for many years. We 
are working issues in partnership with the bargaining unit to address 
and resolve issues in a collaborative manner. This approach has enabled 
us to work smarter and more efficiently toward our goals. For example, 
we have been able to move ahead with modernization. We have turned the 
corner on the STARS Program by fielding the first two systems at El 
Paso and Syracuse. We continue to work together on developing the 
advanced versions of this system for future deployment. Another 
excellent example is the manner in which the NATCA and the FAA worked 
together to solve issues in the DSR deployment, which will be completed 
in May 2000. In many facilities, we were able to transition to the new 
system well ahead of schedule.
    Question. Is the 15,000 a floor or ceiling for the number of air 
traffic controllers?
    Answer. The contract says we maintain staffing levels at 15,000 for 
the first 3 years, with growth limited to 2 percent annually for the 
last 2 years of the contract. The 15,000 is considered a floor on 
controller staffing.
    Question. How has this contract affected your budget?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget requests an increase of $73 
million for pay raises associated with the NATCA contract. Any 
additional costs will be funded from within Operations.
    During the first part of fiscal year 1999, the FAA and NATCA worked 
to finalize the rules associated with the various productivity articles 
of the contract and the rules for the new pay system. A metrics team 
was established to identify and track measurable results of 
implementing the contract. Early indications from this effort are 
showing some positive trends, and the FAA will continue to refine and 
analyze this data to provide additional information to Congress on the 
results of this effort.
    Question. Were there any benefits the agency received as a part of 
this agreement?
    Answer. During the first part of fiscal year 1999, the FAA and 
NATCA worked to finalize the rules associated with the various 
productivity articles of the contract and the rules for the new pay 
system. A metrics team was established to identify and track measurable 
results of implementing the contract. Early indications from this 
effort are showing some positive trends, and the FAA will continue to 
refine and analyze this data to provide additional information to 
Congress on the results of this contract.
    There are many indirect results of the contract with NATCA, 
including an improved and more productive working relationship between 
FAA management and NATCA in modernizing the aviation system. An example 
of this partnership is the manner in which DSR has been fielded 
throughout the country, resulting in FAA completing many facilities 
well ahead of schedule. Another example is the STARS Program. The FAA 
has fielded the first segment of STARS at El Paso and Syracuse, and is 
working on the advanced configurations of that program.
    Question. Does the agreement prevent FAA from implementing action 
that would make it more efficient?
    Answer. By its very nature, any collective bargaining agreement 
imposes constraints on the agency's ability to take unilateral action 
to improve efficiency. However, FAA and NATCA are working closely 
together to identify efficiencies and track measurable results of 
implementing the contract.
    The agency continues to move forward toward full implementation of 
the collective bargaining agreement, including those initiatives 
intended to improve efficiency. FAA and NATCA have reached final 
agreements on accelerated grievance resolution, assignment of staff 
functions to bargaining unit employees, expanded responsibility and 
accountability for controller-in-charge, and revised procedures for 
relocating bargaining unit employees.
    A joint FAA/NATCA metrics team was established to identify 
potential cost savings and/or productivity improvements, and to develop 
measurement systems for tracking the impact of the collective 
bargaining agreement and the compensation agreement. To date, the 
metrics team has determined the contract articles projected to have 
measurable impact, identified data sources for measuring cost and/or 
productivity, and validated the reports to be provided to agency 
managers. The final product of the metrics team will be completed by 
early summer fiscal year 2000.

                          FAA PROGRAM PRIORITY

    Question. FAA has four main appropriations--Operations, Facilities 
and Equipment (F&E), Research and Development, and the Airport 
Improvement Program (AlP). Of these programs, please list in order of 
priority, which one(s) are the most critical to the agency?
    Answer. All four appropriations are critical to the mission of the 
agency and support the Administrator's goals of safety, security, and 
system efficiency. The President's budget provides for balanced 
investment among these programs, and the requests would allow the FAA 
to improve aviation safety and security by hiring new safety and 
security inspectors. These requests will also improve efficiency by 
modernizing equipment and researching new technologies.
    For example, the F&E budget cannot be substantially raised without 
an increase in the Operations budget. F&E modernization equipment 
cannot be turned over to the Operations budget for acceptance into the 
NAS without the required funding for staffing, operations and 
maintenance. Furthermore, this modernization equipment could not have 
been developed without a strong research and development budget nor 
could safety be maintained at America's largest airports without 
funding for improved facilities through the AIP.
    Question. Does the FAA have the ability to manage increases in any 
of these areas?
    Answer. Yes; the President's budget request for the FAA contains 
manageable funding increases for all four of these programs.

          FAA'S POSITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL RESTRUCTURING

    Question. In the United States, Congress, the Administration and 
interest groups have discussed different approaches to restructure and 
reform of the Air Traffic Control (ATC) System. These have included 
intergovernmental reforms, making air traffic control a performance-
based organization, creating a government corporation, and creating a 
private corporation. Do you believe that structural air traffic control 
reform is needed rather than peripheral measures?
    Answer. Yes; we believe that structural ATC is needed. To that end, 
the President recently directed the FAA to come back to him in 45 days 
with options for achieving broader reform of the ATC System.
    Question. What is the prospect of following the Canadian model in 
the United States?
    Answer. The President recently directed the FAA to come back to him 
in 45 days with a plan for achieving broader reform of the ATC System. 
We will consider the Canadian model during our deliberations.
    Question. If it is your opinion that we cannot copy the Canadian 
model, what lessons or scales of efficiency can be taken from the 
model?
    Answer. The President recently directed the FAA to come back to him 
in 45 days with a plan for achieving broader reform of the ATC System. 
We will consider the Canadian model during our deliberations.

           USER FEE PROPOSAL AND COST-BASED ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

    Question. For the last several years, the FAA's budget submission 
has included a user fee proposal. The first step in implementing and 
gaining acceptance of any user fee is the development of a cost-based 
accounting system. When did FAA begin working on the development of a 
cost-based accounting system, what is the current status, and when is 
it expected to be completed?
    Answer. The FAA began its cost accounting initiative in fiscal year 
1996. Information and status on this initiative follows:
  --FAA's primary focus in cost accounting has been on the Air Traffic 
        Services (ATS) line of business; to include full cost 
        distribution for Air Traffic, Airway Facilities, and all other 
        components of the organization. For cost accounting purposes, 
        ATS has defined four core services they provide to the aviation 
        community: en route, oceanic, flight service stations, and 
        terminal/tower.
  --The FAA has successfully identified the fiscal year 1998 costs for 
        en route and oceanic services. For the first time, the FAA 
        knows the ``full'' cost--direct and indirect--of two of these 
        key air traffic services (en route and oceanic). ATS management 
        has already begun to evaluate benchmarking opportunities using 
        this cost data.
  --In March 2000, the FAA will have validated actual en route and 
        oceanic cost for fiscal year 1999. This data will be used as 
        the basis for overflight fees, to be established in the latter 
        half of fiscal year 2000.
  --The remainder of fiscal year 2000 will focus on completing the ATS 
        implementation for Flight Service Stations in April 2000 and 
        terminal and tower services in fiscal year 2001.
  --Due to fiscal year 2000 funding priorities, the implementation for 
        all remaining FAA lines of businesses has been delayed until 
        fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. The fiscal year 2001 
        budget requests $7 million in fiscal year 2001, and the total 
        cost to completion is $14 million. This work will include 
        tracking the ``full'' cost of NAS modernization projects, the 
        airport capital grant program, the certification and regulation 
        of the airline industry, aviation security services, and other 
        mission support functions.
  --An updated implementation schedule is being prepared for review by 
        FAA management, and will be available by April 2000.
                                 ______
                                 

           Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

             DELAYED EFFORTS TO MINIMIZE RUNWAY INCURSIONS

    Question. Ms. Garvey, as you know, a great deal of attention has 
been paid to the growing problem of runway incursions the potentially 
deadly mistake when an aircraft mistakenly enters a busy runway or 
taxiway. We are now told that your proposed solution to this problem, 
the Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS), will be delayed at 
least another 2 years. The Appropriations Subcommittee has never 
limited the amount of funding for this program. Some years, we actually 
provided more than you requested. Please explain why this program is 
being further delayed.
    Answer. The single answer is a combination of difficult technical 
and management issues have produced the delay. Let me explain more 
fully. The implementation of AMASS at the Nations 34 busiest airports, 
which is a modification to the Airport Surface Detection Equipment 
Model 3 (ASDE-3) radar, represents only a portion of the agency's 
runway incursion strategy. The Agency has established a higher level of 
FAA executive oversight and has appointed a Director of Runway Safety. 
This Director serves as the Agency's focal point for the coordination 
and integration of runway safety activities, within FAA and within 
industry. The Director is now implementing and executing runway safety 
initiatives that include education, training, and awareness activities.
    The AMASS Program underwent an in-depth review and restructure 
during the late summer and early fall of 1999. The previous schedule 
that the agency was attempting to meet had been based on a FAA 
commitment to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to have 
38 AMASS systems operational at the 34 airports by October 2000. To 
meet this date, the Agency implemented a very high-risk acquisition 
strategy and schedule that included concurrent development and 
production phases. In April 1999, new program requirements were added 
that related to human factor evaluations. At that point, program 
management recognized that the development effort required to meet user 
requirements was far more extensive than envisioned and the October 
2000 commitment to NTSB could not be achieved. We also identified 
additional human factor issues and critical operational issues that 
required resolution prior to commissioning. The required second level 
engineering and logistics support functions necessary to implement new 
equipment into the FAA's NAS had not been adequately planned for, 
funded, and implemented due to our decision to undertake the high risk 
acquisition strategy. These operational support issues require 
additional funding and time to implement. The fiscal year 2000 
appropriation and the fiscal year 2001 request for AMASS reflect the 
cost and schedule changes for those years as a result of the program 
restructure. Additional funds will be required in future years to 
continue the implementation and commissioning efforts as well as the 
implementation of preplanned product improvements validated in the 
operational requirements document.
    Subsequent to the restructure, we are meeting or exceeding planned 
milestones such as completion of the initial human factors 
modifications required for commissioning and the installation, testing 
and acceptance of 20 of the 40 total AMASS systems in the procurement. 
The operational test and evaluation (OT&E) critical issues have been 
identified and are being resolved. Factory testing of the majority of 
these modifications is complete. This testing is in preparation for the 
OT&E field regression to validate corrections, scheduled for June 2000.
    The restructuring of the program was accomplished with the 
cooperation of all relevant FAA lines of business, and with 
representation from an AMASS air traffic workgroup, which included 
NATCA and Airway Facilities technician representatives. In addition, 
program management personnel changes on both the government and 
contractor's part in 1999 have contributed to an improved working 
relationship and better productivity. Because the restructure effort 
included extensive risk identification and risk mitigation measures, we 
are optimistic that program goals will be met. This includes an August 
2000 initial operating capability (IOC), an Independent Operational 
Test and Evaluation starting in September 2000, and commissioning of 
all systems by the end of December 2002. We have already seen evidence 
that the previous contractor performance problems have been reduced and 
that the overall life-cycle supportability of the system within the 
national airspace will be increased.

              AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM (AMASS)

    Question. Is this problem really a technical problem, a management 
problem, or a funding problem?
    Answer. The delays associated with the AMASS Program can be 
attributed to a combination of technical and management issues that are 
described below. Previous funding for the program is not a contributing 
factor to the program delay. Let me explain more fully.
    The implementation of AMASS at the Nations 34 busiest airports, 
which is a modification to the ASDE-3 radar, represents only a portion 
of the agency's runway incursions strategy. AMASS will not reduce 
runway incursions, but will help prevent accidents if an incursion 
occurs. We have focused significant efforts on education and training, 
improved procedures and guidelines, as well as improvements in airport 
lighting, signage, and surface markings. Only the combination of these 
efforts and technical solutions like AMASS will have the greatest 
effect on reducing the problem of runway incursions.
    The previous schedule included acquisition strategy and a schedule 
that depended on concurrent development and production phases. We 
subsequently recognized that the development effort required to meet 
user requirements was far more extensive than originally envisioned. We 
also identified additional human factor issues and critical operational 
issues that required resolution prior to commissioning. The required 
second level engineering and logistics support functions necessary to 
implement new equipment into the FAA's NAS had not been completely 
planned for, funded, and implemented due to the schedule associated 
with the high risk acquisition strategy.
    The AMASS Program underwent an in-depth review and restructure 
during the late summer and early fall of 1999. All of the areas 
identified above were reviewed in-depth during the program restructure 
process, which included revalidated requirements, risks and mitigation 
actions identified, schedules developed, and costs to implement 
estimated. All relevant FAA lines of business and key union 
representatives participated in the process.
    Subsequent to the restructure, we are meeting or exceeding planned 
milestones such as completion of the initial human factors 
modifications required for commissioning and the installation, testing 
and acceptance of 20 of the 40 total AMASS systems. The OT&E critical 
issues that have been identified are being resolved. Factory testing of 
the majority of these modifications is complete in preparation for the 
OT&E field regression testing to validate the corrections, scheduled 
for June 2000.
    In addition, program management personnel changes on both the 
government and contractor's part in 1999 have contributed to an 
improved working relationship and better productivity. Because of this 
participation and the success to date in meeting milestones in the 
restructured schedule, we are optimistic that we will meet the program 
goals.

WHY DOES AVIATION DESERVE A GENERAL FUND GUARANTEE WHILE HIGHWAYS DOES 
                                  NOT

    Question. Ms. Garvey, you have had the unique experience of serving 
both as the Deputy Highway Administrator, and as the FAA Administrator. 
We have been told by some Members of the House that the FAA must 
receive a guaranteed amount of non-trust fund dollars to compensate for 
the overall benefits that our economy receives from our aviation 
system. Doesn't our interstate highway system also provide 
extraordinary benefits to our economy?
    Answer. The Administration has consistently proposed the 
elimination of the general fund contribution for aviation programs. We 
agree that the Interstate Highway System provides many benefits to our 
economy, and note that under TEA-21, highway users pay for 100 percent 
of the highway program's infrastructure and operating costs plus 80 
percent of transit costs (because highway users benefit from the 
congestion reduction transit produces). In contrast, aviation users do 
not fully support their own services, let alone any related services.
    Question. Do you believe it is appropriate policy for the FAA to 
receive guaranteed amounts of general funding when the Federal Highway 
Administration receives no general funding whatsoever?
    Answer. No; the Administration has consistently proposed to 
eliminate the general fund contribution for aviation programs. Under 
TEA-31, highway users pay for 100 percent of the highway program's 
infrastructure and operating costs plus 80 percent of transit costs 
(because highway users benefit from the congestion reduction transit 
produces). In contrast, aviation users do not fully support their own 
services, let alone any related services.
    Question. Do you believe there is a reason why FAA's Safety 
Inspectors should be paid from general funds, while Federal Highway's 
Motor Carrier Inspectors should be paid from trust funds?
    Answer. No; the Administration has consistently proposed to 
eliminate the general fund contribution for aviation programs. The 
Administration's proposal is to fund the entire FAA through a 
combination of excise taxes and new cost-based fees.
                                 ______
                                 

           Questions Submitted by Senator Charles E. Grassley

                           USER FEE PROPOSAL

    Question. At what point in time is the fine line crossed where the 
fees that are charged an industry in order to pay for services become 
fees that hinder growth of that industry?
    Answer. Ideally, fees should be set equal to the cost of the 
services that the industry consumes. Therefore, the budget proposes to 
collect in aviation taxes and user fees only the amount needed to fund 
the FAA in the subsequent year. Although we phase this policy in over 2 
years, financing the FAA through a combination of aviation taxes and 
dedicated user fees would promote a more business-like and efficient 
FAA while ensuring that all aviation revenues are spent for aviation 
purposes. In addition, charging customers the cost of services received 
provides a market signal to the FAA as to which services are needed and 
an incentive for air carriers to use those services efficiently.

          ROLE OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL IN FAA POLICY

    Question. Mrs. Garvey, I would like you to talk to us about the 
role the National Economic Council (NEC) is playing in developing FAA 
policy. It is our understanding the NEC has held a number of meetings 
with the FAA and the aviation community on privatization. Can you tell 
us the results of those meetings? Will any NEC developed proposals be 
included in next week's budget submission?
    Answer. The NEC provides economic guidance to all areas of the 
executive branch, which includes the FAA. There have been a number of 
meetings between the NEC and the aviation community with occasional FAA 
participation, to discuss various options to organize FAA ATC services 
in a more business-like fashion.
    Question. Mrs. Garvey, for several years the Appropriations 
Committee has included a provision in its annual funding of the 
Department of Transportation prohibiting taxpayer funds from being used 
to develop unauthorized user fees. To your knowledge is the NEC 
developing a FAA user fee system?
    Answer. Both the 1998 and 1999 FAA Reauthorization legislative 
proposal contained language developing cost-based user fees for air 
traffic services. The user fees proposed in the President's fiscal year 
2001 Budget are based on that proposal, but we won't develop the fees 
until they are authorized by Congress. To my knowledge, the NEC is not 
developing any new FAA user fee system.
                                 ______
                                 

                Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Smith

                             PROJECT DELAYS

    Question. Has it been your experience that some FAA projects are 
delayed due to unanticipated technical or environmental problems and as 
a result, FAA is then able to advance other projects more quickly to 
prevent any lapsing of available funds?
    Answer. Inevitably, some programs are delayed because of technical 
or environmental problems. However, this situation is fairly uncommon. 
When it has occurred, we have generally been able to reprogram either 
within a program or to other high priority projects. For example, a 
specific location scheduled for building construction may run into an 
environmental situation that would delay the project. To maximize the 
use of the funds, we would reprogram them to another location that is 
ready for construction. The FAA generally lapses less than one-half of 
1 percent of the funds available, which is considered a prudent 
business practice.
    Question. If so, what criteria does your agency use to advance 
projects which have been approved for later funding cycles but are 
ready to get funded now?
    Answer. In those situations where funds are available for 
redistribution or reprogramming to other programs, the criteria for 
reallocation of funds has generally been based on accelerating those 
programs with significant near term benefits to NAS safety and 
efficiency.
                                 ______
                                 

                    Questions Submitted to Mr. Mead

            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                       FUNDING FOR MODERNIZATION

    Question. Mr. Mead, from your years of aviation experience both as 
DOT Inspector General and the director of Transportation Affairs for 
the General Accounting Office, you have witnessed the problems FAA has 
experienced with its modernization program. Incorrectly in my view, 
there are some who believe the solution to air traffic control 
modernization is simply to throw more money at the problem.
    Do you agree with me that providing more and more funding for 
modernization is not the correct prescription for air traffic control 
modernization?
    Answer. More funding alone is not the answer. While there are 
investment opportunities, the key is better management. FAA needs to 
hold management accountable, oversee contractors more effectively, 
establish effective cost controls, and expedite the completion of its 
cost accounting system. In addition, FAA needs a strategic business 
plan to outline its strategy for future investments, control the rising 
costs of operations, and bring about productivity enhancements. If FAA 
does not take these steps, Congress will find that additional funding 
will only go to cost overruns and increased salaries.
    Question. If so, why is it that more funding for air traffic 
control modernization has not and will not translate into meaningful 
modernization of our system?
    Answer. More funding has not translated into meaningful 
modernization of our system because FAA has not been able to control 
costs and meet schedules for technologically challenging systems such 
as WAAS, STARS, and AMASS. The common threads of these systems is that 
they involve extensive software development, which FAA has difficulties 
with, and human factors issues, which are not resolved early enough in 
the acquisition process. Further, FAA does not hold contractors 
accountable. As I stated in the testimony, the two Free Flight 
contracts for a software-intensive controller tool are time and 
material contracts. All risks are with the Government--there is little 
incentive for cost control and labor efficiency.
    Question. In your opinion, do you believe that the FAA should 
undergo fundamental structural change or does the agency require 
additional management reforms similar to the personnel and procurement 
reforms of 1996?
    Answer. I would exercise caution in making major structural changes 
given the excellent safety record in aviation. Any proposal to 
restructure FAA, particularly any proposal to spin-off air traffic 
control to a commercial enterprise, must be carefully examined. There 
are no circumstances where safety oversight can be transferred outside 
of the Federal Government--this should not even be considered an option 
because safety oversight in an inherently governmental function.
    Far too often, FAA points to external factors as causes of their 
problems. In 1995, Congress exempted FAA from Federal procurement and 
personnel rules that FAA said hindered its ability to effectively 
modernize the Air Traffic Control System. These reforms have had little 
impact to date. FAA needs to make the reforms they already have more 
effective by controlling its operating costs, better managing 
acquisitions, and making sound investment decisions.

                  ABILITY TO KEEP PACE WITH TECHNOLOGY

    Question. Mr. Mead, I understand oceanic air traffic control is one 
of the fastest growing segments of air traffic. I also understand that 
oceanic capabilities of the United States are not as advanced as those 
of NAV Canada.
    What contributes to NAV Canada's success in keeping up with rapidly 
changing technology?
    Answer. NAV Canada responds to changing demands by acquiring 
commercial-off-the-shelf technology. It relies on research and 
development efforts of the United States and other countries to 
eliminate high-risk projects. Quite simply, being a commercial 
enterprise, NAV Canada seeks a rapid return on capital investments, 
which results in quicker benefits to the users. In addition, Canada has 
always used an incremental approach in fielding new technologies. For 
example, the Gander Automated Air Traffic System (GAATS), which handles 
over 1,000 flights bound for or arriving from Europe, was developed 
incrementally and began long before NAV Canada took over control of 
Canada's air navigation system. The incremental approach increases the 
likelihood of user acceptance and minimizes the problems associated 
with implementation of new technology.
    Question. Does the structure of NAV Canada contribute to its 
technological successes?
    Answer. NAV Canada must make wise business decisions in spending 
funds it receives from user fees for new technologies since it no 
longer receives government subsidy. This structure contributes to 
managing low risk technology initiatives by using commercial-off-the-
shelf technology and relying on others to undertake investment in new 
cutting edge technology.

                   AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PAY INCREASES

    Question. Mr. Mead, operation costs will continue to increase as a 
result of a new pay system for air traffic controllers, which became 
effective in 1999. This will require approximately $1 billion in net 
additional funding over the 5-year life of the agreement.
    In fiscal year 1999, FAA experienced a $284 million shortfall in 
its Operation's budget that required reduction in planned safety 
inspector training and travel. I also understand that FAA will be 
sending a supplemental request for 2000 operations.
    Question. Were the shortfall in funding for 1999 and the 
supplemental request a result of the new pay system for controllers?
    Answer. The majority of the $284 million shortfall in FAA's 1999 
Operations budget was in Air Traffic Services ($204 million). This was 
a direct result of the new controller pay system that FAA did not 
budget for as well as increases in NAS Handoff costs (costs of 
maintaining newly commissioned systems that can no longer be funded 
using appropriated Facilities and Equipment funds). FAA needed the 
supplemental request due to a shortfall in Operations funds, caused 
largely by the pay increases for controllers.
    Question. How will this agreement with the controllers affect the 
agency? What effect does the increase in operating costs have on other 
critical agency requirements, such as modernizing the Air Traffic 
Control System?
    Answer. FAA said the pay increases associated with this agreement 
would be budget neutral due to productivity enhancements. FAA's 
commitment has not yet been fulfilled since most productivity 
enhancements, such as increased use of controller-in-charge positions, 
have not yet been put in place. FAA now faces significant risks in 
funding the new controller pay system while, at the same time, meeting 
other critical agency requirements funded by the Operations account, 
such as hiring safety inspectors and developing a cost accounting 
system. These risks are compounded as FAA negotiates new wage 
agreements with its other workforces, such as maintenance technicians 
who want similar treatment.
    FAA's unconstrained Operations costs have, in the past, had the 
effect of crowding out other critical agency functions such as 
modernizing the Air Traffic Control System. However, provisions of 
FAA's Reauthorization Bill essentially commit funding from the Trust 
Fund for Facilities and Equipment and the Airport Improvement Program. 
The issue now is to what extent Congress is willing to provide general 
fund contributions to fund FAA's Operations.

                     IG'S OPINION ON RESTRUCTURING

    Question. Mr. Mead, the increasing funding requirements for the 
Operations Program and the risk of this account crowding out other 
requirements including modernizing the Air Traffic Control System seem 
to support the idea of restructuring the FAA.
    In your opinion, is restructuring or reform needed to ensure the 
Air Traffic Control System is managed effectively?
    Answer. No; FAA does not need to restructure or have additional 
reforms beyond what the have today. However, it should be managed more 
effectively and run more like a business. FAA needs to hold management 
accountable, oversee contractors more effectively, establish effective 
cost controls, and expedite the completion of its cost accounting 
system. In addition, FAA needs a strategic business plan to outline its 
strategy for future investments, control the rising costs of 
operations, and bring about productivity enhancements.
    Question. If you were in our shoes, what actions would you take to 
modernize and more efficiently manage air traffic control in this 
country?
    Answer. First, FAA must complete its cost accounting system so it 
can accurately track and control costs and make effective management 
decisions. Second, FAA should ensure that contracts are written with 
appropriate controls to protect the Government's interest, shift some 
of the risks, and hold contractors accountable for satisfactory 
progress. Finally, FAA must establish a strategic business plan to 
outline strategies for future investment based upon projected funding, 
and for controlling rising operations costs. Congress should use FAA's 
success in meeting these strategies as a gauge for future funding.

              RESULTS OF PERSONNEL AND PROCUREMENT REFORMS

    Question. Mr. Mead, in 1996, Congress provided FAA the ability to 
develop and implement acquisition and personnel reforms to address the 
unique demand on, as well as the needs of, the agency.
    It has been 4 years since Congress passed the provision, what 
tangible results has the FAA achieved directly related to these 
reforms?
    Answer. Under acquisition reform, FAA has been able to award 
contracts faster under the Acquisition Management System (AMS). Also, 
FAA has been obtaining more input from contractors, which helps refine 
requirements before awarding contracts. FAA has deployed systems, such 
as the Display System Replacement (new en route controller displays) 
and the HOST (computers that receive, process, and track aircraft 
movement through the domestic enroute and oceanic airspace), on time 
and within budget. However, AMS has had little impact in improving the 
quality, cost-effectiveness, and timeliness of technologically 
challenging systems, such as the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), 
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS), and the 
Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS).
    Under Personnel Reform, FAA can point to a few successes, such as 
fielding a pilot program of its proposed agencywide compensation plan 
in the Research and Acquisitions line of business. We have not yet 
validated the results of this pilot program. The most significant 
result of Personnel Reform has been the collective bargaining and 
compensation agreements signed with FAA's air traffic controllers. 
However, as previously discussed, the price tag for this agreement is 
large. Overall, much remains to be done under Personnel Reform to 
achieve an agencywide personnel system that provides for greater 
flexibility in hiring, training, and placing FAA's workforce to meet 
the agency's unique needs. In fact, consistent with our findings on 
Personnel Reform, the National Academy of Public Administration stated 
in its August 1999 report on FAA's Personnel Reform that ``the efforts 
of the past 3 years have not yet shown results in terms of mission 
impact and return-on-investment''.
    Question. Have the reforms made any measurable impact on the major 
modernization programs?
    Answer. The reforms have not had the bottom line impacts on the 
major modernization programs that were expected. The purpose of 
acquisition reform was to grant FAA relief from acquisition rules and 
regulations which FAA claimed was preventing them from completing major 
modernization programs within cost and on schedule. FAA has made 
progress in reducing the time to award contracts, but major programs 
such as WAAS, STARS, and AMASS continue to have significant cost growth 
and schedule delays. Problems with these three programs are 
attributable to unrealistic milestones and problems in developing 
complex software and resolving human factors issues.

                       NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

STATEMENT OF JOHN CRICHTON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 
            EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAV CANADA
    Senator Domenici. Senators, thank you and thank you, and 
let us go to the next group of witnesses.
    All right. Our second panel of experts will now present 
their testimony. First, John Crichton, President and CEO of NAV 
Canada; second, Dr. Robert Poole of the Reason Public Policy 
Institute in Los Angeles, California; and third, Robert Baker, 
Vice Chairman of American Airlines.
    We had hoped for a panel of airline CEOs, but conflicting 
schedules precluded this, and it was probably more than we 
ought to expect that we could get them all to come. Enough 
said.
    Let us proceed. In the order that I identified you, would 
you each note right now that your entire statement--if you have 
statements--are going to be made part of the record as if you 
read them?
    Mr. Crichton. Yes.
    Mr. Poole. Yes.
    Mr. Baker. Yes.
    Senator Domenici. And then if you could proceed as quickly 
as possible so there would be time for a few questions. Mr. 
Crichton.
    Mr. Crichton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John 
Crichton. I am the President and CEO of NAV Canada.
    What is NAV Canada? It is a private, non-share capital 
corporation which owns and operates the Canadian Civil Air 
Navigation System. It was incorporated in 1995. It purchased 
the entire system from the Canadian Federal government for $1.5 
billion, and began operations November 1, 1996.
    We employed 6,300 people at takeover. That staffing level 
is now 5,200.
    Full scope of operations: air traffic control, and advisory 
service, flight information services, aviation weather 
services, and we provide service throughout all of Canada, 
obviously, but also the northwest Atlantic Ocean, parts of 
Greenland and the Arctic Ocean.
    What is a non-share capital corporation? It is a private 
company that operates just like any other business corporation, 
except there are no shareholders. These types of businesses are 
often referred to as non-profits. That is somewhat misleading 
because NAV Canada does earn profits and it can earn profits. 
But what the lack of shareholders means is that the profits are 
recycled with in the business, either to pay down debt, to 
finance capital expenditures, or to reduce service fees.
    We have four members who act as surrogate shareholders in 
that they appoint the Board of Directors, they can approve 
corporate by-law changes and appoint auditors. Our four members 
are the Air Transport Association of Canada, representing the 
commercial airlines, the Federal Government, our union 
associations and a business aircraft association. These groups 
appoint 10 of the 15 members of the Board, and this is one of 
the--I think keys to success of our company, is that we have 
those key stakeholders on the Board, and in particular, the 
customers.
    There is no share equity, there are no shares, so our 
capitalization is in the form of debt, but we are rated double-
A by all the major rating agencies in the United States and 
Canada, and in fact, we--I believe we would probably have the 
lowest cost of corporate capital in North America.
    There is no government involvement of any kind and no 
financial guarantees from the government at all. We are on our 
own and operate that way.
    Why did Canada choose to privatize the system and to pick 
this non-share capital model? And I filed with the committee--
it was interesting to hear people talk about what has happened 
in years gone by--but I filed with the committee, and I am sure 
all of the Senators have--is an excerpt from a testimony given 
at a parliamentary hearing in Ottawa in 1996, and this is a 
document that was in fact produced by Transport Canada, who was 
then operating the system, and it sets out the rationale for 
the decision to privatize in terms of delays, service problems 
and so on, and costs, and I think that that rationale is still 
well-supported today.
    Our non-share capital model, it has a lot of advantages for 
this type of a business. It removes any perceived conflict 
between personal profits and safety with there not being 
shareholders. The money, as I say, recycles within the system. 
It allows for that key stakeholder representation on the Board 
of Directors. The nature of air traffic control is a natural 
monopoly, and it is an essential service, but that makes it 
readily financeable in the capital markets. The customers on 
the Board in our case, they act as a replacement for the profit 
motive. They are interested in safe service. They are 
interested in efficient service and at a reasonable cost. With 
a corporate structure like this, we become effectively self-
regulating from an economic point of view.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Just some highlights of--we are almost 3\1/2\ years since 
we started--just some highlights in terms of system 
performance. Management and administrative structures have been 
streamlined 1,100 fewer people or about 17\1/2\ percent 
reduction in the work force. Most of that was done on the 
administrative side. We are in fact expanding on the operation 
side. We reduced the capital spending by about 40 percent from 
what was being spent annually in the government, but we are 
getting much more product, and our focus now is on truly 
deliverable projects with proven customer or safety benefits. 
Our charges for service have reduced by over 30 percent from 
those amounts of money that were being raised through the Air 
Transportation Tax, which was repealed. We have also paid our 
controllers a lot more money; at the same time we got about a 
20 percent increase in productivity along with that contract. 
Our major automation project, the CAATS, which was in serious 
trouble at the time we took over the system, is now on time and 
on budget and will be delivered later this year. We have 
reduced the rate of operating irregularities in the system from 
the safety measurement point of view, fielding some very 
advanced systems, oceanic systems and so on, dealt with about a 
15 to 20 percent increase in traffic over the last 3 years, and 
we are reducing the number of ATC delays that are brought about 
through things under our control.
    Thank you.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of John W. Crichton

                          WHAT IS NAV CANADA?

    A private, non-share capital corporation which owns and operates 
the Canadian Civil Air Navigation System.
    Incorporated in May 1995.
    Purchased the ANS from the Canadian Federal Government for $1.5 
billion and began operations on November 1, 1996.
    Employed 6,300 people on takeover, current staff level is 5,200.
    Corporate headquarters in Ottawa.
    Scope of operations:
    --Air traffic control
    --Airport advisory services
    --Flight information services
    --Aviation weather services
    From--
    --7 area control centers (ACC)
    --43 control towers
    --80 flight service stations (FSS)
    --1,400 Navaids
    --43 radar sites
    --Serves all of Canada including a large part of north west 
        Atlantic Ocean, southern Greenland and a portion of the Arctic 
        ocean.

                WHAT IS A NON-SHARE CAPITAL CORPORATION?

    A private company that operates like any other business corporation 
except there are no shareholders.
    Often called a ``non-profit'' company but this is misleading as NAV 
Canada can and does earn profits.
    The lack of shareholders means that profits are recycled to (a) pay 
debt, (b) finance capital expenditures, or (c) reduce service fees.
    Four ``members'' act as surrogate shareholders in that they appoint 
the Board of Directors, approve corporate By-law changes and appoint 
auditors.
    NAV Canada's four members are:
  --Air Transport Association of Canada--4 Board appointees
  --Federal Government--3 Board appointees
  --ANS Union Association--2 Board appointees
  --Business Aircraft Association--1 Board appointee
    --Total 10
    Board appoints four unrelated Directors plus the CEO for a total 
Board of 15.
    No share equity means all capitalization is in the form of debt.
    NAV Canada is rated ``AA'' by U.S. and Canadian rating agencies, 
and has so far issued $1.750 billion in revenue bonds.
    No government involvement or financial guarantees of any kind.

 WHY DID CANADA CHOOSE TO PRIVATIZE AND TO PICK THE NON-SHARE CAPITAL 
                                 MODEL?

    In 1994 Transport Canada addressed this question before a 
parliamentary committee and an excerpt from their Testimony is 
attached.
    Rationale then still applies today.
    The non-share capital model, as developed for NAV Canada, has the 
following advantages:
  --No perceived conflict between personal profits and safety.
  --Allows for key stakeholder representation on the Board
    --Air Carriers--Who need and pay 100 percent of the cost of 
            service.
    --Government--Custodian of the public interest.
    --ANS Unions--Represent 90 percent of employees.
    --Business Aircraft--Represent GA customers
  --Natural monopoly and nature of essential service makes it readily 
        financeable at low cost.
  --High credit ratings provide for a lower cost of capital than 
        equity.
  --Customers on Board replaces profit motive as an efficiency driver.
  --Economically self-regulating.
  --Government is still safety regulator.
  --Government personnel and procurement policies dropped.
  --Directors and Officers are subject to the common law obligation as 
        fiduciaries to act in good faith and in the best interests of 
        the corporation.
  --Conflicts avoided in that Board appointees cannot be:
    --Employees, officers or directors of significant customers or 
            suppliers.
    --Elected officials or employees of Federal, provincial or 
            territorial governments.
    --Union officers.

 WHAT IMPROVEMENTS IN SYSTEM PERFORMANCE HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED TO DATE BY 
                              NAV CANADA?

    Management and administrative structures have been streamlined, 
1,100 or 17.5 percent reduction in staffing.
    Capital spending reduced by 40 percent--focus now on 
``deliverable'' projects with proven customer and/or safety benefits.
    Service charges reduced by over 30 percent from equivalent amount 
formerly charged to passengers (tax was totally repealed in November 
1998).
    Air traffic controller productivity increased by about 20 percent 
with wages increased an average 33 percent (all after a 7 year wage 
freeze).
    Major automation project ``CAATS''. Now on time and on budget--
final delivery in Fall 2000.
    World's first ``glass'' tower opened in Toronto in November 1998.
    Reduced rate of operating irregularities.
    Introducing most advanced oceanic system in the world in mid 2000 
(GAATS--Version 21).
    Successfully coped with a 15 percent increase in traffic over last 
3 years.
    Incidence of ATC induced delays on decline.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

                     Canadian Air Navigation System

                  modernization and commercialization
    A briefing to the Standing Committee on Transportation, October 
1994, Transport Canada Aviation.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

                          Federal Budget--1994

    Transport Canada Initiative.--In order to improve efficiency and 
achieve long-term savings, TC will review the potential for 
commercialization of a number of its major activities (such as the air 
navigation system) in close consultation with affected parties.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

                               Rationale

    User concerns on quality of service provided and the cost of 
delays.
    Recommendation by associations, airlines, business aircraft 
operators, airline pilots and air traffic controllers.
    Recommendations of reports, studies and Royal Commission.
    International experience.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

                  Characteristics of a Commercial ANS

    A commercialized ANS should be:
  --free to manage resources and people
  --responsive to user needs
  --able to procure on commercial principles
  --funded by those who use the service
  --operated in a business-like way
  --accountable to owners and customers

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

                               Principles

    Safety must not be compromised.
    There should not be a negative impact on the current structure of 
commercial and recreational aviation in Canada.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

                            Public Interest

    Public interest requires that ANS:
  --exists
  --is safe
  --contributes to national transportation efficiency
    ANS provides equitable access to all users.
    Remote communities receive appropriate services.
    International communities receive appropriate services.
    Sovereignty and security needs are met.
    There is no abuse of monopoly position.
    ANS remains Canadian owned and controlled.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. POOLE, JR., PRESIDENT AND 
            DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION STUDIES, REASON 
            PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE, LOS ANGELES, CA

    Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Poole, go ahead.
    Mr. Poole. Thank you. I am Robert Poole, Director of 
Transportation Studies at the Reason Public Policy Institute.
    I have been involved with this issue of air traffic control 
reform since 1981, and it is striking to me how much the debate 
has changed since then. Today it is pretty widely accepted that 
air traffic control is basically a commercial service, while 
air safety regulation is inherently governmental. It is also 
accepted that FAA's management and corporate culture are 
really--realistically poorly suited to operating and 
modernizing a high-tech service business. And it is generally 
accepted that air traffic control funding should be driven by 
the growth in aviation activity, not by the constraints of the 
Federal budget process.
    Now, who agrees with these points? The National Airline 
Commission in 1993, the National Partnership for Reinventing 
government since 1994, DOT's Executive Oversight Committee, 
which proposed the USATS Corporation in 1994-95, and the 
National Civil Aviation Review Commission in 1997.
    Now, of course, we heard this morning, and we all know 
about the big increase in delays last year when growing air 
traffic bumped right up against the limits of a system that is 
still technologically and organizationally obsolete. As a 
result of that, we have had a number of calls from airline CEOs 
for commercializing or corporatizing the air traffic control 
system. We now today have 13 years of experience with 
corporatized air traffic control in 16 countries including 
Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, 
Switzerland and the United Kingdom. There are a number of 
common elements that emerge from all of this experience. First, 
governments have spun off the air traffic control service 
provider, but not safety--they have kept safety regulation as 
inherently governmental in-house, and put it at arm's length 
from the service provider.
    Second, the air traffic control corporations are generally 
operated on a not-for-profit basis as Mr. Crichton said, 
because it is a monopoly. Excess revenues are recycled back 
into the system or used to lower charges in the following year.
    Third, the air traffic control corporations are funded 
directly by their users through fees and charges, and this 
makes the company accountable to the customers. As they say in 
Canada, user pay means user say.
    Fourth, the companies fund modernization by issuing long-
term revenue bonds based on a predictable revenue stream, and 
this gives them much greater ability to plan and manage.
    We can also see now that air traffic control 
commercialization works. It solves the problems that are 
plaguing government-run air traffic control in country after 
country. The unit costs of providing service go down, 
modernization moves more quickly, and flight delays are 
reduced, and in no country has there been any problem or 
reduction in air safety from doing this.
    So how can we apply this experience to the United States? 
My organization, Reason Public Policy Institute, is working on 
a detailed proposal for a U.S. air traffic control corporation. 
We are seeking input from the entire aviation community. This 
is a work-in-progress, so I cannot give you the final result, 
because we are not finished yet, but I can give you some things 
that are emerging out of our work.
    First we think that the stakeholder controlled not-for-
profit corporation is probably the best model for this country. 
It is working very well in Canada, and it harkens back to the 
original days of air traffic control by ARINC in this country. 
The kind of corporation we are working on would provide all 
civilian air traffic control services in the United States and 
oceanic, would hire a top management team to run the company, 
but would take over nearly all the current staff of FAA's air 
traffic services, and all of FAA's current air traffic control 
facilities, would keep its books using Generally Accepted 
Accounting Principles, naturally, would pay market-based 
compensation to all of its employees to insure the best 
possible talent for every position, and would be free to define 
and purchase new technology just the way a private business 
does.
    The most crucial element of this reform in our view would 
be direct user payment by the users to the corporation. The 
reason for this is that it is so important to develop a 
corporate culture that takes the customer seriously and gives 
them what they want, and does not try to foist on them things 
like microwave landing systems that they do not want. And that 
will happen only if the company gets its revenue by satisfying 
its customers. Developing fair and simple air traffic control 
fees is no easy task, and we have not completed our proposal on 
that yet, but we do expect to recommend that the current FAA 
user taxes be abolished and replaced by fees and charges that 
will be charged only for services rendered. In other words, a 
private plane using an airport without a tower would not be 
paying anything under the kind of reform we are looking at, but 
all of the stakeholders, including private pilots who do use 
the system, would have representation on the board of the 
corporation, as is the case with NAV Canada. The overseas 
experience shows that these kinds of corporations can be self-
supporting, they can get investment-grade ratings, and they can 
easily fund modernization by issuing long-term revenue bonds.
    For regulatory purposes, clearly, the FAA would need to be 
a strong safety regulator, exercising arm's-length oversight, 
just as it does today with regard to the airlines, pilots, 
mechanics and manufacturers. All are regulated at arm's-length 
by the FAA. Congress, of course, will continue to have the 
responsibility to fund the slimmed-down FAA and DOT and their 
needed oversight functions including the operation of air 
traffic control by the corporation.
    Finally, just one more thought. I really want to stress the 
urgency of structural reform along these lines. The current 
system is not keeping pace with the growth. It is failing to 
modernize in a cost-effective fashion. If we are going to avoid 
gridlock in the skies and on runways, we have to develop a 
modern satellite-based system based on GPS and data links, and 
we believe that a user-driven customer responsive corporation 
is really the best way to get there.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    I'll be happy to answer questions when the time comes.
    Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Poole.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Robert W. Poole, Jr.

       shifting air traffic control to a user-funded corporation
    My name is Robert W. Poole, Jr. I am the director of transportation 
studies at the Reason Public Policy Institute in Los Angeles. As a 
former aerospace engineer, I have been studying transportation issues 
for more than 20 years and have advised the U.S. Department of 
Transportation and various congressional committees on a number of 
occasions. In 1997 we were asked to advise the National Civil Aviation 
Review Commission, as it assessed the problems of the Nation's Air 
Traffic Control System.
    I have been involved with ATC reform since the days of the PATCO 
strike in 1981. I'm impressed by how much the debate has changed over 
the years. There is a broad consensus within aviation policy circles on 
many issues that used to be very contentious. It is now widely accepted 
that ATC is an essentially commercial service, and that it is separate 
from air-safety regulation, which is inherently governmental. It is 
also increasingly accepted that the FAA's management and corporate 
culture are poorly suited to operating and modernizing a high-tech 
service business--and have not been significantly improved by the 
modest 1996 reforms of procurement and personnel systems. And it is 
also widely accepted that ATC funding should be driven by the growth of 
aviation activity--and not by the ups and downs of the Federal budget 
process.
    These conclusions are reflected in the work of the Administration's 
National Partnership for Reinventing Government. The same conclusions 
inspired the DOT's U.S. Air Traffic Services Corporation proposal in 
1994-95. They underlie the strongly worded findings of the National 
Civil Aviation Review Commission in 1997. And they are backed up by 
nearly two decades of GAO reports and think tank studies. Last year--
just as NCARC warned--growing air traffic bumped up against the limits 
of our creaking, obsolescent ATC System, resulting in record levels of 
airline delays, costing airlines and their passengers billions of 
dollars in extra costs and wasted time. That experience has led to a 
growing chorus from airline CEOs calling for removing the ATC System 
from the FAA and setting it up as a user-funded business. The bible of 
the industry, Aviation Week, has editorially endorsed that approach for 
several years.
    One factor that has helped to shape this growing consensus is the 
actual experience of commercializing air traffic control around the 
world. Twenty years ago, when I first began working on this concept, 
there were no commercial ATC corporations to be found. The few that had 
been started--as non-profit airline cooperative efforts, in the United 
States in the 1930's by ARINC, and in Cuba and Mexico--had all been 
taken over by their respective governments.
    But beginning in the late 1980's, the same problems that plague our 
ATC System--inadequate or uncertain financial resources, poor cost-
accounting, crippling bureacratic rules on personnel and procurement, 
etc.--led to a growing wave of reform. One after another, starting with 
New Zealand, ATC operations were restructured as commercial 
corporations, either wholly owned by government or as non-profits 
controlled by the various aviation stakeholders. Among those taking 
this path are Australia, Canada, Germany, South Africa, Switzerland, 
and the United Kingdom ATC restructuring has been brought about by 
governments of both left and right, including Labor governments in New 
Zealand and the United Kingdom and a center-right government in 
Germany. You have heard this morning of the success of ATC 
commercialization in Canada.
    Four common elements emerge from these various ATC reforms:
  --First, in virtually every case, governments have spun off the ATC 
        service provider but have kept safety regulation as part of the 
        government's transportation agency. Putting safety regulation 
        at arms-length from service delivery is seen, correctly, as a 
        way to improve air safety.
  --Second, in every case but one, these ATC corporations are operated 
        on a not-for-profit basis. (That one exception is the United 
        Kingdom Labor government's current proposal to sell 51 percent 
        of the National Air Traffic Service to private investors.) 
        Because ATC is one of those rare cases of natural monopoly, it 
        makes sense to operate it in this way, with any excess revenues 
        either re-invested back in the corporation or used to reduce 
        the following year's fees and charges.
  --Third, nearly every one of these ATC corporations is funded 
        directly and completely by its users. Fees and charges are the 
        prices of the company's services; they do not get sent to the 
        government, to be appropriated (or held in a trust fund). They 
        are paid directly by the customers to the service provider (as 
        with electricity charges by TVA and postal charges by USPS). 
        And that makes the company accountable directly to its 
        customers. As they say in Canada, ``user pay means user say.''
  --Fourth, these ATC companies are able to fund modernization by 
        issuing long-term revenue bonds, based on their predictable 
        stream of revenue from fees and charges. Indeed, NAV Canada's 
        bonds had no trouble receiving investment-grade ratings. The 
        financial community loves this kind of investment.
    In addition to these common features of commercialized ATC 
corporations, we also find a common pattern in their experience. To put 
it simply, ATC commercialization works. By that I mean: it solves the 
problems that have plagued government-run air traffic control in 
country after country. Following commercialization, we typically find 
that the unit cost of providing ATC services goes down, modernization 
proceeds more quickly and smoothly, and flight delays are therefore 
reduced. In no country has there been any reduction in air safety, and 
most observers believe safety levels have increased.
    In short, compared to 20 years ago when ATC commercialization was 
mostly theory, today we can draw on a wealth of experience from around 
the world. All of it points to the conclusion that moving ATC out of a 
government bureacracy, converting it into a commercial corporate form, 
charging users directly for services and making it directly accountable 
to those users for its performance, and regulating it at arms-length 
for safety--this kind of fundamental reform works.
    The logical next question is: How can we apply this experience to 
the United States? That is the question that my organization is 
currently addressing. Our three-member project team is developing a 
detailed proposal for an Airways Corporation that could take over ATC 
functions from the FAA and operate in a commercialized manner. We are 
seeking input as we go along from the entire aviation community--major 
airlines, low-fare airlines, cargo carriers, air-taxi operators, 
business aircraft owners, recreational flyers, air traffic controllers, 
and others. Since this is a work in progress, I cannot give you 
definitive results just yet. As you can imagine, this is a very complex 
project, and different stakeholders have somewhat different interests 
that must be taken into account in coming up with a workable plan. But 
I can give you some broad outlines of where we think we are heading.
    First, having reviewed the global ATC reform experience, we believe 
that the stakeholder-controlled not-for-profit corporation is probably 
the best model for the United States. It is working very well in 
Canada, with which we share a major border and have extensive air 
commerce. And it harkens back to the origins of U.S. air traffic 
control, which was begun on exactly this basis by Aeronautical Radio, 
Inc. (ARINC) in the 1930's. So we are defining a non-profit ATC 
corporation with a stakeholder-controlled board of directors.
    The Airways Corporation would provide all civilian ATC services in 
the United States and in the oceanic regions for which this country is 
responsible. It would hire a top management team to run the company, 
but would take over essentially all of the current FAA staff in Air 
Traffic Services and all current FAA ATC facilities. It would keep its 
books using generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) like a 
normal company. And it would be free to pay market-based compensation 
to all its employees--both management and non-management--so as to 
ensure the best possible talent for each position. It would be free to 
define and purchase new technology in the same way as any private 
business.
    We believe the most crucial element of this reform is direct user 
payment to the corporation for ATC services. It is absolutely crucial 
to develop a corporate culture that is driven by and responsive to 
customer needs. That will only happen if the company must derive its 
revenues by meeting their needs. This process is what drives the 
remarkable productivity of the entire U.S. economy. And we can now see 
that it works in air traffic control, as well. To repeat the leitmotif 
of Canadian ATC reform, ``user pay means user say.''
    To be sure, we recognize that developing the specifics of ATC fees 
and charges is no easy task. We are devoting considerable effort to 
coming up with a pricing proposal that is both simple and fair to all 
aviation users. Until we've done a lot more work, and gotten a lot more 
private feedback from user groups, I don't want to go into more 
specifics on this issue. But because we all know that private pilot 
groups have great concerns about this issue, let me say just a few 
words on that score.
    We anticipate that our plan will propose that current Federal 
aviation user taxes be abolished, as part of the transition to the new, 
commercialized system. The underlying principle is that the new ATC 
fees and charges will apply only where users make actual use of ATC 
services. A private plane shooting touch-and-go landings at a non-
towered airport is not using the system and should not be charged by 
the system--or by the Federal Government. But those who do use ATC 
services should pay for the use of those services--again, in as fair 
and simple a manner as possible. And as stakeholders in the system, 
they should be represented on its board. This includes military and 
civilian government users, whose budgets should include the cost of 
using ATC services, just as it includes buying fuel for their aircraft.
    Next, let me address funding for the remaining FAA functions. 
Without its ATC operations, the remaining FAA would have two main 
programs: safety regulation and airport grants. We believe that safety 
regulation is inherently governmental. The one difficult area is AIP 
grants for airports. We all know that this country is short of airport 
capacity, but that expanding existing airports and building new ones in 
places where they are needed are both very difficult. The problem seems 
to be less one of funding than of overcoming local opposition to noise 
and traffic. We do not yet have a specific proposal on how best to pay 
for airport improvements--but we are working on it.
    Getting back to the Airways Corporation itself, the overseas 
experience demonstrates that it can easily be self-funding. Like any 
other utility business providing a vital public service (e.g., 
electricity or water) by investing in long-lived infrastructure, the 
most appropriate way to pay for such infrastructure is via long-term 
revenue bonds. With a robust stream of revenue from fees and charges, 
such bonds could easily earn investment-grade ratings. Wall Street will 
be only too happy to arrange these bond issues. Hence, we strongly 
recommend that the corporation not be allowed to borrow from the 
Treasury. Since one of the key objectives of this reform is to develop 
a user-responsive corporate culture--i.e., one that will choose wise 
and cost-effective investments, rather than white elephants such as the 
now abandoned Microwave Landing System--is important that all such 
investment plans be required to pass the market-testing of the 
financial markets.
    Finally, let me address the question of regulation. There are two 
potential types of regulation involved: safety and economic. In terms 
of safety regulation, the FAA will become the arms-length regulator of 
the new corporation. That will put air traffic control on the same 
basis as all the other participants in the aviation system: airlines, 
private plane owner/operators, airframe and engine producers, airports, 
pilots, and mechanics. All are regulated at arms-length by the aviation 
safety regulator. It will be no different in the case of the ATC 
service provider. Most countries that have commercialized ATC consider 
this separation of regulation from operations to be a significant 
strengthening of air safety.
    When it comes to economic regulation, I noted previously that the 
Airways Corporation will be a natural monopoly. The corporate structure 
we propose is a not-for-profit corporation with a stakeholder board--
essentially, a user cooperative. In theory, such a structure should 
represent the interests of its customers and not require the usual kind 
of public utility regulation (whose purpose it is to look out for the 
interests of its customers). However, we all know that the interests of 
business-jet operators and those of cargo carriers and those of major 
airlines are not identical. We believe there will still be a need for 
external review and appeal of the corporation's decisions on such 
things as fees and charges and of changes in levels of service. At this 
point, we think such review and appeal is best carried out by the DOT, 
just as appeals from rail shippers can be taken to the DOT's Surface 
Transportation Board.
    Congress will, of course, continue to have the responsibility to 
fund the FAA and DOT, and to exercise the needed oversight of all of 
their operations, including their regulatory responsibilities with 
respect to air traffic control.
    In closing, I would like to stress the urgency of this kind of 
fundamental, structural reform of the way we provide and pay for air 
traffic control in this country. The current system has failed to bring 
about modernization of the ATC System--modernization that is essential 
if we are not to succumb to gridlock and far worse delays than were 
experienced last spring and summer. The shift from ground-based to 
space-based ATC, based on GPS and data link, promises a huge increase 
in both en-route and runway capacity. But the FAA has been 
institutionally incapable of delivering this modernization, wasting 
billions on such fiascos as the Advanced Automation System and the 
Microwave Landing System.
    There are several reasons for this structural failure. One is the 
FAA's cumbersome procurement process. When a new generation of computer 
electronics comes along every 18 months and it takes the FAA 5 to 8 
years to procure a new system, you have a recipe for getting further 
and further behind the state of the art. This is due in part to the 
FAA's proclivity for defining everything to death in-house, rather than 
making creative use of off-the-shelf systems where feasible. A 
commercial ATC corporation will be able to upgrade its technology as 
quickly and efficiently as other high-tech businesses.
    Another structural problem is uncertain funding. The vitally needed 
controller-to-pilot data link is a key element in free flight, but is 
being delayed by stop-and-go FAA funding. Implementing data link 
requires synchronized schedules involving airlines, avionics makers, 
and ATC facilities on the ground--but FAA budget problems play havoc 
with this synchronization. An ATC corporation would have assured 
funding for such modernization programs via its revenue bonds.
    But the most important structural failing is this: the FAA is not 
customer-driven. Regarding free flight, WAAS, data link, and other key 
technologies, there is no urgency or sense of commitment to meeting 
users' needs as soon as possible. This is a basic problem of corporate 
culture. And it will only be solved when the ATC organization is paid 
directly by its customers and held accountable for results by those 
customers.
    This concludes my presentation today. As I said previously, my 
comments are based on our work-in-progress on defining a plan for ATC 
commercialization that can gain widespread support within the aviation 
community. We are not there yet, but we are making good progress. I 
should have a lot more to report several months from now.

    Senator Domenici. Mr. Baker from American Airlines, we 
would be pleased to hear your statement.
    Senator Lautenberg. Before Mr. Baker makes his statement, 
Mr. Chairman, I was at a presentation made by American Airlines 
this morning, and it knocked the socks off people that were 
sitting there, because they were going to give us more room in 
the seats, Mr. Chairman, and I had a legislative redress that 
was stopped en route, because we could not get enough activity 
within the Senate. But that was a very positive thing, and I 
hope that it sets an example for all the airlines to 
accommodate the comfort and the ease of travel for passengers 
throughout. And I am not endorsing American Airlines, but I do 
like the idea.
    Chairman Domenici. You liked what they said.
    Senator Lautenberg. I do love it, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. BAKER, VICE CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN 
            AIRLINES, INC.
    Mr. Baker. Thank you, Senator. I will have just a few words 
about that in my remarks.
    I am Bob Baker. I am Vice Chairman of American Airlines, 
and I want to start by expressing my appreciation to the 
leadership and members of the Senate Budget and Appropriations 
Committees for the opportunity to testify about the serious 
challenges facing the air traffic control system in our 
country.
    But before I turn to that subject, I want to take this 
opportunity to tell the members of these committees about an 
important announcement that we made earlier today. Last year 
the airline industry received very harsh criticism from many 
quarters for failing to provide the kind of high-quality 
customer service that the public has every right to expect. 
Many Members of Congress joined the critics, either responding 
to the complaints of their constituents or based on their own 
dissatisfaction.
    In response, the individual carriers have pledged to new 
customer service plans, addressing everything from baggage 
handling to ticket refunds and prompt accurate information 
about delays and cancellations. Accurate information is 
certainly a hallmark of aviation and customer service. 
Compliance with these plans will be reviewed on an ongoing 
basis by the Inspector General of the Department of 
Transportation.
    This morning American Airlines took passenger service to a 
new level. Just across town our Chairman and CEO, Mr. Don 
Carty, announced that as part of a $400 million program to 
refurbish the interiors of our entire fleet, American Airlines 
will give our passengers more of what they really want, more 
space. By removing two rows of seats from every aircraft and 
reconfiguring the coach cabin, we will increase seat pitch and 
provide more space for every passenger, not just a few rows in 
first class. Mr. Carty regrets very much that he is unable to 
be here today because of the long-planned event surrounding 
this ground-breaking announcement.
    And now I will return to the purpose of this hearing, the 
issues surrounding air traffic control. As we enter the year 
2000, the air traffic statistics for 1999 show trends that 
raise concerns about the upcoming summer traffic season and the 
years beyond. An efficient and safe system for ATC is the basic 
foundation, the bedrock upon which we strive to provide a safe, 
predictable, and quality service to our customers. When we 
implemented our customer service plan late last year, we 
discovered a lot of ways in which we could improve our service. 
At the same time, we realized our most important basic customer 
service, on-time performance, is fundamentally dependent on air 
traffic control.
    And while the aviation industry can improve some elements 
of customer service, we cannot unilaterally address the 
challenge posed by an outdated air traffic control system. For 
that we need the help of Congress, the FAA, the air traffic 
controllers, and many, many others.
    In order to understand the present challenge to the Air 
Traffic Control System, we must address three questions: When 
do we need to start? What do we need to do? And how do we get 
it done?
    In the case of air traffic improvements ``when'' is a 
critical question. We all want to avoid gridlock, but there are 
long lead times, starting with capital investment and 
proceeding through the development, testing and training that 
must precede the implementation of new systems. Most of you 
know that we completed a study in 1997 and were alarmed to 
discover that we are already approaching the point at which the 
air traffic system becomes overloaded.
    Our 1999 operating results at American confirm that the 
trend in the U.S. air traffic control delay situation continues 
to escalate, with the total number of delays up 36 percent, and 
the total minutes of delay up 34 percent over the corresponding 
1998 figures. This is an alarming increase as compared to our 
1998 operating results, where the total number in minutes of 
air traffic delay were up only 5 percent and 9 percent 
respectively. Our 1999 operating delays coupled with a dramatic 
increase in customer complaints related to delays and 
cancellations serve as an urgent wake-up call to the 
approaching chaos that our study predicts will exist by 2005. 
Five years, mind you, is the most optimistic projection for 
implementation, and given the size and complexity of the air 
traffic control system, 5 years is really just around the 
corner.
    Which brings us to the next question: What do we need to do 
to modernize and which things do we do first? Using the results 
of our own study and other research en route and terminal 
airspace are the first targets, because changes in these areas 
require new aircraft and air traffic capabilities that will 
take many years to develop, install and train our pilots and 
controllers to use. At the same time we look to new 
technologies and innovative management to improve efficiency in 
the air. Airport facilities and ground infrastructure must be 
developed as well. In the final analysis, successful 
modernization will require that all elements of our system 
receive much needed improvements. That is where the Free Flight 
Program comes in. With the guidance and leadership of 
Administrator Garvey, this unprecedented collaborative process 
represents important industry and government consensus for 
determining the path to modernization. Although this consensus 
has already achieved some important milestones in the 
development of Free Flight technology and processes, without 
continued leadership and support from Members of Congress and 
the Administration, we are unlikely to reach our goal in time.
    A comprehensive approach to air traffic modernization must 
address the three fundamental components of the system: 
communications, navigation and surveillance. The first, 
communications, connects the people who are making and 
coordinating the operation decisions in our system. This 
includes people in the command center, controllers in our air 
traffic control centers, people in our airline operations 
control centers, and finally, the pilots who fly the aircraft. 
Communications modernization means insuring that these 
important participants have the tools, resources and training 
necessary, not only to increase the capacity of our current 
systems, but also to increase the already high level of safety 
we have achieved. Sufficient radio band width or spectrum, for 
example, is absolutely essential if we are to eliminate the 
traditional voice-only bottleneck that characterizes pilot 
control or communications today. New operating capabilities and 
airspace capacity with improve safety can be realized by 
upgrading the old analog voice and teletype systems to new 
digital voice and data link communication systems.
    A modern air traffic system must also include satellite-
based navigation capabilities. Currently, airspace capacity is 
constrained by our traditional ground-based radio navigation 
facilities, which have significant location and range 
limitations. Satellite-based navigation systems will enable us 
to redesign our airspace, to increase the throughput of both 
the en route and terminal airspace. This increased accuracy, 
enabled by satellite augmentation systems such as the Wide Area 
or Local Area programs, will allow us to design new airport 
approach and departure procedures, dramatically improving 
safety, efficiency and an environmental impact that will 
certainly be positive.
    The final component is surveillance, which most of us think 
of as radar. By augmenting radar using aircraft transmitted 
data, we can unlock new applications that can improve our 
ability to better manage air traffic by detecting traffic 
conflicts earlier, both in the air and on the ground. This 
promises to be an important part of addressing the growing 
problem of airport runway incursions.
    Once we know what to do, we have to address the most 
difficult question of how do we get it done? If we are to avoid 
rapidly approaching gridlock, we must, starting now, insure the 
commitment to pay for modernization and infrastructure 
development, not just this year, but on an ongoing multi-year 
basis. Such consistent funding is a key cornerstone to managing 
any investment risk. Unfortunately, the needed funding must pay 
the escalating cost of operating, maintaining and staffing the 
current ATC System, while also making the investments in the 
improvements necessary to insure our future. Because of the 
urgent need to get started on the programs, infrastructure and 
reforms necessary to guarantee aviation's future, I urge you to 
find a way to resolve whatever remaining issues are preventing 
passage of the FAA Reauthorization Bill.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    In conclusion, I believe that the safety and efficiency of 
the air traffic control system can be improved simultaneously. 
Thanks to the leadership of Administrator Garvey, we have a 
plan. Short-term improvements may buy us some time while we 
pursue the development and implementation of real solutions, 
but we cannot hesitate much longer. We must begin modernizing 
our systems and operating structures today if we want to avoid 
the gridlock in the skies tomorrow. We need your support to get 
an FAA Reauthorization Bill passed to insure the funding and 
management reforms that will put us on the right path.
    Thank you very much.
    Senator Domenici. Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Robert W. Baker

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committees: My name is 
Robert Baker, and as the vice-chairman of American Airlines, it is an 
honor to have the opportunity to present American's views on the need 
to modernize our air traffic control system.
    As we enter 2000, the air traffic statistics for 1999 show trends 
that raise concern about the upcoming summer traffic season and the 
years beyond. An efficient and safe ATC System is the basic foundation, 
the bedrock, upon which we strive to provide a safe, predictable, and 
quality service to our customers. When we implemented our customer 
service plan last year, we discovered a lot of ways in which we could 
improve our service. At the same time, we realize our most important, 
basic customer service--on time performance--is fundamentally dependent 
on air traffic control. And while the aviation industry can improve 
some elements of customer service, we cannot unilaterally address the 
challenge posed by an outdated ATC System. For that, we need the help 
of Congress, the FAA, the air traffic controllers and others.
    In order to understand the present challenge to the ATC System, we 
must address three basic questions: When do we need to start? What do 
we need to do? How do we get it done?
    In the case of ATC improvements, ``When?'' is a critical question. 
We all want to avoid gridlock. But there are long lead-times, starting 
with capital investment and proceeding through the development, testing 
and training that must precede the implementation of new systems. Most 
of you know that we completed a study in 1997 and were alarmed to 
discover that we are already approaching the point at which the Air 
Traffic System becomes overloaded. Our 1999 operating results confirm 
that the trend in U.S. ATC delay continues to escalate, with the total 
number of delays up 36 percent and total minutes of delay up 34 percent 
over 1998 figures. This is an alarming increase as compared to our 1998 
operating results, where the total number and minutes of air traffic 
delay were up 5 percent and 9 percent respectively. Our 1999 operating 
delays, coupled with the dramatic increase in customer complaints 
related to delays and cancellations, serve as an urgent wake-up call to 
the approaching chaos that our study predicts will exist by 2005. Five 
years, mind you, is the most optimistic projection for implementation. 
And, given the size and complexity of the ATC System, 5 years is just 
around the corner.
    Which brings us to the next question, ``What do we need to 
modernize and what do we do first?'' Using the results of our own study 
and other research, enroute and terminal airspace are the first 
targets, because changes in these areas require new aircraft and air 
traffic capabilities that will take many years to develop, install, and 
train our pilots and controllers to use. At the same time we look to 
new technologies and innovative management to improve efficiency in the 
air, airport facilities and ground infrastructure must be developed as 
well. In the final analysis, successful modernization will require that 
all elements of our system receive much-needed improvements.
    That's where the free flight program comes in. With the guidance 
and leadership of Administrator Garvey, this unprecedented 
collaborative process represents important industry and government 
consensus for determining the path to modernization. Although this 
consensus has already achieved some important milestones in the 
development of free flight technology and processes without continued 
leadership and support from Members of Congress and the Administration, 
we are unlikely to reach our goal in time.
    A comprehensive approach to ATC modernization must address the 
three fundamental components of the system: communications, navigation 
and surveillance. The first, communications, connects the people who 
are making and coordinating the operating decisions in our system. This 
includes people in the FAA command center, controllers in our air 
traffic control centers, people in our airline operations control 
centers, and pilots who fly the aircraft. Communications modernization 
means ensuring that these important participants have the tools, 
resources and training necessary not only to increase the capacity of 
our current systems, but also to increase the already high level of 
safety we have achieved. Sufficient radio bandwidth, or spectrum, for 
example, is absolutely essential if we are to eliminate the traditional 
voice-only bottleneck that characterizes pilot-controller communication 
today. New operating capabilities and airspace capacity with improved 
safety can be realized by upgrading the old analog voice and teletype 
systems to new digital voice and data communication systems.
    A modern ATC System must also include satellite-based navigation 
capabilities. Currently, airspace capacity is constrained by our 
traditional ground-based radio-navigation facilities, which have 
significant location and range limitations. Satellite-based navigation 
systems will enable us to re-design our airspace to increase the 
throughput of both enroute and terminal airspace. The increased 
accuracy enabled by satellite augmentation systems, such as the wide-
area (WAAS) or local-area (LAAS) programs, will allow us to design new 
airport approach and departure procedures, dramatically improving the 
safety, efficiency, and environmental impact of take-off and landing 
patterns.
    The final component is ``surveillance,'' which most of us think of 
as radar. By augmenting radar using aircraft-transmitted data, we can 
unlock new applications that can improve our ability to better manage 
air traffic by detecting traffic conflicts earlier, both in the air and 
on the ground. This promises to be an important part of addressing the 
growing problem of airport runway incursions.
    Once we know what to do, we have to address the most difficult 
question of ``how'' to get it done. If we are to avoid rapidly 
approaching gridlock, we must, starting now, ensure the commitment to 
pay for modernization and infrastructure development, not just this 
year, but on an ongoing, multi-year basis. Such consistent funding is a 
key cornerstone to managing any investment risk. Unfortunately, the 
needed funding must pay the escalating costs of operating maintaining 
and staffing the current ATC System, while also making the investments 
in the improvements necessary to ensure our future. Because of the 
urgent need to get started on the programs, infrastructure and reforms 
necessary to guarantee aviation's future, I urge you to find a way to 
resolve whatever remaining issues are preventing passage of the FAA 
reauthorization bill.
    In conclusion, I believe that the safety and efficiency of the ATC 
System can be improved simultaneously. Thanks to the leadership of 
Administrator Garvey, we have a plan. Short-term improvements may buy 
us some time while we pursue the development and implementation of real 
solutions. But we cannot hesitate much longer. We must begin 
modernizing our systems and operating structures today, if we want to 
avoid gridlock in the skies tomorrow. We need your support to get a FAA 
reauthorization bill passed to ensure the funding and management 
reforms that will put us on the right path.
    Thank you.

    Senator Domenici. I just have three questions, one for each 
of you, and I will take you first, Mr. Baker, and then I am 
going to yield to Senator Lautenberg, who will close the 
meeting down.
    So I do not forget, I want to thank all three of you. I 
think the testimony, not only your oral testimony, but your 
entire testimony, will be of relevance, and certainly an eye-
opener to a number of people who want to read and try to see 
what is going on elsewhere in the world.
    In reading your testimony, Mr. Baker, I noted that you 
mention airport facilities and ground infrastructure sort of in 
passing, and you do not highlight it as a problem to be 
addressed in the, quote, ``What do we need to modernize and 
what do we need to do first'' section. Should we take that to 
mean that the Airport Improvement Program funding or passenger 
facility charges are not a priority for your airline?
    Mr. Baker. No; I think the proper structure would be a 
balanced approach of en route improvements, terminal area 
improvements, which are basically air traffic control, coupled 
with an ongoing process of improving facilities, both runways, 
taxi-ways, as well as terminal facilities, to meet the demand 
on these facilities. I think they all have to go on 
simultaneously, and they are all equally important to the 
overall capacity of aviation.
    Senator Domenici. Thank you.
    Mr. Crichton, Mr. Mead's statement indicated that NAV 
Canada is relying on the FAA for key emergency technologies. In 
turn, your material indicates that NAV Canada will introduce 
the, quote, ``most advanced oceanic system in the world this 
year.'' Is there an opportunity for cooperation or more 
cooperation between the FAA and NAV Canada in the development 
and fielding of new air traffic control technology?
    Mr. Crichton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    There is significant potential, and in fact, some of it is 
being realized. I think historically there has been a 
participation back and forth across the border. For instance, 
we are involved in the WAAS Program with the FAA, in a small 
way in assisting in that. The FAA has developed some tools that 
we find very interesting. Our oceanic system, actually, we are 
in discussions with the FAA to possibly make that available as 
part of their procurement process as well, so I think there is 
a tremendous scope for sharing between ANSs, and certainly 
there is a longstanding cooperative working relationship 
between NAV Canada and the FAA.
    Senator Domenici. Just my wrap up question to both you, Mr. 
Poole, and yours might have to be theoretical and yours, Mr. 
Crichton, can be practical based on what exists. But obviously 
there is a tremendous opposition to privatization here from 
those who work for the FAA and from the unions that are part of 
it. They have their reasons for being against it. I just have a 
question. From the standpoint of pay and the non-profit 
corporation, what has resulted from that in terms of comparable 
pay before and after the institutional change, and perhaps 
comparable pay with U.S.A. comparable jobs?
    Mr. Crichton. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the air traffic 
controller portion of the work force, the contract that we 
entered into last summer with them, saw an average increase of 
33 percent in their pay, and that varied depending on location 
of the controller and their grade, and some of them were 
actually 40 percent, and some, obviously, a bit less than the 
33 percent, and that was for a 39-month contract, just a little 
over 3 years.
    Now, we bargained in return and got demonstrable 
productivity improvements in work rules of at least 20 percent, 
and that was unique, because historically, I think the 
bargaining process, particularly with government, has been more 
of a one-way street, where the process would see concessions 
given or raises or so on, and very little coming the other way, 
so that was quite unique, and it at times was traumatic to 
negotiate it, but we got it done.
    Mr. Poole. Senator, I would like to say that I am not here 
advocating privatization of air traffic control in the sense 
that it is often meant. The word around the world usually means 
turning something over to a for-profit company with 
shareholders.
    Senator Domenici. I understand.
    Mr. Poole. I am using the term ``corporatization'' or 
``commercialization'' to mean creating something much more like 
NAV Canada, which is a direct user-serving organization, and--
--
    Senator Domenici. If I used the word ``privatization'', I 
mean----
    Mr. Poole. I appreciate it, but I think it is an important 
semantic distinction.
    Senator Domenici. I am trying to use the word that Mr. 
Crichton described as to what they have done in Canada.
    Mr. Poole. But this is relevant in terms--the unions, 
including the current controllers' union in the United States, 
has consistently spoken out against privatization, and they 
include in that the Contract Tower Program which is run by for-
profit companies. On the other hand, they are on record in 
1994, 1995, as endorsing the Administration's USATS corporation 
concept, and they recently have reaffirmed that support. So I 
mean I think there is definitely room there to talk with them 
seriously about an air traffic control corporation that is 
outside of the structure of the FAA, that is funded by the 
users, that meets the needs of users and is free to borrow in 
the capital market and so forth, as long as you adequately 
protect pension benefits, insure market-based compensation and 
so forth. I do not see this as a huge--I mean it is an issue 
definitely, but it is not an insuperable stumbling block as it 
might be if we were talking about turning it into a for-profit 
company.
    Senator Domenici. Well, let me make sure the record is 
correct in terms of my use of words. There is opposition to 
privatization, as privatization is conventionally used, and I 
have been told there is not as much opposition, perhaps even 
some favor, shown towards the kind of entity that you are 
describing, Mr. Poole, and maybe that Mr. Crichton has 
explained with reference to Canada.
    If our air traffic control system is commercialized, how 
would you insure that large carriers do not overshadow other 
smaller stakeholders such as General Aviation, General Aviation 
pilots, small carriers and smaller airports? How are you doing 
that, or is that not a problem in Canada?
    Mr. Crichton. No, we are doing it. And it is a combination 
of the provisions that were set out in our enabling legislation 
to enable a transaction. There are certain provisions there 
regarding level of service requirements, charging principles, 
and also within our own corporate governance documents in terms 
of our corporate by-laws, there is a balance to approach. The 
air carrier representatives on the board do not constitute a 
majority, number one, but GA does have a seat on the board as 
well. So it is the combined effect of all of those issues looks 
after that concern, and it has not been a concern for us.
    Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
    Senator Lautenberg.
    Senator Lautenberg. I will just be here a couple of 
minutes, Mr. Chairman. That is my intent anyway.
    I wanted to just get something kind of clear, because the 
non-profit--you describe as non-shareholder, Mr. Crichton, that 
NAV Canada has--and I wonder, what is the incentive to keep 
going and to keep this business intact? There is some ownership 
someplace here. Who owns the NAV Canada?
    Mr. Crichton. Quite frankly, if you are thinking of 
ownership in a traditional sense, Senator, nobody.
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, I mean in----
    Mr. Crichton. There are not any shares in that sense. The 
four members, as I described them earlier, are, I suppose, the 
surrogate shareholders, but the incentive is largely in the 
fact that the customers who are paying all the bills have a 
significant role in the governance of the company in terms of 
sitting on the board, and that provides the incentive to be 
efficient, and to produce a good product, to be safe and so on.
    Senator Lautenberg. They pay competitive executive wages?
    Mr. Crichton. Yes.
    Senator Lautenberg. So these are careers that people want 
to pursue, and will, I guess, be held to a standard of 
efficiency, productivity results that we would normally see in 
the corporate world?
    Mr. Crichton. Absolutely.
    Senator Lautenberg. And so it is, if not directly customer-
held shares, customer owned, they are a large part of the 
council, the board, whatever, and they are the ones who set the 
need, and is it the board that finally judges whether or not 
this particular program, this particular investment is going to 
be put in place?
    Mr. Crichton. Yes, they do, although I must say that when 
it comes to the establishment of user fees, when it comes to 
major capital programs or system improvements, that the 
directors on the board tend to defer quite a bit to the airline 
or the GA people, the people in terms of their judgment, and I 
think that is quite normal.
    Senator Lautenberg. You have to get a consensus of course.
    Mr. Crichton. Yes; and we certainly, when we are doing any 
kinds of program, we consult with our customers constantly, 
including with respect to capital programs, and we have found 
that that pays off, because quite frequently they will point 
out some programs that they see very little value added to 
them, but they have other ones that they think would help them 
a lot, and a lot of our time is spent, in fact, in trying to 
figure out how to save the airlines' money from an operating 
cost point of view.
    Senator Lautenberg. Do you hear from the customers' 
customers?
    Mr. Crichton. Not a lot.
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, who does?
    Mr. Crichton. The airlines certainly do.
    Senator Lautenberg. And you are assured that they pass 
those criticisms along to you?
    Mr. Crichton. The--I think the average passenger, at least 
in Canada, does not really notice the air traffic control 
system.
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, you are talking about the 
management of the system programs to be put in place. Does it 
substitute for the structure that we might have here, except 
for the safety side of things? Does your structure substitute 
for that?
    Mr. Crichton. We provide the entire air navigation service, 
which includes, obviously, the air traffic control portion.
    Senator Lautenberg. Right. But if there are delays, do you 
hear it from the airlines? Does anybody collect passenger 
opinion?
    Mr. Crichton. The whole issue of delays becomes a technical 
one and a complex one of trying to establish in any given 
circumstance what induced the delays. Certainly if you are 
looking at it from a passenger's point of view, unless they 
were told specifically, they would not know the delay was an 
ATC-induced delay, and I have heard pilots get on the PA and 
announce delays into Toronto or something due to ATC problems, 
when in fact the reason the delays were there was there was a 
huge thunderstorm right over the airport. So we have to get 
clear on the terms on what really caused the delay. We do cause 
some delays. We are not perfect. Most of them have been due to 
a staffing problem. We are fixing that. But in Canada at least, 
the ATC-induced delays are relatively small.
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, I am curious about what influence 
NAV Canada has on passenger questions. Is your activity focused 
exclusively on the navigation and the controller side of 
things?
    Mr. Crichton. Yes, sir. Unlike the FAA, we have no role in 
air safety, other than our obligation to run the ANS. So that 
is still--Transport Canada does all of that, looks after the 
regulation of us, of the airlines, and certification of 
aeronautical products and so on.
    Senator Lautenberg. So it is specifically parceled out.
    Mr. Crichton. Yes.
    Senator Lautenberg. I am curious as to how you were able to 
drop your service charges to users by over 30 percent. What did 
you find--you, Mr. Poole, what do you find is the hindrance to 
shrinking down costs? I mean our people work very hard. There 
is a lot of stress. There is overtime required, and I talk to 
controllers regularly. I go up in the towers and sometimes I 
sit in the second seat in a small airplane. And I go up and I 
ask them what their attitude is and see how they operate. I 
almost fainted when I first went up there and I saw that they 
had little paper slips that they were passing back and forth. 
And it is incredible to me, and I must say, whether it is 
Canada or the United States, how well the system operates. When 
you look at the number of movements that take place every day, 
Mr. Baker, the number of people that are carried, and thank the 
Lord so few incidents that have the kind of tragic result we 
have just witnesses, so few compared to the amount of effort 
and the amount of activity that takes place. I think it is 
miraculous and I think it is a real testimonial not only to the 
equipment, but rather to the personnel that man it. They do one 
terrific job. And, yes, when mistakes are made, they are often 
caught and there is backup redundancy that takes care of the 
fact that we do not have a major collapse in the system.
    But how do you get these costs down like that? I come out 
of the corporate world. I ran a big and very efficient company 
I think, yes. The stockholders always thought so. What is it 
that--what is the factor or couple of factors that--it has to 
be some single thing, it cannot be a whole series of little 
things; it has to be a major, major thing.
    Mr. Crichton. Well, just briefly, Senator, in our case it 
was the application of normal commercial business practices to 
the system, and as I said in my remarks, we reduced the work 
force by nearly 20 percent, and that was almost exclusively in 
the administrative and overhead area, and we found the system, 
when we took it over, was fairly bureaucratic, was--there was a 
great deal of redundancy in the system in terms of people in 
different regional offices, for instance, throughout the 
country, where really a business would centralize a lot of 
those functions and so on. So we spent a lot of time on that, 
and also in terms of--just bringing into play normal commercial 
practices with respect to purchasing and so on and so forth. So 
that is how we have done it, and we baselined those costs and 
got it down.
    Mr. Baker. I think in our experience, looking at air 
traffic control corporations in a number of countries, two 
things seemed to stand out. One is the kind of administrative 
streamlining that Mr. Crichton just talked about, of really 
making an organization with fewer layers, and in very few cases 
are there reductions in number of actual controllers or 
technicians. It is much more the administrative overhead that 
can be cut significantly.
    Second is a less complex procurement process with a greater 
willingness in selected cases of adapting off-the-shelf 
equipment and systems, rather than in-house doing a great deal 
of what you might call over-specifying to come up with unique 
products specifically for this job. Sometimes that is 
necessary, but not always, apparently, not to the degree that 
it is common within the FAA today.
    Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Baker, your company is one of the 
bigger and better companies in the aviation business. You know 
that your operation is very much dependent on the effective use 
of a national resource, whether that is airspace, whether it is 
airports, the infrastructure that goes along with it, even 
things like transportation to and from the airports, all of 
these things have an effect on the way your business operates.
    Now, one of the things that I am sure you have heard talked 
about a lot recently is the unlocking, so to speak, of the 
trust funds. Now, do air carriers believe that they have not 
gotten their money back from their contributions to the trust 
fund?
    Mr. Baker. I think the airlines are less able to have a 
view, and my company, in particular, as to how to fund what 
needs to be done, but we clearly can articulate what needs to 
be done and how that has to proceed. The trust fund is one of 
several alternative vehicles that can bring the money to the 
people who have to do the work. The airlines' view has 
consistently been that we need to get on with it, and that it 
is expensive, but we do not see many alternative approaches to 
solving the problem. Clearly the trust fund is another way in 
which money comes from our customers' pockets into the process. 
If airlines, for instance, were charged on some kind of a user 
fee or direct basis, that is an indirect way of getting money 
from the ultimate passenger, because that would be reflected in 
our fares. So how we choose to do that process, the airlines 
have less of a concern than the fact that we eventually show up 
with the right amount of money at the right time to get the job 
done.
    Senator Lautenberg. Now, because I pointed out in my 
opening statement that we appropriated roughly $65 billion more 
for aviation since the development of the Airport Airways Trust 
Fund than has been collected into the trust fund, $65 billion 
more. So it is a condition that looks like it has been well 
handled. I think hearing what we have heard today, both from 
Administrator Garvey, from the Inspector General, and our 
friends at the table with you now, that things are improving, 
and it has been catch-up. Believe me, when I came down here in 
1982, I came out of the computer business. I ran a big company. 
It has 35,000--37,000 employees today, and it is a company I 
started with two other people, computer business. We celebrated 
our 50th anniversary last year and I was the oldest of the 
three, and I hope that my condition suggests that I have been 
able to work all of those years without showing excessive wear 
and tear.
    But the fact of the matter is, that equipment that we 
abandoned way before I got here was the principal equipment 
used by the FAA. I was frightened by it, to see that we are so 
antiquated in a place that has such a hold or a control on 
safety, on scheduling, et cetera, but we have worked our way 
through getting better. The pace is slower than we would like 
to see. Very frankly, I speak for myself, and I think probably 
the airlines feel that way. Certainly Mr. Mead is still here, 
and I know that he has expressed interest in moving the 
process. That is what we would like to do.
    Mr. Baker. Senator, I would offer one comment, that when 
the Administrator flew on New Year's Eve--on American, I might 
add--through Dallas/Ft. Worth to San Francisco, I remarked to 
her, when she arrived in Dallas/Ft. Worth, that it is very 
interesting to note that when there is an immovable deadline, 
as a country we get things done.
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, when it looks like the world is 
going to come apart if you do not, it sure does get finished.
    Mr. Baker. And the same thing happens in the corporate 
world. You cannot take slippages when you cannot move the 
deadline, and the same thing applies in public or the private 
sector.
    Senator Lautenberg. We do have movable goal posts here, and 
it happens because--one of the reasons, I think, is because of 
the erratic nature of the funding mechanism, but that does not 
mean that we can just go ahead and put everything that we have 
in aviation--you folks could not handle it if we suddenly shut 
down the railroads or what-have-you. Imagine 10,000 more 
flights a year from Boston to down here, the northeast 
corridor, if we shut down Amtrak. It would--it is a shot that 
would be heard around the world. And we cannot afford to do 
that. And I just want to make sure that it is clearly 
understood that we appropriate a heck of a lot more into the 
fund, and we do it on a need basis. We do not do it on a 
mandatory basis, because there are favorites that various 
chairmen might have, and you would see something come out of an 
area, a modular area in an efficient transportation system that 
could triple one area at the expense of another, and that just 
would not do us any good. You could not fly all the places 
where people need them.
    So the--I am reminded of a question, Mr. Baker, about the 
airlines and how they feel about Air 21. Are you folks 
endorsing the Air 21 concept that has been----
    Mr. Baker. I think we endorse it as one possible way to 
deal with the problem, but not the only, and we urge that all 
of the respective views on how to do it come together quickly, 
and we get on with the funding.
    Senator Lautenberg. Yes; I think you run a risk here, and 
that is, though you suggest that you are really are kind of 
flexible and do not have much of an opinion, an endorsement of 
that proposition is one that is going to, I think, meet an 
enormous amount of tension here, because that little exercise I 
just went through, if you take it to the planes and you leave 
out the trains, or you leave out the cars, I think you would 
see us one lopsided nation with lots of people not being able 
to get where they want to go, and one does not have to live in 
Washington, DC to know that the highways are crowded beyond 
their capacity to handle them. We have to have high-speed rail. 
We have to have things that will permit aviation to become even 
more efficient than it has incredibly been.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Listen, thank you all for your testimony. We will take the 
opportunity to submit questions in writing, would ask for a 
prompt response, and Mr. Crichton, Mr. Poole, Mr. Baker, thank 
you very much.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the nondepartmental witnesses for response 
subsequent to the hearing:]

                    Questions Submitted to Mr. Poole

            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

              TECHNOLOGY, CURRENT SYSTEM, AND WORLD TREND

    Question. Mr. Poole, you have been involved in transportation 
studies for a long time and particularly have focused on the U.S. Air 
Traffic Control System.
    Do you believe the United States current Air Traffic Control System 
structure is sufficiently agile to keep pace with rapidly changing 
technology and sufficiently responsive to customer needs to ensure a 
modernized system?
    Answer. No, the present U.S. ATC System is falling further and 
further behind today's rapidly moving electronics, computer, and 
satellite technology. It is also not, in actual practice, a customer-
driven organization. Otherwise (for example), it would not have wasted 
a billion dollars on the now-abandoned Microwave Landing System that 
its users did not want. I do not believe the ATC System will be 
customer-driven until the customers are directly paying its bills--by 
means of payments for ATC services paid directly to the provider 
organization.
    Question. In terms of global trends, would you say that our Air 
Traffic Control System is out-of-step with the direction many other 
countries seem to be taking to enhance system efficiency while 
preserving the highest level of safety?
    Answer. Yes, the United States is definitely behind the curve. 
There are now at least 16 countries with a commercialized corporate 
organization for air traffic control, with direct user charges 
providing all or nearly all of these corporations' revenue. Such 
countries include Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, 
Switzerland, and South Africa. These countries are modernizing more 
quickly and at lower cost, their airline delays are being reduced 
(while ours are increasing), and their unit costs of providing ATC 
services are also coming down, resulting in lower fees to the users. 
Ten years ago this was mostly a matter of theory; today, it is a matter 
of fact.

                  BEST STRUCTURE FOR THE UNITED STATES

    Question. Mr. Poole, you have done a tremendous amount of work and 
have studied how other countries have responded the similar problems in 
their Air Traffic Control System and modernization programs.
    Of the structures you have studied, which one would be the best 
``fit'' for the United States?
    Answer. Our assessment is that the model adopted by Canada--of a 
not-for-profit corporation, funded by user fees and charges, and 
controlled by a board representing all principal stakeholders--is the 
best model to adapt for the United States.
    Question. What are the major barriers to a structural change that 
you propose?
    Answer. There is understandable attachment to the status quo by 
those operating the present system within the FAA and those in Congress 
responsible for oversight of its operations. Based on the overseas 
experience, we think ATC commercialization can be a positive change for 
most of the current staff, who should be considered part of the team 
that works out the details of the new system. And Congress will still 
have important oversight functions vis-a-vis DOT and FAA, especially 
regarding safety regulation of the new system.
    The other main concerns arise from some segments of the airline 
industry and from much of the general aviation community. Both fear 
serious economic harm if they are faced with user fees that are 
significantly higher than what they currently pay in aviation user 
taxes. These concerns must be taken very seriously in developing the 
principles for ATC fees and charges--and are being given detailed 
attention in the work that my organization is currently carrying out.
         comparison of aviation in the united states and canada
    Question. Mr. Poole, some have argued that too many differences 
exist between the U.S. Air System and the Canadian Air System. They 
have stated that because of these differences, commercialization is not 
the best ``fit'' for the United States and would not translate into the 
same success as was experienced in Canada. I understand that the 
Canadian System is between one-fifth and one-eighth as large as the 
U.S. Air Traffic Control System.
    Please compare the systems. What are the major differences between 
the United States and Canada?
    Answer. The United States has 5 times as many aircraft movements, 
3.2 times as many commercial aircraft, and 8.4 times as many general 
aviation aircraft as Canada. The countries are approximately equal in 
area, but most of Canada's population is in its major cities, near its 
southern border with the United States, while the U.S. population and 
its major cities are far more geographically dispersed.
    Question. Given these differences, how do you respond to those who 
make this argument?
    Answer. The larger overall amounts of U.S. aviation activity would, 
of course, make this the largest ATC commercialization ever undertaken. 
But mere size does not argue against the idea's feasibility. The 
satellite-based Future Air Navigation System (FANS) technology--based 
on GPS plus airborne data-link plus space and ground-based augmentation 
(such as LAAS and WAAS)--will provide huge increases in ATC capacity. 
The transition to this new technology is likely to be much smoother and 
done more cost-effectively by a customer-responsive organization of the 
kind we are proposing than by the FAA in its current form.
    In terms of managing complex air space, what counts is not the 
overall numbers but the density and complexity of air traffic. Germany 
(whose system has been corporatized for 7 years) has some of the 
world's most dense air traffic--yet its ATC corporation is handling it 
better than the former government agency did.
    The most relevent difference between the United States and Canada 
is the much larger size of general aviation here, as a proportion of 
total aviation activity. Clearly, a commercialized system must deal 
realistically with this large and important set of players. Our ATC 
corporation proposal will present what we believe to be a fair deal for 
general aviation.
                                 ______
                                 

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

    Question. Mr. Poole, you are an advocate of privatization. In your 
opinion, what are the major areas that we need to be concerned with if 
Congress decides to privatize the Air Traffic Control System?
    Answer. Actually, when it comes to air traffic control, what I'm 
recommending is better described as corporatization or 
commercialization, since I do not think the system should be sold to or 
operated by a for-profit company. Rather, I recommend that we follow 
Canada's example and create a not-for-profit stakeholder-controlled 
corporation, funded directly by fees and charges paid by aviation 
users.
    In that context, it is vital to structure the corporation so that 
all stakeholders are fairly represented in the decision-making, 
especially regarding fees and charges. It is also very important to 
make clear to the public that air safety will be strengthened, by 
putting the ATC provider (the new corporation) at arms-length from the 
safety regulator (the FAA), just as the airlines, general aviation, and 
the airframe manufacturers are all at arms-length from the safety 
regulator. This is seen as one of the important benefits of ATC 
corporatization in other countries.
    Question. Mr. Poole, what are the major arguments for and against 
commercializing the Air Traffic Control System?
    Answer. The major arguments in favor of commercialization are as 
follows:
    1. To change the corporate culture of the ATC provider to one that 
is highly motivated to respond to user needs, because it is paid 
directly by its users for services provided.
    2. To provide a dependable source of funding for both operations 
and ongoing modernization, via fees and charges that can support the 
issuance of revenue bonds.
    3. To free the corporation from the remaining constraints of 
Federal personnel and procurement regulations, so that it is free to 
operate like other high-tech service businesses.
    4. To remove the conflict of interest inherent in the FAA's current 
dual role as both ATC service provider and aviation safety regulator--
thereby enhancing aviation safety.
    The major arguments against appear to be:
    1. The system should be run as a public service, not to make a 
profit. (But this objection is not relevant to a not-for-profit 
corporation like NAV Canada, which is what I am recommending.)
    2. A commercialized system might pay less and employ fewer 
controllers. (In fact, the evidence suggests that corporatized systems 
tend to pay more (they pay whatever they need to, to obtain the best 
people for each position, especially for top management). On the other 
hand, it is likely that advanced technology will inevitably make ATC 
less labor-intensive, so the work force will shrink over time whether 
or not ATC is commercialized.)
    3. A commercialized system might be dominated by the interests of 
major airlines, putting low-fare carriers and general aviation at risk. 
(This is why a stakeholder board governance structure is so critical to 
the design of the new system; it must serve the interests of all 
stakeholders.)
    4. A commercialized system might jeopardize air safety. (I believe 
this to be the weakest argument against ATC commercialization. This 
change should strengthen air safety for three reasons: (1) It puts the 
safety regulator at arms-length from the service provider, ending 
today's inherent conflict-of-interest, (2) It facilitates a more-rapid 
shift to newer and better technology, which will make operations safer, 
and (3) The private liability insurers of the ATC corporation will 
provide an additional layer of safety oversight, besides that provided 
by the FAA.)
    Question. Mr. Poole, if our Air Traffic Control System is 
commercialized, how would you ensure that large commercial air carriers 
do not over-shadow other smaller stakeholders, such as general aviation 
pilots, small carriers, and smaller airports?
    Answer. The key ingredient is a carefully balanced stakeholder 
board, analogous to the board now governing NAV Canada. Our current 
draft proposal calls for a 15-member board, with 4 seats for various 
airline interests, 2 seats for general aviation interests, one 
representing airports, one representing ATC employees, and 2 
representing the Federal Government (DOD and DOT). These 10 would 
select the CEO, and those 11 would select four independent, at-large 
directors.
    Question. Mr. Poole, privatization is difficult to forward as an 
alternative management structure if we wait for all the interested 
parties: the Administration, the controllers, the airlines, General 
Aviation, Congress, and the flying public to agree on the specific 
details of the structure, isn't it?
    Answer. Is it better to try to incrementally privatize like Mr. 
Mead suggests or to follow the United Kingdom's model where the 
decision is made to privatize, consistent with broad principles, and 
let the interested parties hammer out the details?
    ATC commercialization was a user-led reform in Canada. I think we 
are moving toward airline-industry consensus on the general approach, 
and there seems to be parallel interest within the Adminstration (at 
least to the extent of something like their 1994-95 USATS Federal 
corporation proposal). Once a serious proposal is on the table with 
strong industry support, I believe that other stakeholders (primarily 
general aviation groups and employees) will be willing to negotiate 
what they consider to be a reasonable deal that protects their 
interests within that framework. But I agree that it is not necessary 
for Congress to decide on all the details. Better to enact a good, 
solid framework of principles and let the stakeholders work out the 
details.
                                 ______
                                 

                  Questions Submitted to Mr. Crichton

            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici


                                 SAFETY

    Question. Mr. Crichton, some have expressed concern about 
commercializing air traffic control primarily because they fear that 
safety would be compromised.
    Based on your experience at NAV Canada, has safety increased, 
decreased, or remained the same since NAV Canada was established?
    Answer. We believe the level of safety has increased. One measure 
is the significant reduction in the rate of operating irregularities 
per 100,000 flights that we have achieved.
    In addition, the privatization has separated the service provider 
(NAV Canada) from the safety regulator (Transport Canada), whereas 
previously the service provider and the safety regulator were the same 
entity. An inherent structural conflict of interest has been removed 
and Transport Canada now conducts a robust safety oversight role to a 
degree which they never did before.
    In addition, management at all levels in NAV Canada have a portion 
of their compensation linked to maintaining and enhancing safety 
levels.

                     NAV CANADA USER FEES STRUCTURE

    Question. Mr. Crichton, some air traffic control users and 
stakeholders groups in the United States are wary of user charges. I 
understand that Canada's major aviation stakeholder groups were able to 
agree on a user fee structure.
    Please describe NAV Canada's user fee structure. On what basis are 
they charged?
    Answer. Large commercial air carriers pay movement based fees 
related to aircraft weight and distance flown. Smaller commercial air 
carriers have a choice of paying movement based fees or daily charges 
which have a cap. Small general aviation aircraft usually pay a flat 
annual fee related to the weight of the aircraft.
    There are numerous categories and details too numerous to list 
here, but which can be accessed on our web site at www.navcanada.ca or 
through our Customer Guide to Charges which is being sent to you via 
courier.
    Question. Who pays user fees and are any users exempted from 
charges, such as the military?
    Answer. Some exemptions from air navigation services charges are 
provided for certain categories of flights. These are listed below:
  --Gliders, ultralights and balloons;
  --All aircraft weighing less that 600 kg (1,323 pounds);
  --Aircraft or flights dedicated to search and rescue operated under 
        the direction of police or the Department of National Defense;
  --Aircraft or flights dedicated to firefighting and related 
        operational training;
  --Domestic U.S. flights which over fly Canadian airspace;
  --Aircraft or flights dedicated to air ambulance operations paid by 
        government;
  --Test flights performed exclusively for the following purposes: 
        Testing aircraft following overhauls, modifications, repairs 
        and inspections for which a certificate of compliance is to be 
        given; or Enabling aircraft to qualify for the issue or renewal 
        of a certificate of airworthiness;
  --Flights aborted (not reaching their next destination and returning 
        to the point of flight departure) due to weather conditions;
  --Flights taking part in air shows;
  --Flights operated exclusively for a registered charity as defined in 
        the Income Tax Act (Canada) or equivalent foreign statute;
  --State aircraft of a foreign country, unless charging has been 
        authorized by an Order-in-Council; and
  --Aircraft or flights operated under the authority of the Minister of 
        National Defense.
    Question. What kind of appeal process exists regarding Nav Canada's 
fees and charges?
    Answer. Fees and charges may be appealed by a user to the Canadian 
Transportation Agency if a user believes the fees and charges violate 
one or more of the charging principles set out in the Civil Air 
Navigation Services Commercialization Act or on the grounds that NAV 
Canada failed to abide by the notice provisions in the Act. The 
relevant sections of the Act are 32 through 54 inclusive. We will 
forward to you by courier a copy of the Act.
    Question. Did Canada eliminate specific taxes to compensate for the 
new user fees?
    Answer. Yes; while in government, the ANS was largely financed 
through the proceeds of the Air Transportation Tax on tickets issued to 
passengers for flights which originated or terminated in Canada. This 
tax had a maximum cap of $55 per ticket and was repealed in two stages 
as NAV Canada phased in its user fees. This tax was totally repealed in 
November 1998.

                        SUCCESSES OF NAV CANADA

    Question. Mr. Crichton, I understand that NAV Canada has improved 
air traffic control efficiently, developed cutting edge technological 
solutions to air traffic control challenges, increased controller 
productivity and lowered the cost to system users by more than 30 
percent.
    In you opinion, would this impressive set of accomplishments be 
possible if the government were directly involved in the day-to-day 
operation of NAV Canada?
    Answer. No, most of these achievements would not have been possible 
and the government recognized this as one of their motivating factors 
in pursuing the privatization. The government realized that its 
structure related to personnel policies, procurement, capital program 
management and customer responsiveness was ill suited to what amounted 
to the provision of a complex commercial service in a fast paced, 
commercial market place.

         PROSPECT OF THE NAV CANADA MODEL IN THE UNITED STATES

    Question. Mr. Crichton, NAV Canada clearly has impressive results. 
Your organization has lowered capital expenditures while improving 
efficiency and air side capacity.
    In you opinion, would the NAV Canada model be successful in the 
United States?
    Answer. In my opinion it would be. The NAV Canada model elegantly 
balances the vital interests of all ANS stakeholders.
    Question. The government retains its main public interest 
preoccupation to oversee safety while at the same time receiving a 
substantial sum of money for the assets while shedding any ongoing 
financial liability. The commercial airlines obtain a low cost, 
customer driven private sector corporation in which they participate at 
the Board of Directors level. General Aviation obtains service 
guarantees, reasonable costs and a seat at the Board table. The ANS 
unions also receive Board representation and formal recognition of 
their vital role.
    What are the main difference between the United States and Canada 
that would make it more difficult to adopt a model like NAV Canada?
    Answer. I believe the main differences, between the United States 
and Canadian ANS's are quantitative rather than qualitative. The United 
States is the largest ANS in the world and Canada is number two. Proper 
commercial management principles will work in both cases. Some other 
differences are the attitude of general aviation and organized labour. 
However, I think their concerns are capable of being addressed as we 
did in Canada provided the political will is there along with some 
industry leadership.

                 ACCESS TO SMALL AND RURAL COMMUNITIES

    Question. Mr. Crichton, as you know, New Mexico has many small and 
rural communities. Air service is very important to these communities, 
and contributes to their economic well-being.
    Do any protections exist either in the NAV Canada legislation or 
operating procedures pertaining to air access to small or rural 
communities? If so, please describe the protections.
    Answer. Yes; the legislation contains specific protections for 
northern and remote communities. These protections are contained in 
sections 18 through 22. In effect these communities are given a veto 
over reductions in service levels which can only be overridden by the 
Federal Minister of Transport.
    Question. Has NAV Canada identified any air traffic services where 
the costs far exceed the returns?
    Yes; and they generally fall into the category of services provided 
to remote communities and general aviation. However, these tradeoffs 
have been accepted by most stakeholders as reasonable in the context of 
operating a national ANS in a country as large and diverse as Canada.
    Question. Has NAV Canada discontinued air service in a rural 
community?
    Answer. No; we have, however, adjusted the method of service 
delivery in some communities without materially affecting the level of 
service.
                                 ______
                                 

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

    Question. Mr. Crichton, the FAA has had difficulty increasing air 
traffic controller productivity, yet NAV Canada has increased 
productivity by about 20 percent. Why have you been so successful in 
this area while FAA has had so much difficulty?
    Answer. I cannot comment on the FAA situation as I am not familiar 
with their specific issues. NAV Canada's approach with our controllers' 
union was to offer significant wage increases provided there were 
substantial quid pro quo's in work rule changes to enhance productivity 
in a real and measurable sense. These goals were attained through long, 
intensive, hard bargaining. It was not easy and management had to stand 
its ground in spite of intense pressure--in this we had the full 
support of our Board of Directors and ultimately the Federal 
Government, who was prepared to intervene in the event of a strike.
    Question. Mr. Crichton, recent concerns about increases in delays 
and cancellations and customer dissatisfaction with airline service in 
the United States has fueled debate about the need to restructure or 
commercialize its air traffic control system. What impact has 
privatization had on airline delays and safety in Canada?
    Answer. Since NAV Canada took over, delays attributable to ATC have 
been gradually reduced. This has been accomplished through a variety of 
means:
  --Increased controller staffing levels to fill chronic shortages 
        inherited from government;
  --Increased customer collaboration in decision making;
  --Increased focus on quickly introducing proven, automated systems 
        and procedures that expedite traffic flows; and
  --Enhancement of Safety under NAV Canada.
                                 ______
                                 

           Question Submitted by Senator Charles E. Grassley

    Question. Mr. Crichton, I understand that each Federal employee 
working for NAV Canada received a one-time payment of approximately 
$14,000 U.S. dollars. Who bore the cost of that payment, NAV Canada or 
the government? Do you feel such separation pay was critical to the 
success of NAV Canada?
    Answer. The background behind this payment is that it was a 
contractual obligation of the Federal Government to its employees. Many 
years ago the Federal Government agreed to a severance arrangement 
whereby if any Federal employee ceased to be a Federal public servant, 
they would be paid a one-time severance equal to 1 week's salary for 
each year of service up to a maximum number of weeks.
    This was simply a contractual obligation that was triggered by the 
privatization. There were two choices. The government could pay the 
employees directly in cash on transfer to NAV Canada, or pay the 
accrued liability to NAV Canada as a closing adjustment with NAV Canada 
becoming liable to make the payment to individuals when they eventually 
left NAV Canada. It was the preference of employees to receive the 
money in cash when they transferred over and the government agreed to 
this.
    I do not believe that this situation had any effect on NAV Canada, 
as it was a longstanding legal obligation pertaining to the government 
to which NAV Canada was not a party and it was seen as such. On the 
other hand, if the Federal Government had tried to back away from this 
obligation, the employees would have no doubt sought legal redress and 
this would have adversely affected moral. Happily, this did not happen.

                          subcommittee recess

    Senator Domenici. We stand in recess.
    [Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., Thursday, February 3, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2001

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2000

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Shelby, Specter, Bond, Bennett, Campbell, 
Stevens, Lautenberg, Byrd, Kohl, and Murray.

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Office of the Secretary

STATEMENT OF RODNEY E. SLATER, SECRETARY OF 
            TRANSPORTATION

                            opening remarks

    Senator Shelby. The committee will come to order.
    Mr. Secretary, we welcome you, again, to the committee.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. You have been here many times. We have 
worked with you on many, many issues.
    My colleague, Senator Lautenberg, who is the ranking 
Democrat on the Budget Committee, has to go to the budget 
hearings. And I am going to defer to him at this time for the 
first opening statement, and then I will pick it up.
    Senator Lautenberg. Okay.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK LAUTENBERG

    Senator Lautenberg. That is very kind, Mr. Chairman. I 
thank my colleagues, as well, for indulging me for just these 
few minutes.
    I wanted to be here to welcome Secretary Slater and his 
staff to our hearing this morning as we review the President's 
budget request for the Department of Transportation for fiscal 
2001.
    With this budget, the Administration has shown that 
transportation should be and will be a priority, even as 
overall Federal spending is held down to reasonable limits. The 
President's request for the DOT of just under $55 billion 
represents a 9.4 percent increase above the level enacted for 
the current fiscal year.
    And I think it is important to point out that if we are 
successful in matching the Administration's request in the 2001 
appropriations bill, overall Department of Transportation 
funding will have risen more than $12.4 billion or almost 30 
percent since my friend, Senator Shelby, took the reins of this 
subcommittee.
    Last week, during our joint hearing with the Budget 
Committee on the topic of aviation finance, I emphasized that 
an appropriate balance must be maintained when we invest in 
improvements to our national transportation enterprise.
    The Administration's budget for the fiscal year 2001, I 
believe, reflects that balance. And I am very pleased to see 
the sizable increases requested for both the FAA and the Coast 
Guard's operating budget. Both of these agencies have been 
stretched to the max. The FAA has some new equipment coming 
online that must be installed and maintained.
    The Coast Guard, according to the Commandant, Admiral Loy, 
has exhausted itself fighting the war on drugs in the 
Caribbean, interrupting illegal immigration, addressing the 
critical domestic missions here at home. I had the opportunity, 
over these past few weeks, to be down at the South Pole and to 
watch one of our Coast Guard icebreakers do its job; monotonous 
and exhausting, hard, but it is essential. Wherever you see the 
hand of the United States extended, it always seems to carry a 
Coast Guard implication with it.
    So, I am pleased to see these rather healthy increases that 
will allow these agencies to operate at full capacity and at 
full effectiveness.

                              MASS TRANSIT

    And as we turn our attention to the infrastructure 
programs, here, again, the Administration has maintained its 
commitment as to balance between all modes of transportation. 
The Federal Transit Administration is slated to receive a 9 
percent increase. It is welcome news, frankly, to a Senator 
from the most densely populated state in the nation.
    Specifically, in my State, they have requested $121 million 
for the Hudson-Bergen light rail system and $10 million for the 
Newark-Elizabeth rail link. And perhaps, most importantly, this 
budget also formerly signals the Administration's intention to 
sign a full funding grant agreement for Phase II of the Hudson-
Bergen light rail system. Once completed, Phase II of the 
system will realize a long-awaited goal; giving 100,000 riders 
a day improved access between our major cities in northern New 
Jersey and ultimately to the marketplace in New York City.
    While I know that some of the funding sources for the 
Administration's new initiatives might be controversial, I want 
to commend the Administration's drive to get more productivity 
out of our transportation system. In this day and age, we must 
carefully consider the environmental impacts of our 
transportation improvements, and we must also face the fact 
that we are constrained, not only in the availability of unused 
right-of-way, but also the availability of funds.
    We must make aggressive efforts to get more out of our 
existing transportation infrastructure. That means getting more 
productivity out of our highway system. And the President's 
proposed $140 million increase in the Intelligent 
Transportation Systems, a boost of 143 percent, is intended to 
do just that. So is the President's proposal to use $468 
million for a new high-speed rail initiative.

                            HIGH-SPEED RAIL

    I am pleased that we are finally making some progress on 
the issue of high-speed rail. Our transportation infrastructure 
is bursting at the seams from overuse. And our ability to build 
new roads and airports is limited. We just don't have the space 
in many of the areas of the country.
    At the same time, our rail infrastructure suffers from 
serious under investment and remains a largely untapped 
resource. While we have almost tripled our Federal investment 
in highways and aviation, over the past 20 years, investment in 
our national passenger rail system is actually 50 percent lower 
than it was 20 years ago.
    If we are to maintain a balanced transportation system 
capable of dealing with increasing travel demands, then we must 
reverse this trend and begin matching our investments in 
highways and aviation with serious investments in our rail 
infrastructure.
    That is why I introduced the High-Speed Rail Investment Act 
last fall. This legislation uses innovative financing to 
provide $10 billion in capital funds for the development of 
high-speed rail corridors across the nation over the next 10 
years. We currently have a bipartisan group of 32 cosponsors in 
the Senate, and companion House legislation will be introduced 
by a bipartisan group led by Congressman Oberstar and 
Congressman Houghton.
    Mr. Secretary, I hope that we will be able to work together 
to provide a secure and long-term funding source for the 
development of high-speed rail corridors across the country.

                                 AMTRAK

    On the subject of passenger rail, Mr. Chairman, I have got 
to express my concern over the fact that our current hearing 
schedule allows no opportunity for Amtrak to testify before the 
subcommittee this year. When you add together the 
Administration's high-speed rail initiative and Amtrak's core 
budget request, we have a pending budget request before the 
subcommittee for intercity passenger rail of almost $1 billion.
    Now, I think we have a responsibility to hear from Amtrak 
on this request. And I would hope that we could find time on 
the schedule to do that. I note that on March 2, you have 
scheduled a hearing on the implementation of the Driver's 
Privacy Protection Act, and I am pleased that we are going to 
have that hearing, but I believe that if we are going to set 
aside a spot to have a hearing that is authorizing in nature, 
we ought to also take the time to have a hearing on Amtrak, Mr. 
Chairman. I hope that we will be able to do that.
    I want to thank you for the courtesy extended. And once 
again, I thank the Secretary and this whole team. They work 
hard at the job. We do not always give them the resources that 
are necessary to do the job, but they do very well with what 
they get. And I hope that we will continue to be able to 
support them, as needed.
    Thank you.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD SHELBY

    Senator Shelby. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I will try to be 
as brief as I can. We have a lot of people here today.
    I must admit, however, that this is the most creative 
budget that I have seen since becoming chairman of the 
subcommittee. At first blush, it appears that the President's 
budget increases Federal spending on transportation by nearly 
$5 billion, but on a closer inspection of this budget, the 
Administration clearly is taking credit for numbers that were 
set by TEA-21, additional funds which became available because 
of higher than anticipated gas tax revenues, and spending 
financed by new user tax increases that the Congress has 
already rejected. In the end, this is barely a current services 
budget.

                               USER FEES

    Mr. Secretary, the President's budget request is not only 
misleading, I think it is dangerous. It assumes that new user 
fees for aviation, rail safety inspections, marine navigation 
aids, and hazardous materials will offset $1.3 billion of this 
budget's costs. The proposals have been submitted to Congress 
each year that I have been chairman of the subcommittee, and 
each year, Mr. Secretary, I have told you that Congress is not 
interested in enacting new user taxes increases on the 
transportation community. Perhaps it is time to adopt, Mr. 
Secretary, a ``three-strikes-and-you're-out'' law for budget 
gimmicks.

                    REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY

    Also, this budget includes proposals to divert highway gas 
tax revenues to other activities, such as passenger rail, 
highway safety programs, and motor carrier inspections. These 
may be popular programs which merit our consideration for 
funding, but I can assure you that proposals to fund these 
types of programs with gas tax revenues are as dead on arrival 
in the Senate as new user fees.
    The widespread practice of transferring funds in this 
budget is largely the result of the budgetary firewalls on 
certain transportation accounts. Considering the excessive 
movement of funds, I fail to understand, Mr. Secretary, why I 
would read press reports indicating that you are willing to 
support an aviation firewall.
    This would only exacerbate the conditions that forced you 
to resort to gimmicks in the first place and would further tie 
your hands in managing all the transportation programs for 
which you, as Secretary, have the responsibility.
    The President's budget request is not only misleading, it 
is irresponsible. It raises expectations of various user groups 
and interested parties, while both of us know that neither you 
nor I can deliver on the empty promises it makes to diverting 
highway dollars to non-highway accounts or activities offset by 
new user tax fees.
    I think we may need to look for a mechanism that requires 
the Department to present a budget that internally offsets any 
spending which requires shifting resources out of a protected 
budgetary account to a non-eligible transportation account or 
which is funded by new user fees that the Department doesn't 
even have the cost accounting system in place to implement.
    Other than that, Mr. Secretary, it is great to see you. You 
are always welcome here. I have certainly enjoyed working with 
you. And once we get past this, we will get down to other 
things.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

    Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

                                 TEA-21

    A healthy national transportation system is a vital 
component of a prosperous future. TEA-21, as it is known, was a 
great legislative accomplishment of the last Congress, and one 
in which I was deeply involved, as the Secretary is well aware.
    A key feature of TEA-21 is that it placed into law a 
mechanism to ensure that all funds deposited into the highway 
account of our Highway Trust Fund will be spent on the purposes 
for which they are collected; namely, the construction and 
restoration of our nation's highways. In doing so, TEA-21 re-
established the trust in the Highway Trust Fund.
    TEA-21, like any major piece of legislation, represented a 
compromise between many different regional interests and 
differing policy positions held by members of the House of 
Representatives, the Senate, and the Administration.
    I do not attend many signing ceremonies, but I did attend 
the signing ceremony for TEA-21. It was the only signing 
ceremony I have attended, I suppose, in many years. And I can 
tell you that on that day, there were not any ``nay sayers'' to 
be found in this town to tell the President that he should not 
sign it. Everybody had already made their compromise. That is 
grammatically incorrect. Everyone had already made his or her 
compromise. Everyone had something to be proud of in that bill.

                            EMERGENCY RELIEF

    Even so, the Administration is now proposing a number of 
major changes to TEA-21. Perhaps the most destructive of these 
proposals is the Administration's plan to take a portion of the 
highway funding provided in TEA-21 away from all 50 States, in 
order to address a backlog of emergency relief applications.
    Every year, in the past, when the cost of these 
applications has exceeded the funds available, 
Administrations--be they Republican or Democratic--have 
submitted requests for emergency appropriations. Without 
exception, Congress has always provided the necessary emergency 
relief appropriations. But, in the last 2 years, a new pattern 
has emerged.
    This Administration has knowingly allowed the amount of 
unfunded applications for emergency relief to grow to more than 
$600 million. And now, rather than request these funds as an 
emergency supplemental appropriation, the Administration, 
instead, is proposing to address the bulk of the backlog by 
diverting some $400 million from the highway funding allocated 
to the States under TEA-21.
    This new approach is particularly perplexing when one looks 
at the fiscal year 2000 emergency appropriations the 
Administration is requesting. Among them, the almost $1 billion 
requested to assist Colombia in its drug war.
    Appropriately, roughly $250 million in emergency assistance 
is being requested for victims of Hurricanes Floyd and Dennis, 
and the forest fires in the west. But these same disasters 
caused destruction to our Federal highways. And yet, the 
Administration is saying that highway damages caused by natural 
disasters are not emergencies; that instead, we should take 
highway funds from all 50 States to cover those costs.

                      REDIRECTING HIGHWAY FUNDING

    I am also concerned by another proposal of the 
Administration; namely, to divert another $600 million in funds 
that were guaranteed for highway construction under TEA-21 and 
use them for purposes completely outside of the Federal Highway 
Administration.
    This is the second year in a row that the Administration 
has made a proposal of this kind; and frankly, I believe it 
represents a gross abuse of the trust that we established with 
the American people in TEA-21. The amounts that were guaranteed 
for highway spending under TEA-21 should be spent on highways.
    This Administration is, instead, proposing once again to 
rewrite TEA-21 to send needed highway funds to programs, such 
as new high-speed rail initiatives, highway research efforts, 
and welfare-to-work programs in the Federal Transit 
Administration.
    I want to emphasize that I am not, necessarily, opposed to 
any of these initiatives, but they should be justified on their 
own merits. I am very much opposed to deriving their funding by 
redirecting funds that were guaranteed for highway construction 
under TEA-21.
    And finally, I am disturbed by the Administration's 
proposal to rewrite TEA-21 in a manner that chooses a new set 
of winners and losers within the Federal-aid Highway Program. 
Under the President's proposed budget, certain authorized 
programs would receive increases in both contract authority and 
obligational authority, well above the levels called for in 
TEA-21.
    Most of these selected programs would be effectively 
guaranteed 100 cents on the dollar of their proposed increase. 
Since the total amount of spending is set in TEA-21, the 
Administration is required to cut the amount of obligational 
authority that will be available to all other programs in order 
to pay for their proposed increases.
    Let me state that more clearly: When the Administration 
proposes to fund certain programs at levels above the 
authorizations in TEA-21, those dollars must come out of 
someone else's allocation.
    When one reviews the details of the Administration's 
proposal, it is clear that the biggest loser in the 
Administration's sweepstakes is the formula funding provided to 
the States. Formula funding to all 50 States would be cut by 
more than $1.2 billion in obligational authority below the 
levels called for under TEA-21. Within that amount, funds 
available for the Appalachian Development Highway System would 
be reduced by almost $10 million.
    Mr. Chairman, when we have the opportunity to question the 
Secretary about the details of his budget proposal, I look 
forward to inquiring as to the rationale behind some of the 
winners and losers that have been chosen in developing this 
budget.

                    MISSISSIPPI DELTA AND APPALACHIA

    I do not agree that this is the time or the place to 
rewrite TEA-21. And, I most certainly do not agree that funding 
for the Appalachian Highway System should take a cut in order 
to fund any other program in TEA-21 that the Administration has 
decided is more important.
    It is ironic, in the extreme, Mr. Chairman, that one of the 
new initiatives for which the Administration is seeking funding 
is an effort to reduce poverty in the Mississippi Delta through 
increased road construction. The mission of this initiative is 
identical to that of the Appalachian Development Highway 
System. Yet, this budget proposes to fund the--and I am not 
against funding it--but proposes to fund this new Mississippi 
Delta program at the same time that the Administration is 
proposing to cut funding for the Appalachian Development 
Highway System, in connection with which, the people of 
Appalachia were promised a highway system in 1964 or 1965--35 
years ago. It is not complete, yet.
    I shall not support that approach. And, I trust that this 
subcommittee will not support it either.
    Now, despite my concerns with the budget, I, along with 
others, certainly welcome the Secretary here this morning. We 
have worked well together in the past. He is a skilled and 
knowledgeable Cabinet officer. We do not always agree, but, so 
what?
    He has always been honest--and my statement says here ``and 
forthright'' with me. I think, last year, we had a little 
problem understanding just what kind of a curve ball he was 
trying to throw the subcommittee. But, he is a gentleman and a 
scholar. And, I look forward to hearing his testimony this 
morning.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Campbell.

              STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL

    Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
time. I understand we have a vote in about 20 minutes. So, I am 
going to try and make my statement brief. But I also welcome 
Mr. Secretary----
    Secretary Slater. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Campbell [continuing]. And also thank you for being 
accessible. We haven't always agreed, but you have been there 
and willing to discuss our differences. And I appreciate that.

                            GAS TAX REVENUES

    I want to just maybe make a couple of comments alluding to 
what my friends have already spoken to. I, also, am very 
concerned about the President's budget, because as I understand 
it, these increases are going to have to come from fuel taxes--
increased fuel taxes. And I do not know if you have purchased 
gas in the last few days, but I have, and it is already just 
literally out of sight. We get calls in our office all the time 
wondering why Congress is not doing something to keep the price 
of gasoline at the pumps down.
    And I am also concerned that the President's plan wants to 
redirect that money to pay for trains and transit programs. 
Senator Byrd spoke to that. Senator Shelby did, too. But TEA-21 
contained provisions that all of the gas tax revenues would go 
toward transportation improvements, and any surplus would be 
divided among the States.
    And as Senator Byrd has said, there are going to be some 
winners and loser under the President's budget, but I can tell 
you, as I see the numbers, Colorado is clearly going to be a 
loser. Under TEA-21, we should receive $308,110,281 in gas tax 
surplus. In the President's budget, we are going to lose over 
$15 million and would actually only receive just a little over 
$292 million.
    We have the fourth fastest growing State, as you know. And 
we are going to have to fight for every dollar. So, from my 
perspective, that simply will not fly with the people of 
Colorado; the fact that we are going to actually lose money, 
when we need so much help in a fast-growing State.

                             NUCLEAR WASTE

    Let me also just mention one other thing. This is not 
really in your purview or jurisdiction, but as of 11 o'clock, 
it very well may be, if the Nuclear Waste Bill passes.
    Many of us are very divided on that. I have spoken to my 
Department of Transportation, yesterday, in Colorado, and a 
number of very interested parties, like Colorado Ski Country, 
which is one of our biggest employers--it is the backbone of 
our tourist industry, as you probably know. If this bill 
passes, the transportation of nuclear waste--I assume that the 
routes are going to be set by the Department of Transportation.
    We do not have very many options, because the main 
corridors for both rail and highways go through our 
metropolitan areas of Denver, as you probably know. Many people 
are still gun-shy out there, if I can use that word, from less 
than two decades ago, when a truckload of torpedoes turned over 
right in the main intersection in the middle of Denver--what 
was called the Mousetrap.
    It was days before they could get that cleaned up, because 
nobody knew if they were armed or if they were dangerous and a 
number of other things.
    I can tell you that there are places that you have traveled 
in our State, where the rails go by--in Glenwood Canyon, as an 
example--1,000 feet straight down to rivers down below. And 
accidents regularly happen; not so much with trains, but 
certainly on the trucks.
    We have 6 and 7 percent grades going over the Rocky 
Mountains; in fact, more than our neighbor to the north, 
Wyoming and Montana, and more than our neighbor to the south, 
New Mexico. And it simply could be just a devastating thing in 
our State if there was some kind of a wreck, an accident.
    Now, I understand the thinking. Everybody wants to get rid 
of that stuff. I liken it sometimes to the guy that builds a 
nice home, but he wants to put the septic system on his 
neighbor's land. Everybody wants the jobs, the economic 
opportunity, and so on, from those wonderful union jobs that 
are paid at these plants, but they do not want the waste in 
their State.
    They want to dump it in somebody else's. And the fact of 
the matter is, we have got a couple of places like that, and 
Colorado would probably like to get rid of it, but you think of 
the danger of transporting it.
    I was going to ask you, if we have the time, if you have 
given any thought about alternative routes; about where the 
State would come in; who would have the final jurisdiction if 
the State disagrees with the route, other than the Federal 
Government; and would we have some of those routes just 
literally foisted upon us, when we think it could be 
terrifically dangerous?
    So, I will stop with that comment, Mr. Chairman, and hope 
we have some time to get into some questions before we vote.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Bond.

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER BOND

    Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
Secretary, it is good to see you again and to have the 
opportunity to talk with you. Obviously, we have some warm 
issues that we need to discuss.
    I express my personal appreciation to you for your 
understanding of the needs that we have in Missouri. Being 
right at the heart of the nation, we are the crossroads, the 
cross-section for all kinds of transportation. And you have 
helped us with bridges and with highways. And you know the 
importance of rail and air transport to our State.

                           HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

    I will submit a much longer statement for the record, 
because, like many of the other members of the committee, I 
have two other hearings that I have to attend right now, but I 
do want to follow-up on the comments that have been made about 
the President's proposed robbing of the Highway Trust Fund. 
There is very little I could say that could improve upon the 
statements of Senator Byrd, Chairman Shelby.
    I think gross abuse of trust is probably a good way to 
phrase the raid that has been proposed on TEA-21. We worked 
TEA-21 out as a long, hard compromise. You may remember that 
that compromise was one that I joined with our dear late friend 
Senator John Chafee, to fashion. We worked with people on all 
sides--on this committee, on the budget committee--and we 
achieved what we think is a compromise. Nobody got everything 
they wanted, but that is why it is called compromise. That is 
why it is called legislation. Back in Missouri, they call it 
the Bond-Chafee Plan.
    Now, it is possible to run over me on this, but I think I 
have got a lot of friends. And my guess is that this dog is not 
going to hunt. And I would hope that you would not bother 
wasting our time trying to pursue something that is so 
outrageous and such a flagrant violation of the spirit of 
compromise that was accomplished in TEA-21.

                            AVIATION SAFETY

    Let me touch briefly on a couple of other things. I hope 
that you will talk about the Open Skies Agreements which are 
necessary to facilitate increased global trade.
    The International Civil Aviation Organization performed an 
audit of the FAA to determine if it met international 
standards, and it did. And I also would be interested in 
knowing to what extent you are providing assistance to other 
countries to meet the terms of the ICAO audit.
    Finally, and very important to me, as one who flies often 
and who was stopped by a television reporter in Miami on Sunday 
to ask if I dared get onto an MD-80 aircraft after the tragedy 
of the Alaskan Airlines flight.
    I join with my colleagues in extending our deepest sympathy 
to the families and friends of the victims of that flight. But 
we also need to know, going forward, whether the outstanding 
safety record of the MD-80 is in place. We want to be assured, 
as the traveling public wants to know, what steps are being 
taken to assure the safety of the MD-80 and others.
    I indicated on that unexpected interview that we were going 
to be on the FAA like a dog on a bone, if they did not assure 
the safety for the traveling public of that and the other 
airplanes. I believe that assuring the safety is something that 
all of us demand from the FAA. And we urge your priority 
attention to this matter.
    Again, my apologies for having to leave, but I will submit 
this, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to reading the record and 
following the discussions in this committee.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Kohl.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL

    Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. 
Slater.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Kohl. We appreciate your coming before us today to 
discuss the Department of Transportation budget for fiscal year 
2001.
    I need to be at another hearing in a few minutes, but I 
want to point out a few concerns this morning. We look forward 
to working with you as the appropriations process continues.

                           HIGHWAY TAX SHIFT

    The transportation budget you have put forward for fiscal 
year 2001 continues our strong investment in highways and 
transit to areas in which we have made great progress. But your 
budget also presents some false choices on other issues.
    For example, you suggest shifting $468 million in highway 
dollars to a new high-speed rail capital account. Now, we share 
the same goals, Mr. Secretary. The Midwestern States are 
energized about high-speed rail and would clearly benefit from 
this funding, but it is unfair to condition that support on a 
choice between highways and rail.
    So, while the overture of Federal support is greatly 
appreciated, it is my hope that you will also help with more 
clear-cut solutions, such as Senator Lautenberg's legislation 
to establish a high-speed rail tax credit.

                        LORAN-C RADIO NAVIGATION

    Mr. Secretary, this budget provides $20 million for LORAN-C 
radio navigation upgrades, an account that your department had 
long ignored in previous budget requests.
    We thank you for coming around to our consistent support 
for this vital safety and navigation aid, but as you know, we 
have now been in policy limbo on LORAN for over 6 years, and 
you have failed to deliver the promised announcement on LORAN's 
continuation.
    The Administration's handling of this issue has reached a 
point of embarrassment. Now that you have delivered the dollars 
to LORAN, you need to work much harder at delivering policy 
direction and leadership.

                         GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER

    On a separate subject, and on behalf of the Great Lakes, 
let me commend you for providing $110 million for the Mackinaw 
icebreaker replacement vessel. The productive life is nearing 
an end, so this funding is a major priority for the Midwestern 
region.
    We are also encouraged by your funding for three more Coast 
Guard buoy tenders for construction at Wisconsin's Marinette 
Marine.

                          AIRLINE COMPETITION

    Lastly, Mr. Slater, we continue to be concerned about the 
state of airline competition. Travelers in Wisconsin and many 
other smaller and medium-sized markets continue to have few 
alternatives to the large incumbent carriers on many routes. As 
a result, only some of the benefits promised during the airline 
deregulation have been realized. Fares continue to be high on 
many routes and choice of services limited.
    Moreover, startup carriers face serious obstacles in 
establishing competing service to the incumbent carriers. These 
include arguably predatory conduct by the incumbents, designed 
to drive their competitors out of the market. And for their 
part, the established large airlines seem to be content to 
divide the country into separate fiefdoms defended by fortress 
hubs, avoiding competing with each other, and thereby ensuring 
high fares and high profits.
    In my opinion, the large airlines' behavior may not, in 
many instances, be unlawful under the prevailing anti-trust 
laws; however, it is clear that abuses exist in the airline 
industry and that the competitive conditions are far, far from 
ideal.
    It is time, Mr. Secretary, for serious efforts at promoting 
airline competition and preventing the abuses which continue to 
occur.
    Again, I need to move on this morning, but thank you for 
coming before us, Mr. Secretary. And you can expect to continue 
our discussions and exchanges on these important issues.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT BENNETT

    Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Bennett. I am interested in your opening statement, 
that you quote my old boss, John Volpe, and remind me once 
again that I sat at that same table at Mr. Volpe's side before 
this subcommittee. I do not know whether Senator Byrd was on it 
at the time, but I rather suspect he probably was, back in 1969 
and 1970. The problems John Volpe addressed, to which you 
refer, are still with you, and they still will be.
    Being Secretary of Transportation is like being Sisyphus. 
You keep pushing that rock up the hill and it keeps rolling 
back down. So, I congratulate you on your determination to keep 
pushing it forward and deal with this. And I will not visit all 
of the other issues that my colleagues have visited, because I 
think you have gotten the message rather strongly from them. 
And I will not pile on.

                       I-15 DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT

    I do want to do some parochial things and extend my 
congratulations and gratitude to you and to the Department--
your predecessors at the Department--for the way you have 
worked with us in Utah on the I-15 Design-Build Project.
    If I might boast a little for my colleagues, this is a 
major redesign-rebuild of a critical highway section in the 
heart of the population core of the State of Utah, which, under 
normal circumstances, would take 9 years. It is being done in 
four-and-a-half, in a design-build project that is kind of a 
model project that the Department of Transportation is 
watching.
    And at the moment, it is ahead of schedule and under 
budget. It is the flexibility that the Secretary has shown, the 
application of discretionary funds, in a logical way that has 
made it possible. We are very grateful to you for your 
willingness to do that. We think we will become a model for 
other projects around the country that will show acceleration 
of time and an impact on the budget.
    I would be remiss if I did not recognize Jack Basso, who is 
here with you, Mr. Secretary, who has been extremely helpful in 
the pressure-cooker that we have of the Olympics. Nothing would 
be worse for us in Utah, or I think more embarrassing for 
Americans, to have the Olympics come to Utah and have the 
television cameras show nothing but orange cones and traffic 
jams getting to and from the Olympics.
    Mr. Basso, working with the Utah Transit Authority and the 
Salt Lake Olympic Committee, as well as the members of the 
Congress, both here and in the House, if I may--the members of 
the other body have been a little bit more difficult to deal 
with than Mr. Basso has, but I think it is a tribute to you, 
Mr. Secretary, that you are surrounded by people of quality, 
who have the attitude of ``Let's get it done,'' rather than the 
attitude of ``Gee. What are the previous regulations and here 
are the reasons why we can't get it done.''
    We, in Utah, are very grateful to this Secretary and to 
this Department for the work you have done.

                       UTAH VALLEY RADAR COVERAGE

    I still have an item that I would like to discuss with Jane 
Garvey. I understand she is not scheduled to appear before the 
subcommittee. She will not be surprised to hear me raise it 
once again--the need for additional radar coverage for the 
approach over Utah Valley for airliners coming into Salt Lake.
    The FAA now tells us they intend to place a temporary ASR-9 
or ASR-11 radar unit in that position for the period of the 
Olympic games. We continue to be perplexed why this 
installation is not permanent.
    As I say, Administrator Garvey will be not be surprised, 
because I have raised this with her before, but at least we now 
have the temporary placement of a radar coverage there. That, 
at least, is some kind of recognition of the fact that there is 
a problem. Anything that you might do to inquire into what 
would be necessary to make that permanent, would be much 
appreciated.
    Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Murray.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

    Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 
Secretary, for coming up to the Hill today to discuss your 
budget.
    On a personal note, I just want to express my appreciation 
to you and your staff for the tremendous amount of work they 
had done and help they have provided in Washington State. We 
have dealt with a lot of difficult issues out there, from 
rescue tugs to pipelines to freight mobility. Your staff has 
always been great to work with, and you have, as well. And I 
just want to express my appreciation.
    I have had a chance to look at your budget. I think it is 
one that the members of this committee can work with. I think 
you have done a good job. It moves us toward our common goals 
of improving safety and mobility, economic growth, and 
environmental protection. And I am especially pleased with your 
increased investments in FTA and RSPA. I really think you have 
done a good job with it.

                              PUGET SOUND

    I have a couple of things I want to mention, since I do not 
think we are going to get back around to questioning. I have 
some comments on your request for new start transit projects 
and full funding agreements. That is a very important issue to 
the Puget Sound area. We were ranked second worst traffic in 
the nation last year. It is not a title we are proud of. This 
is very important to our voters. It is strongly supported at 
home. Hopefully, we can get your commitment to work with us to 
get a full funding grant agreement this year, so we can move 
that project forward.

                         CORRIDORS AND BORDERS

    Second, I wanted to mention the Border and Trade Corridor 
Program. You are more than doubling the funds for that. This is 
an essential program. We have a lot of trade that goes back and 
forth between Canada and Washington. The State of Washington is 
the most trade-dependent State in the nation.
    With the recent incident of suspected terrorism at the 
border, there is a new energy to this, because we want to make 
sure that those who are not supposed to get across the border, 
do not. But we also have a lot of economic activity. One of our 
projects assists in these border activities.
    We also need to move containers quickly, efficiently, and 
safely with our Fast Corridor Project. So, that is extremely 
important to our State as well. Overall, we urge you to look at 
awarding projects to those who have the best policies and 
momentum in place, because that is very important to us.

                            PIPELINE SAFETY

    Finally, an issue you and I have talked a lot about since 
last June 10, is the issue of pipeline safety. A number of my 
colleagues that I have talked to have heard me talk about this 
issue. We had a pipeline accident in the State of Washington 
last June 10, where three young children were killed and 
270,000 gallons of gasoline were dumped into a creek bed that 
is now an environmental disaster.
    There have been more than 5,500 accidents since 1984. I 
have a bill on pipeline safety that I hope we can move through. 
I think your office is going to have one, as well. We hope that 
you get that over to Congress soon.
    I do appreciate your including a $10 million increase for 
the Office of Pipeline Safety, but I think we also have to 
raise the national standard, so that these pipes that were put 
in the ground 25 or 30 years ago are inspected more than just 
the first time they're laid.
    There was also an accident in Pennsylvania over the 
weekend. It's time to have good, strong national standards, so 
that the people who live on these pipelines, live next to them, 
have their schools next to them, their businesses next to them, 
are assured that, as a national goal, we are making sure that 
these pipelines are operated safely. That is an important issue 
to my State and many others, as well.
    We look forward to working with you to move your proposals 
through Congress this year and I hope we get the appropriations 
so the Office of Pipeline Safety has the personnel to inspect 
these pipes.
    Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Stevens.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

    Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, I was pleased to see you in 
Los Angeles. It meant a great deal to the survivors of the 
victims of Flight 261 that you were there and so many people 
were there to help them with their grief.

                          FAA PROFESSIONALISM

    While I was there, I met with the FAA. And I met with the 
NTSB, and the Coast Guard, and the Navy, and the FBI, and the 
whole group. But I was particularly impressed with the air 
controllers in Los Angeles. And if you have not had a chance to 
listen to that last recorded exchange between the air 
controllers and the pilots, I would recommend you do it, 
because I think it was an insight into the pilots and the 
controllers and the professionalism of those who operate our 
airline system. It certainly was enlightening to me.
    I have been a pilot for 60 years, you know, and I really 
think that I have never heard such professionalism. Most people 
do not know that that pilot had the authority to land in L.A., 
and he decided to go out over the Bay to make sure he had 
control before he approached that airport. That is something I 
think the public ought to know more about. That was a decision, 
I think, that probably saved a great many lives at L.A. 
Airport.
    But beyond that, I do thank you--I note, in your statement, 
you make a point about the role of the FAA and that tragic 
crash.

                           VOLCANO MONITORING

    I only have one comment to make about the budget. And I do 
not know whether I will get back later to talk about it, but 
once again, the budget does not contain the money for the 
volcano monitoring activity in Alaska. I think that is 
unfortunate. I really think, Mr. Chairman, the Administration 
sort of thinks that is an Alaskan item. And I have got to put 
it back in, if they take it out, which is probably true, but it 
really is not an Alaska item. That is for the international 
flights that fly over our State, that are affected by the 
plumes that come from the volcanoes along the Aleutian chain. 
And they are very dangerous.
    This observatory has the capability, now, to monitor those 
and to give warnings to the international flights, and tell 
them where to fly to avoid hitting the plume that comes out of 
the volcanoes. I do think it ought to be a total U.S. 
obligation to the flights that we invite from foreign countries 
to come into our airspace to give them warning of hazards 
within our airspace.
    But in any event, I would hope that funding, one of these 
days, will be generated from the President's budget and not be 
something that I have to ask the chairman to reinstate in this 
budget.
    But it is nice to see you, Mr. Secretary. And again, I 
commend you for the very, very calming words that you delivered 
to the families of the victims of Flight 261. I think it was a 
very significant thing for all of us. I had a great many 
friends on that flight. And it meant a great deal to all of us.
    Thank you very much.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Stevens, we will put that funding 
in the budget for you and for the American people and the other 
people who fly over Alaska. It would be easier, though.
    Senator Specter.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER

    Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Slater, we are going to be voting in a few 
minutes, as it has already been announced. And it will be 
difficult to come back, so I would like to raise a number of 
issues with you. And perhaps, you could supply us some 
responses for the record.
    Secretary Slater. Yes.

                             RADAR OUTAGES

    Senator Specter. We had some radar outages last May in 
Philadelphia. And I took a look at the radar system and the 
equipment which is being used there, and it is in urgent need 
of upgrading and correcting.
    It is amazing to me to go into the radar rooms and see what 
they are doing on monitoring the flights which come in. And it 
has made me apprehensive every time I have been in an airplane, 
since, coming into the Philadelphia Airport or other airports.
    There is hardly anything more important than being able to 
trace the airplanes, and to see how they work in those dark 
rooms, with so many dots on the screen containing hundreds of 
people, it is really a terrifying matter, which I think has to 
be addressed. If additional funding is necessary, I think you 
will find response by the Congress on a life and death matter 
like that.

                         PENNSYLVANIA PROJECTS

    A second matter that is of great priority in my State 
involves the light rail system, which is coming into the 
construction of two new stadiums in Pittsburgh; one for the 
Steelers and one for the Pirates. We are putting about $600 
million into those stadiums in a situation which raises a real 
question in my mind about the kind of extortion which is being 
practiced by major sporting teams, but that is being done.
    To make it work, we are going to have to have the Federal 
Government come in on the transportation system. We are going 
to be presenting to this committee and to the chairman, Senator 
Shelby, some large figures this year. But without 
transportation, these projects do not work, which are 
indispensable for the life of the community.
    I note that the Administration has provided only $25 
million for Maglev this year; a much lower figure than the $950 
million, total, which was authorized on TEA-21, and the $200 
million authorized for fiscal year 2001. Maglev has the 
potential for enormous advances in transportation.
    We could run a line from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh in 2 
hours and 7 minutes, with intermediate stops in Lancaster and 
Harrisburg and Altoona, Johnstown, and Greensburg, and have 
enormous benefits for the economy of the State. I was 
distressed to see, with the change of governments in Germany, 
that they are abandoning their Hamburg to Berlin line. But we 
have a great capitalistic system, here.
    We are now in the 21st century--Senator Byrd, I know, 
disagrees with that. We are now almost in the 21st century. We 
are pikers, compared to what they did in the 19th century, 
building railroads across America. We just have to provide that 
kind of capitalization.
    Two other matters, very briefly. I know you have been 
involved in the U.S. Airways Pittsburgh to London negotiations. 
We need to apply a little bit of pressure, because that area is 
being under served. And I am going to try to help you find 
money for the FAA Engineering Center, so we can bring that to 
Pittsburgh, as well.
    That is a very brief synopsis of a long laundry list, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Thank you.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Specter.
    There are no other opening statements. Your full statement 
will be made part of the record, Mr. Secretary.
    You may proceed, as you wish.

                     STATEMENT OF SECRETARY SLATER

    Secretary Slater. Okay. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, 
members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to, once again, 
come before you. And as you noted at the outset, Mr. Chairman, 
I have had the good fortune and pleasure of coming to this 
committee on a number of occasions.
    Senator Bennett made reference to Mr. Basso. Let me also 
mention Linda Darr and Beverly Pheto, who are here with Mr. 
Basso, who have done just a wonderful job working with our team 
on this budget.
    I would like to also mention Mike Frazier, who is our 
Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, who works very 
closely with all of you.
    Many of you have made reference to my team, and I am 
fortunate to have a group of visionary and vigilant DOT 
professionals, who enjoy, as do I, the opportunity to work with 
all of you.
    Let me also thank you for the opportunity to bring what we 
believe to be a very visionary and vigilant, and yes, creative 
budget, as relates to transportation, on behalf of President 
Clinton and Vice President Gore. It represents fiscal 
discipline and strategic investment.
    At this time, I would like to just make a few brief 
comments about it, and also submit my written statement for the 
record.
    I have often said, and I think all of you have heard me say 
this from time to time, that as I view it, transportation is 
about more than concrete, asphalt and steel. At its core, it is 
about people and it is about enabling them to lead safer and 
better and more fulfilling lives.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, when I look at 
transportation, I see opportunity, and I see freedom--what this 
country represents, at its core, as well. That is why I speak 
so passionately about the importance of transportation. I 
think, too, that is why we have had such a wonderful working 
relationship, because all of you view it in that light.
    So, again, we thank you for this wonderful experience that 
we are having, where our work is truly viewed as a joy and not 
a job.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET

    The record $54.9 billion budget that we have proposed for 
fiscal year 2001 does represent, as has been noted, a 9 percent 
increase over last year's budget, which was also a record. It 
will continue to help us advance safety, efficiency and improve 
the condition and performance of our transportation system. 
Working especially with this Congress and with our State and 
local partners and with the private sector, over the past 7 
years, we have made transportation safer and more efficient. We 
have also made our communities more livable. We appreciate that 
opportunity to work with you. And I repeat it, yet again.
    We gather today because we all understand that we must not 
rest, but build on the great work that we have already done, 
and develop and also inspire in developing, not only a quality 
transportation system for the 21st century, but also ensure the 
development of the visionary and vigilant workforce that will 
help us design and operate, maintain and manage that system.

               TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS OF THE 21ST CENTURY

    The transportation system of the new century and the 
millennium must be safe and sustainable, to be sure, but we 
would also ask that we have a discussion about the fact that 
we, too, believe that it has to be international in its reach 
and intermodal in its form, intelligent in its character, and 
inclusive in its service. Adequate resources and nurturing a 
climate of transportation innovation are essential to bringing 
that kind of system into being.
    Almost 3 years ago, on my first occasion to come before 
you, this distinguished subcommittee on transportation, I said 
that the Department of Transportation must set high goals, and 
that we must be architects of change if we are to build a new 
balanced relationship with the committee and with our partners 
at the State and local level.
    Well, we have tried to do just that. And here, briefly, I 
would like to just mention what we have done and also what we 
have yet to do.
    This is probably my last appearance before the committee. 
You have got a difficult schedule. And I want to, again, report 
to you, briefly, what we have done, what we have yet to do, and 
how this Administration's proposed budget and clearly what you 
will do with it, as we seek to have that record level number at 
the end of the day, how that will support our efforts.
    With the enactment of TEA-21, we have provided substantial, 
really record-level funding for many, many priorities; the 
Appalachian Development Highway System, Senator; also, 
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement; record-level 
investment for transit and highways. And we have been able to 
move forward in using those resources to make a difference--a 
difference in the long-term.
    We have also used a One DOT management strategy, where we 
have tried to work better as a Department as a whole. In some 
instances, we actually have our offices together across the 
country, to build and improve upon our relationships with you 
and with our local and State partners.
    Our best-in-government strategic and performance plans, I 
believe, have shown that we are an organization of vision and 
vigilance. And our budget reflects that.
    Again, $55 billion, a 9 percent increase over last year, to 
help us build the system of our dreams and support the kind of 
development we need for our workforce.
    Let me just mention, briefly, how we have record-level 
investment in the areas that matter; the areas that are 
identified in our strategic plan--safety, mobility, economic 
growth, environmental protection, and national security. All of 
you, in one form or another, have raised these issues during 
your comments.

                                 SAFETY

    We would improve safety with a record $4 billion, up 13 
percent from last year. This includes a 21 percent or more 
increase for highway safety strategies that work; getting 
dangerous truck drivers off the road, reducing drunk driving, 
and increasing the use of seatbelts and child safety seats.
    The budget also provides $1.1 billion for aviation safety. 
Senator Stevens noted that we were just in L.A. last week with 
the family members and with the friends of those who died in 
the tragedy--the tragic Alaska Airlines crash just a few weeks 
ago. Clearly, we wish, today, to express, yet again, our 
sympathy for the families and the friends, but we also wish to 
do our duty.
    And so, we are pleased that Boeing and also Alaska Airlines 
and many of the other airlines that use the MD-80s have 
followed our advice. We have developed this partnership, that 
they actually check all of those planes to ensure that they are 
operating safely. That is the least we can do. And it is very, 
very important that we do it.
    We will also continue to work with the industry to 
strengthen our commitment to safety. All of you know that we 
join the industry in setting as a goal an 80 percent reduction 
in U.S. commercial aviation crashes involving fatalities over a 
decade--by 2007. We have seen significant progress as we have 
worked in that regard, but we do have to deal with this issue 
involving Alaska Airlines and the crash and the MD-80s, and we 
are doing that.

                                MOBILITY

    We will also enhance mobility with a record $39 billion in 
infrastructure investment, 86 percent more than the previous 
Administration's 1990-1993 average. This includes $30 billion 
for highways and for intermodal connections, record transit 
funding, funding to improve airports, and continued support for 
Amtrak, helping them to become self-sufficient. It also 
includes a $468 million request for a new program to upgrade 
passenger rail service and to make improvements necessary to 
accommodate high-speed rail.
    I know that we have some disagreements about how we get 
this done. You have our proposal. I hope at the end of the day, 
we can provide these resources, figuring out a way to do it.
    Let me also say that to pass TEA-21 was a significant 
compromise. And all of you should know--and I do believe you 
know this--that the President was there every step of the way 
with you. At the end of the day, the President actually had to 
give up about $30 billion in offsets to make it all happen, as 
we wanted it all to happen.
    And so, when the President makes a proposal that seeks to 
deal with our assessment of the spirit of it in some unique 
way, know that we do it in the same spirit that we came forward 
with the additional resources to provide for record-level 
investment and the highest surface transportation bill to ever 
pass in the history of the country.
    I think it is worthy to note that we did this at a time 
when we were also trying to balance a budget and to deal with 
the economic and fiscal needs of our country.

                            ECONOMIC GROWTH

    We would also promote economic growth by answering the 
President's call for advanced transportation systems with a 
record $1.28 billion for innovation and technology, up 37 
percent from last year's level.
    Through our partners, we are facilitating a climate of 
innovation in areas such as telecommunications and nano-
technology. These areas hold enormous potential for 
transportation. And by the way, many of your institutions of 
higher education are working with us in partnership in these 
areas.
    We would also invest nearly $1 billion to support the 
President's New Markets Initiative, helping welfare recipients 
move from the dependence of welfare to the independence of 
work, and improving transportation in areas like the 
Mississippi Delta and also on Native American reservations.
    Senator Byrd, I can assure you that there is no intent in 
any way to minimize our commitment to Appalachia. If anything, 
we are trying to model these efforts after the success that we 
have enjoyed as it relates to Appalachia.

                              ENVIRONMENT

    Also, we would propose a record $3.8 billion to protect our 
environment. One of the most significant provisions, as it 
relates to TEA-21, is that not only could we declare it as a 
record-level transportation bill, but it was also the most 
significant environmental bill to pass during that session of 
the Congress, and one of the most significant to ever pass.
    And so, we are pleased to include significant funding for 
CMAQ and for what we call the Clinton-Gore Livable Communities 
Initiative.

                           NATIONAL SECURITY

    We, also, would safeguard travelers with $1.6 billion for 
national security, including drug interdiction and anti-
terrorism efforts. Many of you have commended the Coast Guard. 
Last year, the Coast Guard had a record drug interdiction 
effort, confiscating some 51 tons of cocaine. That effort 
continues and these resources will help them in that regard.
    I firmly believe that our goals as a free people, served by 
a strong economy, in a climate of peace, can only be achieved 
in this coming century of the global economy, by making sure 
that our transportation system remains safe and sustainable, 
and that it does take on these characteristics that I have 
mentioned, as relates to the system of the 21st century.
    We, at the Department of Transportation, believe that our 
budget will help us in that regard. The budget will improve 
transportation safety, maintain and expand the transportation 
infrastructure enterprise, reduce environmental degradation, 
and provide more opportunities for our citizens to pursue 
happiness.
    I, and the members of our DOT family, look forward to 
working with the committee and with the entire Congress to pass 
a budget; hopefully, this one. We know we can work together and 
get things done, with a good budget that will allow us to build 
the system of our dreams, and also continue to develop the kind 
of workforce that we will need to operate and manage and 
maintain that system.
    With that, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 
again, thank you for the opportunity to come before you. And I 
look forward to responding to specific questions that you may 
have.
    [Statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Rodney E. Slater

    Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. I thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today in support of President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore's fiscal year 2001 transportation budget.

                                OVERVIEW

    The record $54.9 billion budget we propose for fiscal year 2001, 
nine percent more than this year--also a record, will continue to 
advance the safety, efficiency and conditions and performance of our 
transportation system. Working especially with the Congress, our state 
and local partners and the private sector over the past seven years, we 
have made transportation safer and more efficient and our communities 
more livable. We must not rest on this success, but build upon it to 
create the transportation system of the 21st century and develop and 
inspire a visionary and vigilant workforce to design, operate, maintain 
and manage it. The transportation system of the new century and the new 
millennium must be safe and sustainable, to be sure, but also 
international in reach, intermodal in form, intelligent in character, 
and inclusive in service. Adequate resources and the nurturing of a 
climate of transportation innovation are essential to bringing this 
type of system into being.
    Over the last three years, we at the Department have worked 
diligently to become an ever visionary and vigilant organization that 
pursues excellence in its service to the American people and casts its 
sights far into the future.
    Almost three years ago at my first hearing before this 
distinguished Subcommittee as Secretary of Transportation, I said that 
the Department of Transportation must set high goals and be architects 
of change, that we must build a new balance in our relations with state 
and local governments, and that we must look for, not always the quick 
solutions, but the solutions that will make a difference in the long 
run. Now, in likely my last appearance before this Subcommittee, I 
would like to report briefly on how we have done, what we have yet to 
do, and how the Administration's budget will support our efforts. With 
enactment of TEA-21, and its substantial funding for priorities like 
the Appalachian Development Highway System, the Congestion Mitigation 
and Air Quality Improvement Program and transit, we were able to secure 
a solution that will make a difference in the long run. With our ONE 
DOT management strategy, where the modes work in coordination, and in 
some locations in the same offices, we are able to build new and 
improved relations with our state and local partners. And our best-in-
government strategic and performance plans show that through vision we 
are willing to set high goals and through vigilance we are willing to 
commit the resources and time to follow through on these plans.

 A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT MEETS THE CHALLENGES OF THE 21ST CENTURY

    The fiscal year 2001 budget continues our effort to set the course 
for transportation investment that will help achieve our hopes, dreams 
and needs for this new century. It is a budget not just about funding 
concrete, asphalt, and steel, but about people. We know that our 
mission must be to be good stewards of the transportation enterprise so 
as to help people live safer, better, more fulfilling lives. Here, 
again, the fundamental challenge is to envision and build the 
transportation system of the 21st century--and to develop and inspire 
an ever visionary and vigilant workforce to operate, maintain and 
manage it.
    The budget provides funding increases in the areas that matter 
most, those that reflect the goals in our best-in-government strategic 
plan--safety, mobility, economic growth, protection for the human and 
natural environment, and national security.
    As President Clinton said in his State of the Union address, 
``Never before have we had such a blessed opportunity . . . to build 
the more perfect union of our founders' dreams.''
    In the 20th century we saw the building of a transportation system 
that allowed unprecedented new opportunities to arise and our country 
to achieve unheard of levels of prosperity. Our transportation system, 
which has responded to consumer demands, now allows just-in-time 
delivery, overnight packages and e-commerce. These innovations changed 
the way people lived in the 20th century and will significantly impact 
the way people live in the 21st century.
    As our transportation system has grown and changed, so have the 
unintended consequences of that system, such as transportation-related 
fatalities and environmental impacts. The Federal Government must 
continue to show leadership in trying to alleviate these harmful 
unintended consequences and the fiscal year 2001 budget requests 
additional funding to expand this leadership role.

             BUILDING UPON OUR TRANSPORTATION SAFETY RECORD

    Safety is our top strategic goal, and President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore's top transportation priority. We at DOT have said that 
safety is our North Star by which we are guided and by which we are 
willing to be judged. Our transportation system's performance reflects 
the strength of this commitment. Today, 4,300 fewer people die on our 
roads than in 1993 and alcohol-related fatalities are at all time lows. 
However, over 41,000 lives are claimed on our highways every year and 
more Americans need to buckle-up, even though our seat belt use rate is 
at an all-time high. As motor carrier traffic has increased, fatalities 
related to motor carrier accidents have remained too high. These 
challenges must be successfully met and we are committed to leading the 
way in doing so.
    The President wants to build on the safety progress we have made 
even as our economy expands and travel grows. We propose a 13 percent 
increase in transportation safety funding, to $4 billion in fiscal year 
2001. This will allow us to improve highway, aviation, rail and 
pipeline safety.
    Since transportation deaths occur mostly on our roads, we must 
continue making our roads safer. That is why we want to increase safety 
funding for the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, NHTSA, 
and FHWA. We are extremely troubled by the fact that 63 percent of the 
motor vehicle occupants who died in traffic crashes last year were not 
wearing seat belts and almost 60 percent of the small children who died 
in traffic crashes in 1997 were not in safety seats. Unquestionably, 
the best way to save lives and prevent injuries on the road is for each 
and every one of us to use a seat belt and to protect our children by 
properly securing them in safety seats and keeping them in the 
backseats. To do this, we must constantly repeat the two words ``buckle 
up.'' Changing human behavior is our most difficult challenge. That is 
why we propose to increase NHTSA operations and research spending by 79 
percent to $286 million in fiscal year 2001.
    Ensuring safe motor carrier transportation is a critical part of 
our overall efforts to improve highway safety. Healthy economic growth 
and logistical innovations like ``just in time'' delivery have spurred 
significant increases in truck travel and have been a boom for the 
trucking industry. But while the motor carrier fatality rate has 
decreased significantly, from 3.0 per 100 million vehicle miles 
traveled in 1993 to 2.7 in 1998, the actual number of large truck crash 
fatalities has increased from 4,849 in 1993 to 5,374 in 1998. This is 
unacceptable and we are making the changes necessary to reduce these 
deaths. Federal motor carrier safety programs must channel resources to 
strategies that give us the highest payoff in reducing crashes, 
injuries and fatalities. We must have better focus on high-risk 
behavior, increase our enforcement efforts, put more investigators in 
the field and at our borders to enforce truck safety laws, and promote 
enhanced education and training programs. And that is what we propose 
to do more of in the fiscal year 2001 budget by increasing funding for 
the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration by 54 percent to 
$279 million.
    In order to increase state enforcement efforts and improve the 
commercial drivers licensing information, we propose to raise motor 
carrier safety grant funding by 78 percent to $187 million. To increase 
Federal border inspection efforts, increase the number of inspectors, 
and improve data and data analysis, we propose to increase the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration's operating and research funds by 
21 percent to $92 million. These substantial funding increases should 
allow us to aggressively reduce motor carrier fatalities and accidents 
and achieve our ``stretch goal'' of a 50 percent reduction in motor-
carrier related fatalities by 2009.
    Equally important is the $1.1 billion we request for our aviation 
safety programs, six percent above this year's level. This will help us 
move towards our ``stretch goal'' of an 80 percent reduction in the 
rate of fatal aviation crashes by 2007. Under this initiative, special 
teams of technical experts will zero in on the leading causes of 
crashes, fatalities and injuries so we can prevent them before they 
happen. The tragic Alaska Airlines Flight 261 crash reminds us of the 
importance of our commitment to making our skies--the safest in the 
world--ever safer.
    Finally, let me add that as Congress acts on this budget, I hope it 
also acts expeditiously to pass legislation to reauthorize the FAA's 
programs. This is our number one legislative priority as this is the 
third year that we have not had a reauthorized aviation program. We 
need to give the FAA the management tools and the financial structure 
it needs to do its job.
    Our railroad safety vigilance and our cooperative relationship with 
the railroad industry in identifying and ameliorating the root causes 
of rail safety challenges have paid substantial dividends over the past 
few years. Railroad accidents and fatalities are down eleven and 
twenty-nine percent, respectively, since 1993. A total $117 million, 
six percent above this year, is proposed to continue and expand upon 
our rail safety research and programmatic efforts, bringing together 
rail labor, management and DOT. In addition, we request $18.7 million 
for the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System, within the 
surface transportation budget. Together with $10 million for train 
control projects, this gives us the foundation for safety assurance in 
our rail system.
    Safety on our seas is also a critical component of overall 
transportation safety, as the Coast Guard saves one life every two 
hours. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes close to $1 billion, six 
percent above this year, for the Coast Guard to continue and expand its 
search and rescue capability by being better able to detect, locate and 
assist those in distress. As part of this effort, the Coast Guard is 
seeking to increase safety among the nation's commercial fishing fleet, 
traditionally among the most hazardous occupations in the United 
States. Modernization of the national distress and response system will 
contribute to the safety of professional mariners and recreational 
boaters alike on America's waters.

                 BUILDING INNOVATIVE MOBILITY SOLUTIONS

    Mobility is about helping people get to where they want to go. It 
is about strengthening families, linking communities and supporting 
businesses. Today, roads and bridges are in better condition, Amtrak 
ridership is increasing, and transit ridership has seen double-digit 
growth since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office--
thanks to smart investment in our nation's transit systems. The number 
of airline passengers has grown 36 percent in seven years. We have made 
a great deal of progress during the past seven years and we must build 
on this progress and continue to advance innovative, intelligent 
solutions to the mobility challenges that we face.
    John Volpe, our second Secretary of Transportation, anticipated our 
current interest in intermodalism 30 years ago, when he said that ``No 
one mode of transportation will ever solve all of our transportation 
problems.'' Recently, the Journal of Commerce said that the United 
States ``has by far the best intermodal transportation network in the 
world.'' But we must build from strength to strength so as to ensure 
that our transportation system can continue to meet the ever-increasing 
demands and remain the best in the world.
    That is why we are engaged with our partners in a 2025 visioning 
process that will help us complete the task of crafting a new 
transportation policy architecture for a new century and a new 
millennium. That is also why we will be hosting an international 
transportation symposium to share our best practices and listen to and 
learn from our international partners about how can work better 
together to build the transportation system of our dreams.
    The first crucial piece in keeping our transportation network in 
good shape is good sound strategic investment. Investment in 
transportation infrastructure proposed in 2001 exceeds the average 
annual investment in 1990-93 by 86 percent. The fiscal year 2001 budget 
includes a record $30 billion for Federal-aid Highways, a record $6.3 
billion for transit, $521 million to continue Amtrak's rebuilding, $468 
million to expand capital investment in intercity passenger rail 
service and $1.9 billion for airports.
    Transit investment has become an increasingly important part of the 
mobility mix. The $6.3 billion requested for transit programs in fiscal 
year 2001 reflects our commitment to transit programs across the 
nation, while maintaining a balance of funding between highways and 
transit. We have requested funding for 12 new full funding grant 
agreements.
    The $1.9 billion requested for airport grants, when coupled with 
our proposal to permit airports to raise additional funding through 
airport passenger facility charges and combined with other sources 
available to airports, provides record level funding to meet airport 
infrastructure investment needs. To continue the modernization of our 
air traffic control system, $2.5 billion is proposed, 22 percent more 
than current levels. This funding will be used to further reduce the 
number of outages and delays and to maximize the use of our airspace.
    In order to continue its capital modernization efforts, we request 
$520 million, 34 percent above this year, for Coast Guard assets. This 
includes $42 million to continue the deepwater recapitalization 
analysis begun last year, so that Coast Guard can modernize its aging 
deepwater assets in the most efficient and least costly manner.
    The marine transportation system is a key element of the national 
transportation system, serving as a primary link between all modes of 
surface transportation and facilitating global commerce. It contributes 
more than $720 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product and creates 
employment for more than 13 million Americans. The maritime 
transportation system will realize increased mobility through this 
budget with the acquisition of the Great Lakes icebreaker replacement, 
three new seagoing buoy tenders, and ongoing ports and waterways system 
analyses.
    In addition, the budget includes a total of $47 million, $27 
million in the Coast Guard and $20 million in the FAA, to operate and 
maintain the Loran-C navigation system. This request is 28 percent more 
than this year's funding level. After careful consideration, the 
Administration has decided to operate and maintain Loran-C in the 
short-term while continuing to evaluate the long-term need for the 
system.
    A second critical ingredient for keeping our transportation network 
working effectively is smart investment. We must build upon the 
solutions that have served us well in the past, in a manner that is 
less damaging to our communities and our environment. Our 
transportation system should be managed better, so that we can make 
more efficient use of our existing system. The budget includes $338 
million for Intelligent Transportation Systems, to improve--among other 
things--traffic signal control, freeway and transit management and 
regional multi-modal traveler information.
    Smart investment includes investment in transportation solutions 
for the future. Last year Amtrak ridership increased substantially. 
This shows that many Americans continue to want intercity passenger 
rail transportation. The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes a substantial 
investment in passenger rail service, building on the growth in 
ridership and ability to cover operating costs that our Northeast 
Corridor investment has supported. Many state governments have invested 
in passenger rail service, including high speed rail, and Federal 
funding will provide the foundation for it to be a significant 
transportation solution for the future. We propose $468 million for 
this new program, in addition to continued Amtrak capital funding.
    All of our goals, including our mobility goal, will be further 
enhanced by our budget proposal to increase technology and innovation 
by 37 percent to $1.28 billion. The Administration is committed to 
innovation for good reason: innovation has proven to be an 
indispensable ingredient in the longest economic expansion in American 
history. This budget moves our commitment to innovation to higher 
heights than ever before. The budget includes a nearly 80 percent 
increase for NHTSA--administered safety programs--a more than 80 
percent increase for Intelligent Transportation Systems--and a greater 
than 50 percent increase for surface transportation research. Our ITS 
programs are demonstrating real world effects. For example, a joint 
General Motors-DOT partnership is demonstrating state-of-the-art rear 
end collision warning systems. Additionally, it measures performance 
and effectiveness with real drivers on public roads, not in an 
artificial test situation.
    The funding will be utilized according to our four innovation 
strategies--to build partnerships, increase investment in innovation, 
reduce barriers and provide incentives to innovation, and support of 
education and training to develop the next generation of inventors.
    Support for training also extends to the DOT workforce because we 
must invest in our own workforce to achieve the best performance. That 
is why the budget includes training funds across-the-board in DOT equal 
to at least two percent of payroll. FAA and Coast Guard will exceed 
this standard, as they have more unique training needs.

              BUILDING THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH

    Our great economy provides better jobs and a higher standard of 
living for all Americans. An economy that works for all Americans 
depends on a transportation system that is safe and that serves all 
Americans. If transportation connections are not available, or not 
offered at a time when we need them, our work, education and overall 
``pursuit of happiness'' are limited and sometimes impossible. 
Transportation accessibility has grown considerably in the past seven 
years, but there are still areas of this country, such as the Delta 
region, Native American lands, Appalachia, and some inner cities and 
isolated rural areas where accessibility is limited or non-existent.
    The fiscal year 2001 budget includes more than $1.2 billion, 44 
percent over 2000, for programs that contribute to the nation's 
economic growth and increase transportation accessibility. The funding 
proposed to support these efforts will provide all Americans with 
better access to work, educational opportunities, and commercial 
markets. The resulting enhanced economic and community development will 
improve the quality of life for our nation's citizens.
    The budget includes strategic investments in critical 
transportation links that will provide greater economic opportunities 
for Native Americans, the Mississippi Delta region, isolated urban and 
rural residents, and former welfare recipients. We propose to double 
the 2000 level for the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, to $150 
million, to provide essential support for the Administration's welfare-
to-work goals and economic growth in our low-income workforce.
    The vast rural areas and small towns of the Mississippi Delta 
region suffer from disproportionate isolation and diminished 
opportunities for access to the daily activities of life. Many Delta 
residents have substantial difficulties in accessing employment 
opportunities and related activities such as training, education, and 
childcare. We propose a new $69 million initiative to expand the access 
to opportunity to those who call the region home.
    Transportation services available to Native Americans also fall 
below those for the rest of the nation. A total of $358 million, 50 
percent above 2000, is proposed to begin to correct this imbalance. 
Most of this funding will be used to help meet the more than $4 billion 
needed to improve the condition and performance of Indian Reservation 
roads.
    We also propose to double funding, to $280 million, for the 
Corridors and Borders Program. This will improve the movement of 
freight that is so crucial to our global economic competitiveness. 
Demand for this program is substantial. In fact, this year we have 150 
requests totaling close to $2.2 billion for the limited funding that we 
can award at our discretion.
    And here in the Washington metropolitan area, the President 
committed $25 million towards a new Metro station to promote economic 
development along New York Avenue. We also are providing a Full Funding 
Grant Agreement for the Largo extension and propose $600 million to 
complete the federal investment in the replacement of the Woodrow 
Wilson Bridge.

                BUILDING AN ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR CHILDREN

    In his State of the Union address, President Clinton reminded us 
that we have ``put to rest the bogus idea that you cannot grow the 
economy and protect and enhance the environment at the same time.'' 
This Administration has committed itself to protecting our environment. 
Our air is cleaner and our water is purer today than seven years ago, 
even as we enjoy the longest economic expansion in our nation's 
history. Our commitment to protecting our nation's environment 
continues in this budget, with a total of $3.8 billion, almost five 
percent above this year for DOT's environmental programs.
    To aggressively implement the Administration's livability and 
environmental agenda, a record $6.3 billion, as already mentioned, is 
proposed for transit programs and a record $1.6 billion is proposed for 
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program. 
Support needs to be continued and replicated across the country for 
increased use of alternative transportation systems providing access to 
and within national parks and other public lands, such as the new 
propane fuel bus system inaugurated last summer to serve Arcadia 
National Park and surrounding communities in Maine.
    Our budget increases by almost fifty percent the funding provided 
to the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot 
Program. This will aid communities in developing smart-growth plans to 
combat congestion and sprawl, and ensure in the words of Vice President 
Gore, ``that communities are not only better off, but better.'' There 
is tremendous demand for these programs, as communities desperately 
want to tackle livability issues.
    Additional funding is also requested for the Advanced Vehicle 
Program, DOT's contribution to the effort to develop clean, fuel-
efficient vehicles for the new century. Programs like these are crucial 
to building a transportation system that meets the needs of future 
generations. The Detroit International Auto Show recently spotlighted 
the clean car developed through the Partnership for a New Generation of 
Vehicles. Our Advanced Vehicle Program, with $20 million in new 
funding, will apply similar technologies to produce clean trucks and 
buses.

                       KEEPING OUR NATION SECURE

    DOT plays a critical role in ensuring that the transportation 
system is secure, that U.S. borders are safe from illegal intrusion, 
and that the transportation system can meet national defense needs in 
times of emergency. In addition, the Coast Guard and the Maritime 
Administration continue to perform several specific national security 
functions in support of the Department of Defense. A total of $1.6 
billion, eight percent above this year, is proposed for DOT national 
security programs.
    This includes $617 million, eight percent above this year, to 
fulfill the Department's commitment to conduct drug law enforcement 
operations. This funding will enable the Coast Guard to maintain an 
effective presence in the transit and arrival zones by mounting strong 
and agile interdiction operations. And it will build on the record 
interdiction effort of last year, with 70 tons of drugs confiscated.
    It also includes $99 million for the Maritime Security Program, so 
that we can ensure that vessels will be available to carry military 
cargo during war or national emergencies.

                               CONCLUSION

    I firmly believe that our goals as a free people, served by a 
strong economy and a climate of peace, can only be achieved in this 
century of the global economy by making sure our transportation system 
remains safe and sustainable, and becomes over time international in 
reach, intermodal in form, intelligent in character and inclusive in 
service. We at DOT, ever visionary and vigilant, are committed to 
building this type of system. The fiscal year 2001 budget reflects the 
Clinton-Gore Administration's commitment to the future of this country 
and the recognition of the importance of transportation to enjoying 
sustained growth and an improved quality of life.
    Our proposed budget helps to ensure that transportation remains the 
tie that binds us together as a people--and the foundation of our 
prosperity as a nation. The budget will improve transportation safety, 
maintain and expand the transportation infrastructure, reduce 
environmental degradation, and provide more opportunities for our 
citizens in their ``pursuit of happiness.''
    I, and the members of the DOT family, look forward to working with 
this Subcommittee, and the entire Senate and House, to pass a budget 
that will aid us in building the transportation system of our dreams 
and the ever visionary and vigilant workforce we need to meet the 
challenges and embrace the limitless opportunities of the 21st century 
and the new millennium.

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, we have 3 or 4 minutes to 
get to our vote. So we will recess, and we will come back.
    Secretary Slater. Okay.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for your indulgence.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. You are always a gentleman.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you.

                         DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, in the transportation 
appropriations bill and the accompanying conference report, a 
number of discretionary projects are identified that are 
important to members of Congress. As the various agencies of 
your department administer the programs under which these 
projects are funded, I think it is important that the lines of 
communication between your office and the appropriations 
committee be open. They have been----
    Secretary Slater. Yes.
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. In the past. And that we be 
kept informed of any problems that you would encounter as you 
administer those projects.
    Having said that, can I have your assurance, on behalf of 
the committee, here, that your office will fully brief the 
subcommittee staff, both majority and minority, before you sign 
off on any final disposition of any discretionary grant 
programs that Congress provided direction on in the conference 
report this past fall? Is that possible?
    Secretary Slater. It is possible, sir. You have our 
commitment.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, there are several programs 
under which the year 2000 transportation appropriations bills 
identified specific projects. And some of these programs have 
not yet made grant release announcements.
    Secretary Slater. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. Can you tell us when to expect grant 
announcements for the Transportation and Community System 
Preservation Program, the Job Access and Reverse Commute Grant 
Program, the National Corridor Planning and Development 
Program, the Intelligence Transportation Systems Program, and 
for the remainder of the grants under the Federal Lands Program 
and the Ferry Boats and Facilities Program? Can you get with me 
on this, or do you want----
    Secretary Slater. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. Yes. I am on it, now.
    Secretary Slater. What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is 
to follow-up with more specific dates. We are working on all of 
these discretionary grant programs. And we are hopeful that we 
will be able to move on most of them during the spring.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Secretary Slater. But you may have some that will come a 
little later in the year. Our objective is to move on this as 
quickly as possible.

                               USER FEES

    Senator Shelby. A total of $1.3 billion in new user fees is 
included in this budget, as we talked about.
    Secretary Slater. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, is there any reason for the 
second kick of a mule? I think that this is actually the third 
or fourth kick on these user fee taxes. Do you think it would 
drive home the lesson more effectively if we reduce the 
appropriations for the Office of the Secretary by the same 
percentage of proposed user fees that get authorized and 
enacted each year?
    Secretary Slater. Well----
    Senator Shelby. That is probably not a fair question.
    Secretary Slater. Well, I have some people back here who 
definitely want to know what my answer is. But I would say, Mr. 
Chairman----
    Senator Shelby. Do you want to furnish the answer for the 
record, later?
    Secretary Slater. I can furnish an answer for the record, 
in more detail.
    [The information follows:]

    The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes $1.3 billion in new user fees 
for aviation, rail safety, marine safety, hazardous materials safety, 
and the economic regulation of surface transportation. The 
Administration policy is to introduce user fee funding where 
appropriate. Users generally are more willing to pay fees when such 
fees are dedicated to improving the quality of the programs that affect 
them directly.
    Within the FAA, $965 million is included to establish cost-based 
user fees for air traffic services. Under this proposal, the 
collections each year from the new cost-based user fees and existing 
excise taxes combined would be equal to the total budget resources 
requested for FAA in each succeeding year. For FRA $103 million will be 
collected from railroad carriers to offset the costs of the rail safety 
program--including safety and operations, and safety-related research. 
Within the Coast Guard $212 million will be collected to recover a 
portion of the Coast Guard costs for navigation services, to be paid by 
U.S. and foreign commercial cargo carriers. Fishing and recreational 
vessels would be exempt. New RSPA user fees total $5 million for 
increased hazardous materials registration fees, to be paid by shippers 
and carriers of hazardous materials. User fees totaling $17 million 
will be used to completely offset the expenses of the Surface 
Transportation Board. The fees would be collected from those who 
benefit from the continuation of STB functions, i.e., railroads and 
shippers.

    Senator Shelby. Or on a telephone call.
    Secretary Slater. I can, but let me just say for the record 
and the public debate of it all, that it is the policy belief 
of this Administration that there are certain benefits that a 
defined group of either businesses or individuals enjoy, and 
that those activities would be appropriate for user fee 
consideration. That is why we continue to come back. We do have 
some programs that actually rely, to some extent, on user fees. 
So, it is not----
    Senator Shelby. But you do have to consider the political 
climate in anything.
    Secretary Slater. Definitely.
    Senator Shelby. You understand it better than I do.
    Secretary Slater. We understand that, but in an effort not 
to second-guess the Congress, we just want to keep it before 
you and would hope that at some point, you would find it 
acceptable.

                           FUNDING FIREWALLS

    Senator Shelby. Can we talk about firewalls for just a 
minute?
    Secretary Slater. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. In conversations with me and also Chairman 
Stevens, you have made clear that you oppose the creation of a 
firewall for the aviation account, and would recommend a veto 
of a bill that created a firewall or other special budgetary 
treatment----
    Secretary Slater. Right.
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. That was not offset or paid 
for by other spending cuts. I assume that must be, in part, 
because of the difficulty you are experiencing managing all--
and I mean all the transportation programs in the context of 
the highway firewall.
    Secretary Slater. That is right.
    Senator Shelby. Would you affirm your opposition to special 
budgetary treatment today, or would you explain the absolute 
inconsistency of proposing changes to the highway budget 
firewall, while not opposing the creation of another firewall 
that would only create increased pressure on the accounts that 
your budget, Mr. Secretary proposes to increase by abrogating 
the highway firewall?
    Secretary Slater. Sure.
    Senator Shelby. It seems like a little paradox, here.
    Secretary Slater. It is difficult. I thought, when the 
question was asked or you alluded to it during your comments, 
that it was a good question, and I hoped that I would have the 
opportunity to respond to it.
    Clearly, in TEA-21, at the end of the day, a number of 
compromises were made in order to bring trust back into the 
effort, to spend growing balances in the trust fund, but to do 
it in a way that was fiscally responsible. As I noted earlier, 
at the end of the day, because of the quality of the bill and 
the desired financial commitment, the President actually had to 
give up about $30 billion in offsets that he had suggested for 
other purposes. So, there was, definitely, the compromise.
    Senator Shelby. But there always is, is there not?
    Secretary Slater. There always is. As it relates to FAA, we 
have been clear in saying--as we said as relates to surface 
transportation, ``no off-budget.'' We have been very clear in 
that regard.
    We have also expressed our non-support for firewalls for 
the very reasons that you have noted. They present very 
difficult situations for----
    Senator Shelby. They cause you trouble in your Department.
    Secretary Slater. It does, anytime you are trying to 
balance. And in that sense, I find myself in the same position 
that the committee finds itself in, when you have to make 
choices.
    We have used the word ``balance'' a couple of times over 
the course of the hearing. I think that in TEA-21 we were able 
to capture a pretty good balance in the way we gave emphasis to 
certain programs; highways; transit; a focus on safety; a focus 
on the environment; those kinds of things. I think if we can do 
the same thing as relates to the FAA, and figure out how you 
might unlock the trust fund, dealing with receipts and 
interest, then I think that at the end of the day that might 
carry the day.
    Now, we still have some delta, even if you are able to get 
a commitment among the parties to go with receipts and 
interest. You still have about a $1 billion annual deficit, and 
we have to figure out how you come up with that amount, as 
well.
    Our proposal is to do it through user fees, but there are 
some other options on the table. Again, at the end of the day, 
we will be against taking the trust funds off-budget. We will 
be against providing any kind of guarantee as relates to the 
general fund, but it would not necessarily be against unlocking 
the trust fund and providing for receipts and interest from the 
Aviation Trust Fund.

                 TRANSIT FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENTS

    Senator Shelby. On Transit New Starts, Mr. Secretary, it is 
my understanding that TEA-21 authorized a total of $8.4 billion 
commitment authority in guaranteed funds for new starts.
    Secretary Slater. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. Our staffs have informed me that after the 
enactment of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, $2.8 
billion was left uncommitted for the rest of the authorization 
cycle; that is, through fiscal year 2003.
    And finally, if all the transit projects that are included 
in the Administration's request do sign full funding grant 
agreements with the Federal Transit Administration during the 
fiscal year 2001, all the commitment authority that was 
authorized in TEA-21, will be committed, leaving no uncommitted 
funds available for new funding grant agreements before 2003.
    Is that an accurate description of the current status of 
the new starts pipeline? And what would happen under the 
proposed budget request?
    Secretary Slater. I believe it actually is. We have a 
number of full funding grant agreements that we are already 
providing support for. I think that number is 14. We have about 
three that are pending, and we have this new round of 12 new 
full funding grant agreements.
    And you are correct. After all of those run their cycle, we 
will have used up the amount authorized for this purpose in 
TEA-21.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, it is also our understanding 
that some, if not most, of the projects proposed for new full 
funding grant agreements in the budget have not yet completed 
the NEPA process or have records of decisions filed, which 
means that they are not yet ready to move from the preliminary 
engineering to the final design stage of the project. Is that 
right?
    Secretary Slater. Well, I would have to look at the 
individual projects.
    Senator Shelby Do you want to get back to us on that?
    Secretary Slater. That is correct. I will get back with 
you.
    [The information follows:]

    The requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA) are met when a Record of Decision (ROD) or a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) is issued. Six of the twelve proposed FFGAs 
have RODs: Hudson-Bergen MOS-2; Portland-Interstate MAX LRT; Seattle-
Central Link LRT; Pittsburgh-Stage II LRT; Salt Lake City-CBD to 
University LRT; and Washington DC/MD-Largo Extension. The remaining six 
projects are on track and will be issued a ROD or FONSI by June 30, 
2000.

    Secretary Slater. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that we do 
have a criteria for making these kinds of judgments. The 
projects that meet that criteria, are in the development stage, 
but they are far enough along for us to make a judgment about 
local commitment. We have a general sense about the scope of 
the project. These are the kinds of things that we take into 
account before entering into full funding grant negotiations.
    You are correct in noting that at the end of the day, we 
may or may not have all of these projects meet all of the 
requirements and move forward.
    Now, Senator Lautenberg mentioned the Hudson-Bergen project 
earlier. And by the way, Mr. Lautenberg--Senator, thank you for 
your leadership on that project and promoting it. This is 
actually a project that is rather unique in that the request 
has been to provide the full funding grant agreement, but there 
is no request for money right now. They are requesting money a 
little later on.
    So, there is a difference in the stage of development of 
all of the projects, but all of them have met our criteria for 
full funding grant agreement negotiations.

             FISCAL YEAR 2000 FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENTS

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, I believe last year's budget 
request included seven proposed full funding grant agreement 
projects, which you expected to approve before the end of the 
fiscal year 2000. We are halfway through that 2000 year. How 
many of those projects have actually received an FFGA? It is my 
understanding it is only one; the Dallas-North Central LRT.
    Secretary Slater. Let me check that, Mr. Chairman. I do not 
have the information at my fingertips. But I will say this, 
that if they do not meet their commitment to have their work 
done within the prescribed period of time, then we will deal 
with that situation.
    So, if we have time within the cycle, then they still have 
time to get their work done. But without knowing where we are, 
exactly, with each project, I would like to get back to you 
with specifics on that.
    [The information follows:]

    FTA entered into a FFGA with Dallas on the construction of the 
North Corridor LRT project on October 6, 1999. The proposed FFGA's for 
San Diego/Mission Valley East and Fort Lauderdale/Tri-Rail Commuter 
Rail have been forwarded to Congress for approval; and the Newark/
Newark Rail Link (MOS-1) project is under development within the 
Department. The Memphis Medical Center extension underwent significant 
scope changes and funding increases; thus was rerated and is now 
proposed for FFGA in fiscal year 2001. The Salt Lake City Downtown 
segment has been withdrawn and an extension of the North South LRT to 
the University is proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget. The Orlando 
I-4 Central Florida LRT project was also withdrawn from consideration 
because of loss of local financial support.

    Senator Shelby. Okay. How do you think that the other 70 or 
so authorized new start projects that are currently in 
alternative analysis or preliminary engineering are going to 
react to a budget proposal that completely cuts them out of the 
running for full funding grant agreements before the year 2004?
    Secretary Slater. I think that they would want to know that 
we are already beginning the process of preparing for the next 
re-authorization cycle of what would be TEA-21+. And many of 
these projects really take time for development. I still think 
that there will be opportunity to be responsive to those 
projects, over time.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Secretary Slater. I think that there may be things that we 
can do in the interim that really keep that process going. We 
would look forward to working with those individual States and 
locales.
    Senator Shelby. We hear from everybody up here, as you 
know.
    Secretary Slater. Oh. We do, too.
    Senator Shelby. I know.
    Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
    Senator Shelby. Both of us. Same day, probably.
    Secretary Slater. Right.

                            LOS ANGELES MTA

    Senator Shelby. The budget includes a request for $50 
million for the L.A. MTA to buy new buses in order to implement 
the bus consent decree ordered by the Special Master.
    Secretary Slater. Right.
    Senator Shelby. The judicial process associated with the 
consent decree litigation is ongoing and it is very complex.
    Secretary Slater. That is right.
    Senator Shelby. It is my understanding that a stay has been 
granted by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, while an MTA 
appeal of the decree is pending. Does not a Federal budget 
request for funding to implement the bus consent decree 
prejudge the results of this ongoing judicial process? In other 
words, that is not finished, yet. Or are we getting a little 
ahead of ourselves?
    Secretary Slater. We may be, but it has always been our 
hope that the parties would figure out a way to resolve this 
matter without taking it to the term of a court decision. And 
if that, in fact, occurs, we would need to be in a position to 
respond positively to that kind of potentiality.
    But you are right in noting that we are making the funds 
available, while you actually have a matter before the courts. 
But we also have an opinion that we have expressed in this 
matter, as well.
    To provide this money at this time is consistent with how 
we have viewed the facts of the situation. But again, we are 
not moving forward until there is a court decision or until the 
matter is resolved in some way short of a court decision.

                   COAST GUARD OPERATIONAL READINESS

    Senator Shelby. The Coast Guard has expressed concern that 
operational readiness is eroding. In fact, in a recent speech 
at the Center for Naval Analysis, the Commandant focused on the 
reduced availability of C-130s and the lack of spare parts 
needed to keep them flying to illustrate the readiness 
challenges the Coast Guard is facing.
    Secretary Slater. Right.
    Senator Shelby. I have asked the committee staff to look 
into it and have been informed that even though Congress fully 
funded the aircraft maintenance line into the 2000 
appropriations bill, the Coast Guard reprogrammed funds below 
the notification threshold from the Aircraft Maintenance 
Account to pay for recruitment activities.
    Will you look into this and provide a response for the 
record, why the Coast Guard is citing the lack of readiness in 
an account that they dun for another activity?
    Secretary Slater. Okay. I will look into it, but if I may, 
Mr. Chairman, I would like to note, as relates to the 
reprogramming, it is an amount that is below what would be the 
general threshold of concern over which we would never go 
beyond.
    And so, while we definitely would want to talk this 
through, we did make a reasonable judgment that we were acting 
within the parameters of our ongoing agreements and 
relationships.
    The other point I would like to make is that I think 
Admiral Loy and our Coast Guard have really faced quite a 
difficult challenge. As you know, they are having to take on 
additional responsibilities in the drug interdiction effort and 
migrant interdiction effort. We really have had considerable 
difficulties in our recruitment efforts, much like the Armed 
Services, as a whole.
    We are now working with Secretary Cohen and the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council with Sandy 
Berger and the President to figure out how we address this. But 
in the short term, we did need to have some reprogramming to 
beef up our efforts in this area. I am pleased to report that 
we are actually on track to do better this year, as relates to 
recruitment.
    Also, the place where we have been hurt has been having the 
kinds of people that really have the skills, frankly, to do a 
lot of the maintenance work that you have raised. Also, the 
Department of Defense, because of a contracting relationship 
change that they have undertaken, now actually contracts out 
much of their work as relates to this question.
    We, then, do not have the benefit of being able to look to 
the pool when it comes to getting some of the spare parts that 
we need for this purpose. It is a difficult situation. It is a 
challenging situation. What we were trying to do here was to do 
something in the short-term that would help us bide our time 
until we could work with the committee, with the Congress, and 
with the Administration, to deal with this over the long-term.

                             PASSENGER RAIL

    Senator Shelby. Okay. Expanded inner city rail capital. I 
will try to be brief.
    Secretary Slater. Okay.
    Senator Shelby. The budget proposes to transfer $468 
million from the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority for the 
purposes of making grants to Amtrak or to a single State or 
consortium of states to improve passenger rail service. These 
funds are in addition to the $521 million for Amtrak capital 
grants consistent with the glide path to operational self-
sufficiency by 2003----
    Secretary Slater. Right.
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. Which both Amtrak and the 
Administration have committed to. One of the things that 
strikes me as a little odd, Mr. Secretary, about this new 
program, in addition to being funded out of the highway gas tax 
receipts, is that a 50 percent match is required if the grant 
is made to a State or consortium of States, but no match is 
required if the grant is made directly to Amtrak. Is that 
understanding not correct?
    Secretary Slater. Your point is well taken. Amtrak, 
frankly, because of its limited and tight budgetary 
environment, is not required to match, but because we are 
trying to generate more commitment from other sources--the 
States, in this instance, are required to meet this opportunity 
with a 50/50 match.
    If I may, also, Mr. Chairman, I know that this issue has 
been a matter of concern to you, because you have expressed, as 
I have, in many instances, agreed, that when it comes to rural 
America, the presence of Amtrak is not as we would desire it.
    What we have sought to do in the short-term is to deal with 
the financial viability of Amtrak. And I am pleased that we 
have made considerable progress, in that regard.
    It is really hard to imagine that from 1997 to this point 
in time, Amtrak has experienced three consecutive years of 
ridership increases; about 10 percent over that period of time. 
They have also had a 16 percent increase in revenues. The 
service has improved. They have done a better job.
    And we are going to have high-speed rail in the northeast 
corridor by the summer. We have the regional service that we 
just unveiled from New York to Boston, dealing with the non-
electrification of the track. And then we will have the Acela 
Express Service in the summer.

                           ACELA RAIL SERVICE

    Senator Shelby. What will be the time from Washington to 
Boston, after that?
    Secretary Slater. From Washington to Boston, I think we are 
going to cut about two-and-a-half hours off of that trip.
    Senator Shelby. I need to ride that with Senator 
Lautenberg, do I not?
    Senator Lautenberg. I would like to have you on that train. 
Mr. Chairman, I have a special catering order from off the 
train, but we will be able to eat----
    Senator Shelby. A glass of water, I hope.
    Secretary Slater. You know they said that time really 
passes fast when you are having fun. So, the two of you 
together, talking about transportation matters, that time would 
go pretty quickly.
    Senator Shelby. Well, we would not want to do that unless 
you joined us in the----
    Secretary Slater. Now, I would love that.
    Senator Shelby. And we would have to have our senior 
advisor here, Senator Byrd.
    Secretary Slater. Oh. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. He knows more about all of this than all of 
us, basically.
    Secretary Slater. Okay. Well, let me say this: I do believe 
that because of the leadership of this committee, when we 
unveil that Acela service, it would be really quite a joy and 
an honor for all of us to experience that together, because I 
can tell you, in 1997, Amtrak was on its back. It was really 
the Senate, first, and then the entire Congress and the 
Administration, all of us working together, to get that 
creative budgeting there early on, and then to provide the plan 
to get them to self-sufficiency over a 5-year period. They have 
done a really good job.
    The Amtrak Board of Directors, now, is totally in place. 
Governor Tommy Thompson is doing a great job as the chair; and 
Governor Dukakis, as the vice chair, a great job; also, Mayor 
Smith, working with the mayors has done a super job; and 
Governor Holton, formerly of Virginia, is on the board. It is a 
great board. They are doing a good job.
    Senator Shelby. That is good.
    Secretary Slater. We believe, though, that the $468 million 
would be helpful, not so much in the northeast corridor, but to 
ensure that as we celebrate that service, that we can also hold 
out promise for Alabama and the Gulf Coast region.
    Senator Shelby. Louisiana.
    Secretary Slater. That is right. Louisiana. Mississippi.
    Senator Shelby. Georgia.
    Secretary Slater. The north----
    Senator Shelby. The deep south.
    Secretary Slater. The deep south.
    Senator Shelby. North Alabama.
    Secretary Slater. So, that is why we have this proposal; to 
give us an opportunity to engage States and other interested 
parties in looking at a broader vision for high-speed rail.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg, thank you for your 
indulgence.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much. Mr. Chairman, it is a 
pleasure, again, to have our Secretary with us. He has done a 
good job. The people who work with and for him have carried 
their share of the responsibilities very efficiently.
    We had Mr. Basso, up in New Jersey, and he helped us in the 
review of what is taking place in the light rail service. He 
understood our needs and where we have to go, even though the 
budget, Mr. Chairman, is large--$55 billion, roughly. But the 
need is even larger than that. For us to have the kind of 
transportation systems that a nation like ours, with the size 
of our economy and the size of our country, and the interest of 
our people.
    They are just sitting in airports. And I see more people 
having lunch on the floor at Newark or wherever you go the 
places are crowded. The schedules are jammed. They are often 
late.
    When we talk about rail or we talk about other modes, we 
are talking about a necessity to make sure that everything 
works as efficiently as it can. When service is held up in 
Newark, believe me, you feel it in Alabama, and you feel it in 
Louisiana. The system is a totally integrated system.
    And so, it was exciting to be on the regional Acela. It is 
a door-opener. I was reminded by Governor Dukakis that the 
speed that we have now, in this regional thing, is only a 
catch-back; not a catch-up, but a catch-back. Because in 1959, 
they had the same 4-hour speed. And it disintegrated over the 
years, as the equipment and the facilities disintegrated. But 
now----
    Senator Shelby. In 1959, they had a----
    Senator Lautenberg. They had a 4-hour speed. But we are 
going to be down to 3 hours, shortly, there. And I must point 
out, and I had the staff get this right away, the Acela 
regional train showed a 45 percent boost in ridership over the 
trains they replaced--45 percent. I think, when did we start, 2 
weeks ago--that--to open that service?
    And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your help in getting 
that investment made. It makes it so easy for my three 
grandchildren, who live in Boston, and their mother and their 
father, to come down to visit me. I know that was a nickel-and-
some factor.
    We can do better, I hope, than the $468 million in the 
President's budget.
    Mr. Secretary, do you think the Administration is going to 
be soon in a position to endorse my legislation or expand the 
use of capital, here, with the $10 billion bond support?
    That would have a substantially lower cost than what we 
have to do now, in order to get funding into the railroad. That 
$10 billion of financing would, over the 10-year period, cost 
about $2 billion. Is that--$2.3 billion. You get leverage four 
times out, as a result of that. I hope that we will get an 
enthusiastic endorsement from the Administration very soon.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you, Senator.

                      BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT (BAC)

    Senator Lautenberg. You know, we are still working on 
reducing the blood-alcohol content while driving. I know that 
both Senator Shelby and Senator Byrd share my view that we have 
to be more diligent about reducing those fatalities. And it has 
come down. And it is good to see it.
    The last 2 years, only one State out of 34 has adopted a 
.08 BAC. It is a poor record, considering all the States, 
except Kentucky, has a chance to pass it and get the funding.
    Does the President support the .08 BAC?
    Secretary Slater. He does. And Senator, I would note that 
for the first time in 1998, we actually had the percentage of 
alcohol-related highway fatalities to fall below 39 percent. It 
is actually 38 percent.
    Senator Lautenberg. For fatalities or----
    Secretary Slater. That is right. Thirty-eight percent of 
all fatal crashes involving alcohol. At one time, it was 
actually 55 percent; years ago. So, we have significantly 
brought that figure down. It stabilized at around 41 percent 
for many years of this Administration, but now we are below 40, 
and at 38, which is quite an improvement.
    Senator Lautenberg. And you know, it says one thing, Mr. 
Secretary, and I would appreciate your comment. Does the 
incentive program go far enough to induce these States to move 
to improve the safety record, vis a vis, driving while under 
the influence?
    Secretary Slater. It does not go far enough. As you know, 
the Administration joined you and others, Congresswoman Lowey, 
in proposing a national standard of .08 BAC. We were not 
successful in that effort, but one of the good provisions of 
TEA-21 does provide an incentive program. So, it does not go 
far enough, but it has been helpful. Hopefully, though, we can 
win the battle and get .08 BAC as the law of the land.
    Senator Lautenberg. I think, Mr. Secretary, and for the 
record, I think that it needs more than an incentive, which 
has, thus far, not really induced much support. We found out 
when we raised the drinking age to 21, and there, I am told by 
the safety agencies, Senator Byrd, it saved 15,000 families 
from having to mourn the loss of their child in these last 14 
years.
    If I feel proud of one thing that I have done, I must tell 
you, it is that. We can bring that terrible record down even 
further, if we would just get on this with seriousness. There 
were incentives out there for years to bring the drinking age 
up to 21, and not much happened.
    When we said, ``Okay. We are going to reduce your highway 
funds,'' even that was a drag, but finally everybody understood 
that Lautenberg was serious and the Senate agreed, and we got 
it done.

                     AIR CARRIER ACCESS TO HEATHROW

    I want to talk for a minute about air carrier access to 
Heathrow Airport. Now, you have been in negotiation with the UK 
for some time regarding a new bilateral aviation deal. And I, 
along with many of my colleagues and the Administration, have 
been insisting that any new aviation deal with the UK include 
access for new U.S. carriers to Heathrow.
    I have been to Gatwick. And I have been to Heathrow. And I 
will tell you, Heathrow is the difference between a more timely 
arrival to your destination by a significant measure. I think I 
paid $100 cab fare from Gatwick to London. In my view, this is 
not the way things ought to happen.
    Is there any possibility that you would agree to a new deal 
with the UK that would not include access for new U.S. carriers 
to Heathrow? I hope not.
    Secretary Slater. No. Senator, that has been one of the 
conditions of our negotiations. Those conditions have also 
grown to include restoration of the service from Pittsburgh to 
London, as well as a new designation of U.S. carrier to 
Heathrow.
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, it is nice to have Pittsburgh-
London service, but we need it in the New York/New Jersey area, 
where so much traffic occurs. I hope that we would not fall 
prey to a mini-deal that would allow British Airways and 
American Airlines code sharing without guaranteeing access for 
U.S. carriers to Heathrow.
    Secretary Slater. You should know, Senator, that we have 
already requested additional information on the British 
Airways-American Airlines issue. There is no intent, on our 
part, to address that until we have a greater sense of equity 
as relates to the U.S.-UK aviation relations.

                          COAST GUARD CUTTERS

    Senator Lautenberg. Last month a new Coast Guard cutter 
went into service, patrolling the Atlantic seaboard from New 
Jersey to South Carolina, after three boats sank off the coast 
of New Jersey, this last winter. This is welcome news, however. 
And something that the Chairman raised and you talked about a 
moment ago, the cutter patrols a very large area. More ships 
could be added, and over the next few years, the Coast Guard is 
expected to add new vessels----
    Secretary Slater. Yes.

                          COAST GUARD MISSIONS

    Senator Lautenberg [continuing]. But for drug interdiction 
duties, not search and rescue and some of the other 
responsibility they have, what is DOT's plan to ensure that all 
Coast Guard missions, not just the drug interdiction duties, 
are able to be carried out fully? Because it is my 
understanding that the Coast Guard is short 1,200 people and 
retains only 50 percent of its pilots. And boy, they do one 
load of work, I will tell you.
    Secretary Slater. They do.
    Senator Lautenberg. We squeeze them constantly; give them 
more assignments. We see what happens with illegal immigration. 
We see what happens with pollution control. We see what happens 
with navigation aids. And the Coast Guard is there when we have 
these terrible tragedies; whether it is an airplane going down 
or a boat sinking. The Coast Guard is there in terrible 
weather, very difficult assignments.
    Secretary Slater. You are right.
    Senator Lautenberg. So----

                   CHALLENGES FACING THE COAST GUARD

    Secretary Slater. Senator, your point is well taken. You 
know, the motto of the Coast Guard is ``Semper Paratus''--
``Always ready''. The Coast Guard actually saves a life every 2 
hours. During the Hurricane Floyd experience, they actually 
saved 500 lives over a period of time. It is a remarkable 
organization. It has been very much at the forefront in a lot 
of the streamlining and reinventing effort of this 
Administration over the past 7 years.
    We have gotten to a time, now, where we really are starting 
to look at the long-term challenges facing the Coast Guard; 
their readiness and their deepwater equipment needs and the 
like. We are starting to really address those concerns.
    Let me just mention one or two things in that regard. First 
of all, I should say, that even as the Coast Guard has done 
some reprogramming of late, and I go back to the Chairman's 
question in this regard, they have not, in any way, stepped 
back from their safety responsibility, which they consider 
primary--search and rescue. Their ability to perform there is 
consistent with where they have been.
    Over time, we would hope to increase the ability to perform 
at that level, in this respect and across the board, with our 
deepwater initiative, which is a major, multi-billion dollar 
acquisition program need that we have.
    We have recently gone through a process where we have 
basically put together a plan for this purpose. The President's 
budget includes $42 million to begin the process of moving 
forward on this initiative. But we will have to come to the 
Congress in years to come with a request for much, much more. 
We are putting together a program and a process for doing that 
in a way that is thoughtful and that evidences reason and 
reflection.
    We have also engaged in a roles and mission effort as 
relates to the Coast Guard. This is sort of a companion effort 
with the Deepwater Initiative. It is to re-examine the roles 
and the missions of the Coast Guard in this new environment.
    And there, again, I think we have had considerable success 
and would welcome an opportunity to report to you and other 
members of the committee and your staffs about our progress in 
that regard. We are looking at the long-term needs and the 
long-term view of the Coast Guard. And we appreciate your 
comments in that regard.
    I think Admiral Loy and Admiral Card, the Commandant and 
Vice Commandant, have done a great job. If I may, I would like 
to mention Admiral Naccara, who headed our Y2K initiative 
within the Coast Guard. Super job working with IMO and putting 
together a code of best practices that became, really, the 
standard for the nations of the world. The Coast Guard is a 
fine organization. We appreciate your support and your 
expressions of concern regarding some of the challenges faced 
by the Coast Guard.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.
    Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 
Secretary.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you.

                   REDISTRIBUTION OF HIGHWAY FUNDING

    Senator Byrd. Your budget proposes many changes in the 
treatment of the programs under TEA-21. These proposals have 
the result that there are some big winners and some big losers 
in the distribution of the total amount mandated for highway 
funding under TEA-21. Your formal testimony makes mention of 
some of the big winners under your budget.
    I think it is also important that we have a discussion 
about the losers under your budget. These are the programs that 
would have to have their obligation and limitations cut in 
order to pay for the increases that are being proposed 
elsewhere.
    The biggest loser is the formula fund provided to the 
States. As you may recall, I offered an amendment. It was co-
sponsored by Senator Phil Gramm, Senator John Warner, and 
Senator Max Baucus, at the time we had the TEA-21 legislation 
before the Senate.
    In the first place, we had to fight like the dickens to get 
it up before the Senate. Then, they had a strong battle over 
the amendment itself. But, it was adopted. The result was 
somewhere between $26 billion and $28 billion--not million--but 
billion went to all of the States; raising all the boats, 
because the tide was raised. If you have an infusion of 
somewhere between $26 billion and $28 billion, that raises the 
tide.
    Now, part of the reason that we provided highway funding 
guarantees in TEA-21 was to give the States a predictable flow 
of money from the trust fund. And now it is being proposed to 
upset this predictability by taking more than $1.3 billion--
that sounds like about $1.30 for every minute since Jesus 
Christ was born--$1.3 billion that the States are expecting to 
send to other priority initiatives.
    How do you explain this proposal, Mr. Secretary? With all 
due respect to you, and I love you, how do you explain this 
proposal to the nation's governors and the nation's highways 
commissioners?
    Secretary Slater. Well, Senator, you have actually come 
back to really what has been a matter of concern voiced by many 
of your colleagues. And as I recall, you actually led in 
putting the issue on the table, and appropriately so, because, 
as you have noted, you were really, along with your colleagues, 
a principal player in bringing the balance to the measure that 
passed--TEA-21. It was quite a historic piece of legislation.
    We would argue that the predictability is still there; that 
our focus is primarily on that amount that comes in, in excess 
of projections. Although there was language in TEA-21 to 
address that possibility, that is where the focus is.
    This year it is projected to be about $3 billion, let me 
just say that. Last year, it was a considerable amount. This 
year, about $3 billion.
    Last year, we actually proposed using it in many different 
ways, and using much, much more of it. In this instance, we are 
really focusing on about a third of it, maybe even a little 
less. I think our total number is about $741 million.
    So, we have really tried to take into account the sensitive 
nature of what we are proposing, and also the fact that there 
was that delicate balance that we participated in. We recognize 
that and commend it and support it. But again, we are talking 
about that which is in excess of the projection. And this year 
we are talking about a much smaller amount of that.
    As we propose using the $741 million in a certain way, the 
ways that we are suggesting are consistent, pretty much, with 
the themes of TEA-21. The only area where there is probably 
sort of a hard departure, would be as relates to high-speed 
rail, because, there we tried to make it eligible as an item 
for funding under TEA-21, giving the States the ability to do 
that. We did not carry the day on that point. So, we 
acknowledge that.
    But that is probably the most significant departure from 
what was proposed in TEA-21. Everything else pretty much 
matches what was proposed in TEA-21. TEA-21 dealt with economic 
development.
    Our belief is that the Delta Regional Program that we are 
proposing, about $69 million, and the Native American Lands 
Program that we are proposing, are consistent with the spirit 
of TEA-21; especially when you consider that it deals with 
hard-pressed regions of the country, much like Appalachia.
    Senator Byrd. But you're cutting Appalachia. That is not 
consistent with--is it, with the policy is it?
    Secretary Slater. Well, again, we are dealing with the 
excess that goes beyond the projection. But I think you make a 
good point, Senator. And as we go forward, I think we need to 
really address that particular of the question. So, I think you 
make a very good point, there.
    The other areas deal with increases in safety. It is really 
trying to add more to certain categories. That is right. But 
those categories are categories that are reflected in TEA-21.
    And the only area where you may have a major departure 
would be with our desire to ensure that once we unveil high-
speed rail in the northeast corridor, that we have a foundation 
for a similar corridor or a similar series of corridors around 
the country. That is probably the area where we have the 
sharpest departure from the specific items mentioned in TEA-21.

                    MISSISSIPPI DELTA AND APPALACHIA

    Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, I support the Mississippi 
Delta Program. I do not see why we need to cut back on 
Appalachia. Why can we not move forward on both?
    Secretary Slater. That is a good----
    Senator Byrd. If we want to improve safety, then let us 
finish those Appalachian corridors. Instead of having two-lane 
corridors, which are a sure prescription for accidents and 
fatalities, we need to have four-lane divided highways.
    Secretary Slater. Right.
    Senator Byrd. That includes a very important safety 
project.
    Secretary Slater. Well, Senator Byrd, we are in agreement 
there. I remember, in 1995, when we were dealing with the 
designation of the National Highway System, with your support, 
we actually got a much stronger commitment to complete the job 
of the Appalachian Highway System. And I think we are making 
considerable progress. That is why I am so sensitive, frankly, 
to the point that you raise.
    Why, if the focus for the Delta Program and the program for 
Native American lands, if the objective there is to do as we 
are doing with the Appalachian region, why would you take from 
that region to do this? I think that is a very good point. We 
should figure out how we address it, as we go forward.
    Senator Byrd. Well, you are not just proposing to 
reallocate the $3 billion in excess projections. You are 
proposing to reallocate funds within the core highway program. 
Actually, you are proposing to change TEA-21.
    Secretary Slater. That is a good argument. But we would 
argue that what we are proposing is still consistent with TEA-
21. We have tried to cut it back to make it less onerous, 
burdensome for some, but our focus, again, is on $741 million; 
the remainder, roughly $2.3 billion, that would continue to 
flow through the formulas as prescribed in TEA-21. And that, 
then, goes to, primarily, highways, some transit, but it flows 
through the formula.
    Senator Byrd. I consider Amtrak an important national asset 
for our transportation system.
    I am not persuaded by your argument.
    Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
    Senator Byrd. But, my time is limited. And I am going to 
shift, now.
    Secretary Slater. Okay.
    Senator Byrd. I respect you for your argument, but you 
really have to argue the President's case for him. I understand 
that. I know your heart is not there in the coffin with Caesar. 
Your heart is with me. You really want to build that 
Appalachian System, but I understand the constraints that you 
have to live under. I respect you for that.

                                 AMTRAK

    I consider Amtrak an important national asset. The cost of 
traveling on the Cardinal is considerably cheaper than the 
airfares available to my constituents.
    Secretary Slater. Right.
    Senator Byrd. The airfare cost is about $659 for a round-
trip to West Virginia; perhaps, above $700. I suppose you can 
go to London and back for much less, but you can certainly ride 
Amtrak for much less.
    Secretary Slater. Right.
    Senator Byrd. Yet, you can go from here to White Sulphur 
Springs for less than $90; maybe just a little over $90, on 
Amtrak, but it is $600-plus to go by plane.
    You noted that the Amtrak ridership increased substantially 
the last year.
    Secretary Slater. Right.
    Senator Byrd. You are requesting funds for new high-speed 
rail corridors around the country. Are you concerned that 
Amtrak will struggle to absorb this $50 million reduction in 
direct support this coming fiscal year?
    Secretary Slater. No. We believe that they can--that what 
we have proposed for Amtrak is sufficient. I think the amount 
of $521 million, plus the expanded program dealing with high-
speed rail of about $468 million is sufficient.
    It is our belief we have provided an amount that is 
consistent with the 5-year plan that Amtrak put together 
towards self-sufficiency. We feel comfortable that they can 
manage with the amount that we proposed.
    Senator Byrd. I understand there has been a delay in the 
delivery of Amtrak's new high-speed train sets.
    Secretary Slater. That is right.
    Senator Byrd. These new trains are supposed to be used in 
the northeast corridor. Amtrak is depending on these new trains 
to generate substantial revenue next year. If the high-speed 
trains continue to be delayed, is it possible that the 
Administration will have to revisit its budget request of $521 
million in direct support for Amtrak?
    Secretary Slater. We probably would not revisit that 
question in this round, but clearly, we are concerned about the 
Acela Express Service coming online as soon as possible. Our 
highest concern is that of safety. And that has been the real 
issue here.
    As things stand, currently, the delay has not adversely 
impacted--or irreversibly--let me say it that way--impacted 
Amtrak to such an extent that we would have to make a request 
of that type at this time. We still feel good about the request 
of $521 million.
    We are hopeful, as relates to the request, for high-speed 
rail support around the country through our expanded request of 
$468 million, but we continue to monitor the situation with the 
Acela Service very closely. And we do not want to go through 
the complete year without the benefit of that service.
    I thought Senator Lautenberg--I made a note of his comment 
that they have already seen a 45 percent increase in ridership 
with the Acela Regional Service. And that does not even get to 
the 150 miles-per-hour service that we are looking forward to.
    So, there is that desire out there. We can tap it, but you 
have to have the service online to do so.

                        REROUTING TRAIN SERVICE

    Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, the Cardinal has had a very 
difficult time with its on-time performance over the last 
several months.
    Secretary Slater. Right.
    Senator Byrd. One solution that has been proposed is to 
reroute the train around Chicago to avoid areas of congestion 
with freight traffic. This proposal would require the 
cooperation of many of the impacted freight railroads. Will you 
look into that situation?
    Secretary Slater. I will.
    Senator Byrd. Could your office, perhaps, play a role in 
working with the freight railroads to allow this rerouting 
proposal to go forward?
    Secretary Slater. Yes. Senator, I will look into it. And we 
will respond to you regarding the results of our inquiry.

                          TIMELY RAIL SERVICE

    Senator Byrd. The Norfolk Southern and CSX Railroads took 
over Conrail this past summer.
    Secretary Slater. Right.
    Senator Byrd. And since that time, we have experienced an 
increased number of delays in the MARC Commuter Rail Service, 
along the Brunswick line, between Martinsburg and Washington, 
DC.
    In my office, there is a young lady who commutes from 
Shepherdstown, WV, over to Washington, DC, and she is here 
everyday.
    Secretary Slater. Is that right?
    Senator Byrd. She gets off the train down at the station, 
here; walks to the office. Every afternoon, at 5 o'clock, she 
leaves the office to catch the train that goes back to WV. She 
picks up her automobile at Brunswick, MD or one of the WV 
stops. And she has been doing this for 8 years. And I will put 
her absentee record against almost anybody else's. She is there 
all the time; very dedicated.
    But I hear about this problem she has. Along with that, I 
hear from other constituents. The inclement weather over the 
last few months has, of course, been a factor.
    Secretary Slater. Right.

                              RAIL MERGERS

    Senator Byrd. These delays have impacted a considerable 
number of West Virginia residents who live in the panhandle of 
West Virginia and commute to Washington, D.C., daily.
    Now, would you please comment on the dislocations that were 
created by that merger, and what the department has done to try 
to minimize them?
    Secretary Slater. Well, Senator, first of all, quality 
transportation services is nothing, if it is not on time. We 
are really working to address that issue of efficiency and 
timeliness across the transportation spectrum--aviation, 
clearly. We talk about Amtrak here, but even Metro service. And 
we are actually using technology to help us in that regard.
    Having said that, let me say that, more and more, we are 
finding that there is the challenge of providing timely 
commuter service, passenger service, and timely freight service 
when they have to share, in many respects, the same track.
    But this is something that we can address, and address 
effectively; and I think, address to the satisfaction of all 
concerned. Because, again, at the core of quality 
transportation is that issue of safety, but it is also 
timeliness and service. And so, you have to have that 
addressed, and addressed effectively.
    We are working on that. What we would like to do, maybe, in 
that regard, since this is clearly an issue of concern to the 
committee, is to continue to keep you informed as we work on 
this question.
    As relates to the broader issue that you raised regarding 
the Norfolk Southern and CSX merger and the acquisition of 
Conrail, let me say, in dealing with that question more 
specifically, that we have really seen a total transformation 
of the rail industry during these mergers and reconfigurations, 
over the last decade or so. I mean, it has really been 
remarkable.
    I remember when I talked to Secretary Pena, early on, about 
key issues that I should be mindful of and issues that he had 
wrestled with and knew that were still there to be dealt with; 
this was the number one issue that he raised.
    Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, you would make a great 
Senator. You would be excellent in the case of a filibuster.
    Secretary Slater. A filibuster. All right. Thank you.
    Senator Byrd. You really have not answered my question. I 
am going to go on to----
    Secretary Slater. Let me--what were the specifics of--I was 
about to get to it, I thought.
    Senator Byrd. My time is running out. One other question.
    Secretary Slater. We are talking about time, too. My 
apologies.
    Senator Byrd. One brief question, here.
    Secretary Slater. Okay.
    Senator Byrd. But you did fine. I will give you a 100 
percent on the effort.
    Secretary Slater. Okay. Thank you.
    Senator Byrd. But I am a careful listener. I know when my 
question is not being answered. We had a discussion about that 
last year, did we not?
    Secretary Slater. Yes, we did.

                         RAIL SIGNALING SYSTEMS

    Senator Byrd. I am told that there may be an opportunity to 
improve the signaling system between Martinsburg and the 
Maryland State line, in order to minimize the conflicts between 
freight trains and commuter trains along the Brunswick line.
    Secretary Slater. Right.
    Senator Byrd. I would appreciate it if your experts at the 
Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Transit 
Administration could look into this proposal.
    Secretary Slater. We will do that.
    Senator Byrd. Would you?
    Secretary Slater. It would be a good thing to do, sir.
    Senator Byrd. I hoped we could count on your assistance for 
that review.
    Secretary Slater. Okay. Thank you.
    Senator Byrd. Now, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your 
patience.
    Senator Shelby. Sure.
    Senator Byrd. If I have further questions, I will submit 
them for the record.
    And thank you, again, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Byrd.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to touch on a couple of more things--
--
    Secretary Slater. Okay.

                            EMERGENCY RELIEF

    Senator Shelby [continuing]. On something Senator Byrd 
mentioned in his opening statement. I find it interesting that 
you propose to increase the Emergency Relief Highway Program 
from the TEA-21 firewall amount of $100 million to $498 
million, we have been told, to address the emergency highway 
backlog. While I think that more emergency money should have 
been provided in TEA-21, I agree with you on that.
    I question how equitable it is to take the firewall 
account, which already requires a 12.9 percent reduction, 
because the TEA-21 authorization did not deliver on what it 
authorized, and reduce the amounts that will go to every State 
further, in order to fund an emergency program that any 
observer should have known was undercapitalized in the 
authorization.
    My question is: Why did you not pay for the increase in 
Emergency Relief Highway Program out of the general funds, out 
of RABA, or submit a supplemental request? What are the 
options, there?
    Secretary Slater. Well, I think we have actually had the 
$100 million amount pool since fiscal year 1973 or so. It is 
clear that that amount is not sufficient. We always have to 
come back either for supplementals or do something, as we are 
proposing now; figure out some way to make it a part of a 
budget request where we seek the resources.
    What we are trying to do here, ultimately, is to take care 
of a backlog, but also deal with what I think we agree is a 
problem, and that is the limitation that we all face of having 
just $100 million in that fund on an annual basis.
    That is what we are really trying to do in the long-term, 
here; figure out some way of providing a bigger pool of 
resources, so that we can deal with these challenges as they 
come up, over time.

                       FAA RECEIPTS AND INTEREST

    Senator Shelby. I understand. Mr. Secretary, wouldn't your 
budget request for the FAA be more than funded by the receipt 
and interest in your user fee proposals than from the Airport 
and Airways Trust Fund?
    Secretary Slater. Do you mean, based on our proposal----
    Senator Shelby. Yes.
    Secretary Slater [continuing]. Would we actually be 
collecting more than we need?
    Senator Shelby. Yes. Would not your budget request for the 
FAA be more than funded by the receipt and interest in your 
user fee proposal than from the Airport----
    Secretary Slater. We do not think so.
    Senator Shelby. Why? You mention $300 million more that 
would be necessary to meet the budget. Is that about right?
    Secretary Slater. Well, we do not think so.
    Senator Shelby. You do not think so.
    Secretary Slater. We do not think so. Now, having said 
that, we do know that we have the challenge before us of coming 
up with a cost accounting system.
    Senator Shelby. Do you want to check the figures?
    Secretary Slater. Yes. We can do that.
    Senator Shelby. That would be good.
    Secretary Slater. All right.
    Senator Shelby. Because, sometimes, you might be right and 
you might be wrong. And I do not know.
    Secretary Slater. Okay. Well, we can----
    Senator Shelby. We have some problems.
    Secretary Slater. Okay. We will look into it.
    Senator Shelby. And provide it for the record.
    [The information follows:]

    If we are considering existing taxes and interest, those sources of 
income total $10.456B and are $766M below our request of $11.222B for 
FAA programs in fiscal year 2001. If we include the new user fees (with 
a related minor decrease in interest), the total income is $11.410B, 
which is $188M above our request of $11.222B in fiscal year 2001.

    Secretary Slater. Yes. And Senator, if I may say, for the 
record, that we do understand the challenge we face when it 
comes to putting together a cost accounting system to really 
deal with the kind of credibility you have to have when you 
institute a user fee program. Administrator Garvey is doing a 
good job in that regard. And I think we have enjoyed some 
success, but we have some ways to go.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, as usual, you have been very 
receptive to us, and you know how to work with us, and we have 
worked with you on a lot.
    Secretary Slater. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. So, I do not want you to think that we have 
exhausted all the questions. I know Senator Byrd has probably 
got some, and Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Stevens, and 
other members, we have about the budget submission.
    Secretary Slater. I understand.
    Senator Shelby. But we will save the technical and budget 
questions for the record. We want to thank you for your time 
today; for your patience.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you.

                            CLOSING REMARKS

    Senator Shelby. And having said that, this subcommittee 
will now be in recess until Thursday, February 24, at 10 a.m., 
right here in this room, where we will discuss Department of 
Transportation Safety Initiatives.
    Secretary Slater. Okay. Mr. Chairman----
    Senator Shelby. Yes.
    Secretary Slater [continuing]. Can I do one thing before we 
close the budget----
    Senator Shelby. Go right ahead.
    Secretary Slater. Senator Stevens asked a question that was 
specific; I think, in some way, related to a question that you 
had an interest in. It deals with the issue of providing 
resources for the monitoring of the Alaska----
    Senator Shelby. Right.
    Secretary Slater [continuing]. Volcano issue. I have a 
specific answer. One reason we did not put it in our budget is 
that it is our understanding that the U.S. Geological Survey 
has budgeted $3.5 million for sustaining this operation in 
their fiscal year 2001 budget.
    If that amount is insufficient for this year's costs, then 
we commit to work with the committee to resolve this question. 
I actually saw it while I was on a trip to Alaska with the 
Senator. So, I know about it. It is a matter that we are 
interested in. But it is our understanding that the U.S. 
Geological Survey has actually made the budgetary request to 
address it.
    Senator Shelby. But, basically, we will work it out either 
way----
    Secretary Slater. We will work it out.
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. Our both ways.
    Secretary Slater. That is right. We will work it out.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you.
    Secretary Slater. We will work it out.

                     Additional committee questions

    Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd will have some other 
questions.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                     DISCRETIONARY PROJECT EARMARKS

    Question. There are several programs under which the fiscal year 
2000 transportation appropriations bill identified specific projects, 
and some of these programs have not yet made grant release 
announcements. When can the Congress expect Department of 
Transportation grant announcements for the remainder of the 
discretionary grants under the Federal Lands program and the Ferry 
Boats and Facilities program, and for the Transportation and Community 
and System Preservation program, Job Access and Reverse Commute Grant 
program, National Corridor Planning and Development program, and 
Intelligent Transportation Systems program?
    Answer. There were 17 Public Lands Highways and 6 Ferry Boat 
earmarked projects for which the States had not submitted applications. 
By law, FHWA cannot allocate funds for these programs unless they have 
an application from the State. FHWA has now received most of the 
applications from the States for those projects; allocations will be 
announced shortly.
    For the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot 
Program, the selections have been made, and were announced on March 18. 
The announcements for the National Corridor Planning and Development 
Program will be made in March or April.
    The fiscal year 2000 appropriations act designated 75 locations, 17 
States, and 58 local jurisdictions to receive funding under the 
Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment programs. Guidance for 
developing project proposals was released to local jurisdictions on 
November 17, 1999 and to State Offices on February 25, 2000. The 
project proposals will be reviewed by the Department to ensure that 
they meet the project selection requirements contained in the TEA-21 
program authorization. The grant release announcements are expected 
beginning in May.
    For the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, the Federal Transit 
Administration issued its solicitation for fiscal year 2000 projects on 
March 10, 2000. The notice calls for projects specifically designated 
by Congress to be submitted no later than 60 days following the 
announcement, and projects for competitive selection to be submitted no 
later than 90 days. Congressionally designated projects may be 
announced as soon as FTA reviews the application and determines 
compliance with all standard grant requirements and conformance to the 
Congressionally mandated criteria for the program. FTA expects to 
announce the competitively selected projects before the end of the 
fiscal year.

                          DISCRETIONARY BRIDGE

    Question. Please provide a list of all bridges eligible for 
discretionary bridge funding for which the agency has (or expects 
within the next fiscal year) an application. Please indicate whether 
such bridge is eligible for discretionary bridge funding or any other 
discretionary programs administered or funded by the Department of 
Transportation.
    Answer. The following table lists bridge candidate projects that 
were considered for fiscal year 2000 funding under the Discretionary 
Bridge Program. The table indicates which projects were funded. Bridge 
projects on the Interstate system costing over $10 million and ready 
for construction within one year of the allocation would also be 
eligible for Interstate Maintenance discretionary funds. The table also 
indicates which projects satisfy these conditions. The States' 
applications do not include enough information to determine those 
projects that may also be eligible for Public Lands or Borders and 
Corridors funding.

                                 CANDIDATES FOR THE DISCRETIONARY BRIDGE PROGRAM
                                               [Fiscal year 2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                             Project                             Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seismic Retrofit Candidates:
    California..........................  Golden Gate Bridge.........  Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
                                                                        DBP funds.
    Tennessee and Arkansas..............  Hernando Desoto Bridge.....  Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
                                                                        DBP funds.
    Washington..........................  Spokane Street Over-         Meets rating factor criteria (40.7), but
                                           crossing.                    did not meet eligibility criteria for
                                                                        funding in fiscal year 2000 (would not
                                                                        begin construction until the 4th
                                                                        quarter).
Nonseismic Candidates:
    Continuing projects (Partially
     funded in previous years):
        Michigan........................  Dequindre Yard.............  Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
                                                                        DBP funds. Also eligible for IM
                                                                        discretionary.
        Missouri........................  Chouteau Bridge............  Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
                                                                        DBP funds.
        Tennessee.......................  Loudon City Memorial.......  Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
                                                                        DBP funds.
        Washington......................  Snohomish River Br.........  Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
                                                                        DBP funds.
        South Carolina..................  Grace Memorial Bridge......  Not Funded in fiscal year 2000--Did not
                                                                        meet eligibility criteria for funding in
                                                                        fiscal year 2000 (would not begin
                                                                        construction until the 4th quarter).
    Olympic Cities Projects:
        Utah............................  Kimballs Jct. Bridge.......  Eligible--not funded in fiscal year 2000--
                                                                        unfavorable rate factor of 59.5. Also
                                                                        eligible for IM discretionary.
        Utah............................  Silver Creek Jct...........  Bridge Eligible--not funded in fiscal
                                                                        year 2000--unfavorable rating factor of
                                                                        59.7. Also eligible for IM
                                                                        discretionary.
    Other Non-seismic Projects:
        New Mexico......................  I-25 /I-40 Interchange.....  Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
                                                                        DBP funds. Also eligible for IM
                                                                        discretionary.
        Illinois........................  Wacker Drive Viaduct.......  Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
                                                                        DBP funds.
        Kansas..........................  Turner Diagonal Bridge.....  Eligible--earmarked in H.R. 2084
                                                                        Conference Report and funded with fiscal
                                                                        year 2000 DBP funds.
        West Virginia...................  Williamstown-Marietta        Eligible--earmarked in H.R. 2084
                                           Bridge.                      Conference Report and funded with fiscal
                                                                        year 2000 DBP funds. Also eligible for
                                                                        IM discretionary.
        New York........................  North Grand Island Bridge..  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        Minnesota.......................  Ford Bridge................  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        New York........................  Stutson Street Bridge......  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        Michigan........................  Grand Rapids (R07).........  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        New Hampshire and Vermont.......  Rt. 9 over Connecticut       Eligible-not funded.\1\
                                           River.
        Rhode Island....................  Washington Br. Over Seekonk  Eligible-not funded.\1\ Also eligible for
                                           River.                       IM discretionary.
        Michigan........................  Grand Rapids (R06-1).......  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        Michigan........................  Grand Rapids (R06-2).......  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        Texas...........................  Sabine River Bridge........  Eligible-not funded.\1\ Also eligible for
                                                                        IM discretionary.
        New York........................  Ridge Road over Railroads..  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        Mississippi.....................  Jourdan River Bridge.......  Eligible-not funded.\1\ Also eligible for
                                                                        IM discretionary.
        Massachusetts...................  Hadley Bridge (Calvin        Eligible-not funded.\1\
                                           Coolidge Mem. Bridge).
        West Virginia...................  Star City Bridge...........  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        Massachusetts...................  Fall River Bridge..........  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        New York........................  Marcy Ave. Ramp............  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        New York........................  Manhattan Bridge...........  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        Mississippi.....................  Pascagoula River Bridge....  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        Missouri........................  Lexington-Missouri River     Eligible-not funded.\1\
                                           Bridge.
        Massachusetts...................  Fitchburg Bridge...........  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        Alaska..........................  Kenai River Bridge.........  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        Texas...........................  Trinity River Bridge.......  Eligible-not funded.\1\
        Alabama.........................  Clement C. Clay............  Did not meet eligibility criteria for
                                                                        funding in fiscal year 2000 (would not
                                                                        begin construction until the 4th
                                                                        quarter).
        Florida.........................  Royal Park Bridge..........  Did not meet eligibility criteria for
                                                                        funding in fiscal year 2000 (would not
                                                                        begin construction until the 4th
                                                                        quarter).
        Kentucky........................  Burnside-Monticello Bridge.  Did not meet eligibility criteria for
                                                                        funding in fiscal year 2000 (would not
                                                                        begin construction until the 4th
                                                                        quarter).
        Maryland........................  Woodrow Wilson Bridge......  Did not meet eligibility criteria for
                                                                        funding in fiscal year 2000 (would not
                                                                        begin construction until the 4th
                                                                        quarter).
Projects Earmarked in Fiscal Year 2000
 Conference Report, House Report 106-
 355:
    Florida.............................  Florida Memorial Bridge....  Did not meet eligibility criteria for
                                                                        funding in fiscal year 2000 (would not
                                                                        begin construction until 2004 or later).
    New Jersey..........................  Witt-Penn Bridge...........  Did not meet eligibility criteria for
                                                                        funding in fiscal year 2000 (would not
                                                                        begin construction until 2004).
    Arizona and Nevada..................  Hoover Dam.................  Not eligible--not a bridge replacement
                                                                        project (it is a bypass around the Dam).
    Alabama.............................  Naheola Bridge.............  Not eligible--not a highway bridge.
    Vermont.............................  Union Village/Cambridge      Not eligible--project cost less than $10
                                           Junction Bridges.            million.
    Mississippi.........................  US82 Mississippi River       Not eligible--bridge rating factor
                                           Bridge.                      greater than 100.
    Texas...............................  Paso Del Norte               Not eligible--project cost less than $10
                                           International Bridge.        million.
    Kansas..............................  Turner Diagonal Bridge.....  Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
                                                                        DBP funds.
    West Virginia.......................  Williamston-Marietta Bridge  Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
                                                                        DBP funds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These projects were eligible for funding, but because of the limited amount of discretionary bridge program
  funds available for non-seismic projects ($65 million), they were not selected for funding.

Note: Only two candidates who submitted applications for fiscal year 2000 funds were well qualified according to
  the eligibility criteria. The Golden Gate Bridge and the Hernando Desoto Bridge are continuing projects and
  have received seismic retrofit discretionary funds in previous years. The Hernando Desoto Bridge is in the New
  Madrid Fault region.


                       EMERGENCY RELIEF HIGHWAYS

    Question. The budget proposes an increase in the Emergency Relief 
highway program from the TEA-21 firewall amount of $100 million to $498 
million to address the emergency highway backlog. While I think that 
more emergency money should have been provided in TEA-21, I question 
how equitable it is to take the firewalled account--which already 
requires a 12.9 percent reduction because the TEA-21 authorization 
didn't deliver on what it authorized--and reduce the amounts that will 
go to every state further, in order to fund an emergency program that 
any observer should have known was undercapitalized in the 
authorization.
    Why didn't you pay for the increase in the Emergency Relief highway 
program out of General Funds, out of RABA, or submit a supplemental 
request? Were these alternatives considered as the Department put 
together its budget? Please provide a short analysis of each of these 
alternatives, as well as an other alternatives considered by the 
Department and Office of Management and Budget as you considered how to 
address the Emergency Relief highways funding shortfall.
    Answer. The Department reviewed a number of options for addressing 
the backlog of emergency relief needs, including a request from the 
General Fund, RABA, or supplemental appropriations. Although these 
methods would provide funding to meet the most immediate needs for 
emergency relief, they do not address the underlying cause of this 
crisis. The $100 million in emergency relief provided each year since 
fiscal year 1973 is clearly not sufficient for the level of need. The 
Emergency Relief Reserve Fund will provide a long-term solution, and 
FHWA believes will prevent another crisis from developing. The $398 
million of additional contract authority reflects the ten-year average 
of Emergency Relief supplementals, excluding Loma Prieta, plus 
sufficient funds to pay off the current balance over three years.

                          FAA CONTRACT TOWERS

    Question. It is the Committee's understanding that DOT may propose 
to cut off funding for nearly half the contract towers across the 
country in a couple of months. The contract tower program is very 
important from an aviation safety perspective, and it's providing 
significant air traffic control cost savings. In fact, audits by the 
DOT Inspector General validate the important benefits of the program 
and suggest it might make sense to expand it.
    Why is the Department even considering a funding reduction for the 
contract tower program? Please explain why DOT may propose action that 
could adversely affect aviation safety and will penalize a program that 
is solidly justified from a cost/benefit standpoint?
    Answer. The FAA is facing a shortfall in its operating budget this 
year. That is why the Administration has proposed fiscal year 2000 
supplementals with the fiscal year 2001 budget; the supplementals would 
allow the shifting of some costs currently being borne by the 
Operations appropriation.
    No decisions have been made yet on the canceling of contract tower 
services. Obviously, DOT does not want to reduce funding for this 
program and hopes that Congress will provide the supplemental funding 
to ensure continued operations. The contract tower program is assumed 
fully funded in the FAA budget request for fiscal year 2001.

               FAA PERSONNEL AND PROCUREMENT FLEXIBILITY

    Question. A few years back, the Congress granted the Federal 
Aviation Administration substantial latitude in personnel and 
procurement matters. Is it your understanding that the personnel 
authority that Congress granted the FAA has limited that agency in any 
way in enacting any operational or management reforms?
    Answer. On the contrary, the personnel reform authority has played 
a key role in supporting a variety of management reform efforts within 
FAA aimed at improving how the agency operates in a more business-like 
fashion. For example, the new compensation programs being piloted in 
FAA link pay adjustments to organizational and individual performance, 
which directly supports FAA's establishment and measurement of annual 
outcome-based, mission-focused performance goals and indicators. A 
fundamental objective of FAA personnel management changes, particularly 
in relation to compensation programs, is an increased emphasis on 
improvements in organizational performance and increased efficiency of 
operations.

                           TRANSIT NEW STARTS

    Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request included seven 
``proposed'' full funding grant agreement (FFGA) projects, which you 
expected to approve before the end of fiscal year 2000. We are halfway 
through fiscal year 2000--how many of those projects have actually 
received an FFGA?
    Answer. FTA entered into a FFGA with Dallas for construction of the 
North Corridor LTRT project on October 6, 1999. Three projects, Fort 
Lauderdale, San Diego Mission Valley East and Newark Elizabeth MOS-1 
are ready to be executed and will be submitted to the Congress for 60-
day review very shortly. The Memphis Medical Center Extension underwent 
significant scope changes and funding increases. Thus, it was re-rated 
and is now proposed for an FFGA in fiscal year 2001. The Salt Lake City 
Downtown segment has been withdrawn and an extension of the North South 
LRT to the University is proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget. The 
Orlando I-4 Central Florida LRT Project was also withdrawn from 
consideration because of loss of local financial support.
    Question. Why is the Department constricting the new starts 
pipeline with projects that are not yet ready to move forward to a full 
funding grant agreement?
    Answer. The projects proposed for full funding grant agreements in 
the President's budget will all be ready to enter into FFGAs by the end 
of fiscal year 2001 and in fact several could move ahead much faster. 
If these projects have no outstanding issues, FTA should be able to 
approve the entry of these projects into final design by the summer of 
2000. This is a stricter test than was applied in the proposals made 
for fiscal year 2000, which were based on projects which were expected 
to have completed a record of decision by September 30, 1999 (and thus 
to be in final design by December 31, 1999). FTA is applying a stricter 
test this year to assure that no project issues are outstanding which 
could delay the project further or cause major changes in project cost, 
such as engineering concerns, right of way issues, project management 
planning concerns, environmental issues, or permitting issues.
    Question. The demand for new starts funds is extraordinarily high, 
and transit agencies around the country are in varying stages of 
development, working toward securing that magic piece of paper, a full 
funding grant agreement, which most projects need in order to secure 
financing for the substantial capital investments that are required to 
build or expand a transit system. You have requested funding for 15 new 
proposed full funding grant agreements, which you expect to enter into 
in fiscal year 2001. Please prepare a table addressing the following 
questions. How much commitment authority over the life of the 
authorization was included in the TEA-21 firewall? How much of this 
commitment authority was ``pre-committed'' to existing FFGAs at the 
time TEA-21 was passed? How much of that commitment authority has been 
committed to projects since the enactment of TEA-21 through the present 
(middle of fiscal year 2000)?
    Answer.

        Federal Transit Administration TEA-21 Authorization Table

                              [In millions]

Available TEA-21 Authority-Guaranteed Level [$6,092.40] + 
    Contingent Commitment [$2,350.80]......................... $8,443.20
Existing commitments:
    Remaining ISTEA FFGA Commitments [Fiscal year 1998-Post 
      2003]...................................................  3,787.50
    PMO takedown [Fiscal year 1998-2003]......................     42.28
    Alaska and/or Hawaii Ferry Boat set-aside [Fiscal year 
      1998-2003]..............................................     51.48
    Other appropriations [Fiscal year 1998-2000]..............    860.49
    Other than final design & construction [8 percent--fiscal 
      year 2001-2003].........................................    272.73
    TEA-21 commitments........................................    296.45
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................  5,310.93
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
    Remaining Commitment Authority............................  3,132.27

    Question. Is it correct that, were all the new start transit 
projects that are included in the budget request to enter into FFGAs 
with the FTA during fiscal year 2001, all the commitment authority that 
was authorized in TEA-21 would be committed, leaving no uncommitted 
funds available for new full funding grant agreements before the end of 
fiscal year 2003?
    Answer. Yes. The FTA expects that the FFGAs proposed would consume 
all of the commitment authority available under TEA-21. New funding 
commitments could be made only if non-guaranteed funds were 
appropriated under the authorizations provided by 53 USC Sec. 5338(h) 
or if additional commitment authority were authorized.
    Question. How do you think the other 70 or so authorized new start 
projects that are currently in alternatives analysis or preliminary 
engineering are going to react to a budget proposal that completely 
cuts them out of the running for a full funding grant agreement before 
fiscal year 2004?
    Answer. Some of the project sponsors would be disappointed that 
commitments could not be made until later. However, other sources of 
funding are available such as formula funds, flexible funds available 
from the Federal Highway Administration, and loans or loan guarantees 
under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 
(TIFIA) provisions of TEA-21. The projects proposed in the fiscal year 
2001 budget are those which will be ready in fiscal year 2001 for an 
FFGA. The Department believes it is better to allow the worthy projects 
among those which are ready to proceed now, with a federal commitment, 
than to wait for other projects to develop further.

                        LOS ANGELES BUS REQUEST

    Question. The budget includes a request for $50 million for Los 
Angeles County MTA to buy new buses, in order to implement the bus 
consent decree ordered by the Special Master. The judicial process 
associated with the consent decree litigation is ongoing and complex. 
It is my understanding that a stay has been granted by the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, while an MTA appeal of the decree is pending. 
Doesn't a federal budget request for funding to implement the bus 
consent decree pre-judge the results of this ongoing judicial process?
    Answer. Los Angeles MTA Accelerated Bus Procurement Program 
established new bus quantities through fiscal year 2004 of 2,095 new 
buses. For fiscal year 2001 their program assumes purchase of 400 new 
buses. However, the Special Master requested that Los Angeles MTA 
procure 297 additional new buses beyond the Accelerated Bus Program 
with delivery as soon as possible and at least 88 additional vehicles 
in service by January 3, 2000.
    In late November 1999, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
issued an order, granting MTA's request for a temporary stay of the 
court order. The Appeals Court set an expedited schedule for filing of 
legal briefs in December and January, but no date was set for oral 
arguments on MTA's appeal. MTA believes that the accelerated bus 
procurement program to buy 2,095 new buses by 2004 will be sufficient 
to meet the agreed load factors. Even with the recent stay of the court 
order, the MTA is addressing the possible purchase of the additional 
297 buses through current bid procurements and flexible options.
    FTA believes that MTA's general need to purchase buses to relieve 
overcrowding and expand service is a legitimate expenditure of federal 
funds. Regardless of the ultimate resolution of the appeal, Los Angeles 
MTA will still need to aggressively purchase a significant number of 
buses in order to relieve any disparity in the level of services 
provided throughout the community.
    Question. Did Los Angeles MTA request this level of federal bus 
funding? Do you know whether the MTA has included funding in its 2001 
operating budget for the required 20 percent match for these funds?
    Answer. In discussions last year with Los Angeles MTA over plans to 
replace its bus fleet of aging vehicles, to provide reliable transit 
service, and to meet the pending requirements of the Special Master's 
Decision, FTA committed to seek up to $50 million in fiscal year 2001 
to assist MTA in meeting these goals. Los Angeles MTA advises that the 
matching funds are included in their 2001 operating budget.
    Question. What does the Los Angeles MTA expanded bus procurement 
plan assume for capital bus purchases in fiscal year 2001? What does 
the consent decree, if implemented as it is currently fashioned, 
require that LA MTA spend on bus purchases in fiscal year 2001? What 
are the operating cost requirements for both these levels of capital 
commitment?
    Answer. The Accelerated Bus Procurement Program assumed the 
purchase of 400 new buses in fiscal year 2001 at a cost of almost $157 
million. However, the Federal District Court order further accelerated 
the bus purchases for additional 297 buses at a cost of almost $116 
million. This is currently pending before the Federal Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals which has stayed the orders of the District Court and 
the decisions of the Special Master.
    The projected operating cost of the Consent Decree for fiscal year 
2001 is over $81 million. This cost does not include any implementation 
changes that the Special Master's decision may mandate through the 
current legal proceedings. Should the MTA not prevail in the current 
legal proceedings, an additional $17 million for bus operations will be 
necessary to implement the Special Master's requirement for the 88 
additional buses.
    Question. Can Los Angeles MTA, or any other transit provider, use 
Section 5309 bus capital funds for ``expanded capital'' activities that 
were traditionally considered operating activities? What are these 
eligible activities? Are there any restrictions on this expanded use?
    Answer. Yes, Los Angeles MTA can use any bus capital funding they 
receive under section 5309 for preventive maintenance activities as 
redefined in the fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Act and subsequently 
in TEA-21. TEA-21 redefined ``Capital'' to include preventive 
maintenance activities to more closely align with the definition of 
capital expenditures allowed under the Federal Highway Administration 
programs and to help preserve the Federally funded assets.
    Bus Capital expenditures can include acquisition or preventive 
maintenance of buses, maintenance facilities, bus malls, transportation 
centers, park-and-ride facilities, bus rebuild, bus preventive 
maintenance, passenger amenities (i.e., passenger shelters), bus stop 
signs, and miscellaneous equipment. These funds can not be used for 
typical operating costs such as driver's salaries and fuel.

                    EXPANDED INTERCITY RAIL CAPITAL

    Question. The budget proposes to transfer $468 million from Revenue 
Aligned Budget Authority for the purposes of making grants to Amtrak, 
or to a single state or consortium of states, to improve passenger rail 
service. These funds are in addition to the $521 million for Amtrak 
capital grants, consistent with the ``glide path'' to operating self-
sufficiency by 2003, which both Amtrak and the administration have 
committed to. What is the rationale for requiring a 50 percent match if 
the grant is made to a state or consortium of states, but not requiring 
any matching funds if the grant is made directly to Amtrak?
    Answer. The Administration does not propose to treat Amtrak and 
States differently under its proposed Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger 
Fund. The Administration intends to encourage joint applications 
between Amtrak and a State or consortium of States for funding under 
this program. Eligible projects must generate a positive financial 
contribution for Amtrak and positive net benefits for the public. The 
funding, by law, can only be used to pay for up to 50 percent of a 
project's total cost. This provision would apply equally to Amtrak or a 
State grantee. In the case of a grant to Amtrak, the additional funding 
could come from other company revenues, or a State or consortium of 
States with which it is partnering.

                 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGISTRATION FEES

    Question. On November 4, 1999, Chairman Wolf and I wrote to GAO 
Comptroller General Walker, requesting that the General Accounting 
Office perform an evaluation of the Hazardous Materials Emergency 
Preparedness grants program, which is paid for by registration fees 
charged to hazardous materials shippers and carriers. Concerns have 
been raised by some members of the hazmat carriers industry that the 
same shippers and carriers who pay for the HMEP grants program through 
their user fees also participate in and pay for well established 
emergency planning training programs in the private sector. We asked 
GAO to determine whether the HMEP grants program goals are being met by 
existing private sector initiatives to identify any duplication of 
services.
    In light of the ongoing GAO study, why has RSPA promulgated a final 
rulemaking on the hazardous materials registration fee increase 
(February 14, 2000 Federal Register)? Don't you think it was premature 
for RSPA to move forward with the assessment of a fee increase when the 
need for such an increase has not yet been reviewed by an impartial 
party? Why did the Department make the decision to proceed on this 
rulemaking while the GAO review in ongoing?
    Answer. The increased funding will enhance safety by ensuring that 
a larger segment of the response community will receive critical 
initial and recurrent training at all levels, enhancing the extent and 
quality of planning tools, and improving safety at a level consistent 
with congressional intent. The ultimate objective of this program is to 
protect on-scene emergency response personnel at hazmat incidents, and 
to enable them to more effectively protect lives and property 
endangered by hazmat accidents. The funds paid through this rule will 
go directly to fund state Hazmat safety programs, providing increased 
performance to various response groups--from volunteer fire departments 
to emergency medical responders and others who may be involved in 
hazmat response efforts.
    A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on April 15, 1999, 
and public hearings were held in Washington, DC on May 25, 1999 and in 
Des Moines, IA on June 22, 1999. In written comments and oral 
presentations. Several industry organizations and associations 
expressed support for fully funding the HMEP Grants program, although 
some differed in their preferred approach to achieve full funding.
    In the fiscal year 1999 budget submission, the Administration 
informed Congress of its intent to propose rulemaking to change the 
annual level of funding for the Hazardous Materials Emergency 
Preparedness (HMEP) Grants Program by raising the registration fee and 
broadening the base of registrants to achieve a more equitable program 
geared to the risk and amount of hazardous materials being shipped. The 
final rule was published on February 14, 2000 to ensure adequate time 
for communicating new requirements to registrants before the new 
registration cycle begins in July 2000.

                        COAST GUARD C-130 SPARES

    Question. The Coast Guard has expressed concern that operational 
readiness is eroding. In fact, in a recent speech at the Center for 
Naval Analysis, the Commandant focused on the reduced availability of 
C-130s and the lack of spare parts needed to keep them flying to 
illustrate the readiness challenges the Coast Guard is facing. I asked 
my staff to look into it, and have been informed that even though 
Congress fully funded the aircraft maintenance line in the fiscal year 
2000 appropriations bill, the Coast Guard reprogrammed funds below the 
notification threshold from the aircraft maintenance account to pay for 
``recruitment'' activities. Why is the Coast Guard citing lack of 
readiness in an account that they have dunned in order to pay for 
another activity?
    Answer. The Coast Guard decided that it's mission needs can be best 
met in 2000 by allocating $43 million to hire several hundred 
additional active duty Coast Guard personnel above the levels 
originally requested in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget or 
funded in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. The realignment of funds 
improves Coast Guard fiscal year 2000 readiness by addressing 
shortfalls in military technicians and maintenance personnel. The 
fiscal year 2001 budget further improves readiness and operational 
capabilities. No additional funds are requested in 2000 to backfill for 
spare parts or other activities the Coast Guard deemed to be lower 
priorities.
    Question. Further, would you respond for the record on whether 
additional internal reprogramming controls should be established for 
the Department for instances such as this, or whether we need to revise 
the congressional reprogramming guidelines to keep the modal 
administrations from reprogramming below threshold from safety and 
readiness accounts to fund administrative or ``recruiting'' activities?
    Answer. The Department does not believe that more stringent 
reprogramming controls are warranted. The reprogramming was not aimed 
at an ``administrative'' activity; it was aimed at a root problem 
affecting the Coast Guard readiness posture.
                                 ______
                                 

            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                       NATIVE AMERICAN INITIATIVE

    Question. Senator Slater, I applaud the Administration's Native 
American initiative. As you know, one of the more important highway 
programs for my home state of New Mexico is the Indian Reservation 
Roads program. Of the approximately 22,000 miles of Bureau of Indian 
Affairs road serving tribal lands, only 11 percent of the paved roads 
are rated as being in good condition. Funds for Indian Reservation 
Roads funds are critical to improving transportation for Native 
Americans.
    Please describe the Department's Native American initiative. How 
much funding is being provided as part of this initiative, and what is 
included in the Department's budget?
    Answer. The Department's budget proposal dedicates $358 million to 
address the needs of Native Americans. Of this total, $350 million will 
be used for the FHWA Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program, including 
the authorized level of $275 million plus $75 million of Revenue 
Aligned Budget Authority. The increased funding for IRR will begin to 
address the backlog of needs, estimated at about $4 billion nationally. 
The Department's initiative also dedicates $1.2 million from FHWA's On-
the-Job Training (OJT) program and another $5 million from FTA's Job 
Access and Reverse Commute program for projects which benefit Native 
Americans and Native American Tribes. These programs help connect 
people to opportunity by providing job skills and critical 
transportation services. The budget proposes to provide both IRR and 
OJT with 100 percent obligation authority so that all of the funds will 
be made available for use.
    Finally, the initiative includes $2 million for NHTSA activities 
which benefit Native Americans. These activities will include improving 
EMS services on Indian lands, developing safety materials and media 
campaigns tailored to the Native American community, increasing the 
number of health and safety professionals who receive injury prevention 
training, and providing training and support for local traffic law 
enforcement on Indian lands.
    Question. How will the available funds be distributed?
    Answer. Indian Reservation Roads funds are distributed by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to their regional offices. BIA 
distributes funds according to a formula based on relative need which 
was implemented in 1993. TEA-21 requires the Secretary of the Interior 
to develop a new formula for fiscal year 2000. However, that process is 
still under way; and implementation of the new formula is expected in 
fiscal year 2001.
    Tribal governments will be able to apply for the Job Access funds, 
and FTA will base its decisions on the merit-based criteria described 
in TEA-21. The Administration has also proposed legislative language 
that would make it easier for tribal governments to compete for funding 
by allowing them to apply directly to FTA without having to be selected 
first by a state.

                 NONDESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION AND TESTING

    Question. Secretary Slater, the Administration continues to put an 
emphasis on the use of technology in transportation. You know of my 
interest in the work that is being done by the Aging Aircraft 
Nondestructive Evaluation Center (AANC), which is supported by the 
Federal Aviation Administration, and is now a partner in the Center of 
Excellence for Airworthiness Assurance. This collaboration has been 
very successful and continues to make progress to ensure greater safety 
in the civilian aviation fleet.
    Mr. Secretary, I remain extremely interested in the work of the 
Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Evaluation Center in Albuquerque, and for 
the various components of the Center of Excellence for Airworthiness 
Assurance program. AANC in Albuquerque has been funded at $3 million 
per year. I believe the FAA intends to continue this level of support 
in fiscal year 2001. Is that the case?
    Answer. FAA support of the AANC has been $3 million annually. In 
fiscal year 2001, FAA is requesting a significant increase in the 
Research, Engineering & Development (R,E,&D) budget that would increase 
funding for AANC to $5 million. The $2 million increase above previous 
year's funding would be for research of Aircraft Non-structural Systems 
(wiring, subsystems, etc).
    Question. What is the total budget request for the AANC and the 
program elements associated with the Center of Excellence in the fiscal 
year 2001 budget, and how does this compare to the proposed plan for 
fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. AANC's fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 budgets are $3 
million and $5 million respectively. Though AANC is a core member of 
the Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence, it receives funding 
directly through an interagency agreement between the FAA and the 
Department of Energy.
    Question. Is the request sufficient to support ongoing work? What 
are the program goals for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 under 
the FAA's plan?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request of $5 million will 
support planned research in both structural inspection and 
nonstructural systems. This level of funding will support the 
initiatives described below.
    The AANC will be maintained as an independent and highly capable 
inspection validation center that fully supports the needs of the FAA's 
National Aging Aircraft Research Program and the FAA field offices. In 
fiscal year 2000, specific structural programs include the completion 
of a field reliability study of industry procedures for finding 
subsurface cracks in B-727/B-737 transport aircraft; completion of a 
validation effort of a safer inspection for commuter aircraft (Metro 
226/227 aircraft); and development of an industry accepted set of 
calibration standards for consistent honeycomb inspections. Planned 
accomplishments for the Nonstructural Systems Research program include 
technical support for the Aging Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee's Intrusive Inspection Project, and completion of circuit 
breaker testing.
    In fiscal year 2001, structural program goals include completion of 
a validation activity to apply composite patches to metal aircraft (DC-
10/MD-11); completion of a corrosion detection experiment focused on B-
727/B-737 lap splice joints; completion of a visual inspection 
experiment to determine the affect of job card instructions on 
inspection performance. Nonstructural Systems Research will include 
both aging electrical systems research (degradation assessment of 
aircraft wire, visual inspection follow-on studies, and validation of 
wire testing systems) and aging mechanical systems research 
(destructive testing of flight control linkages, characterization of 
the 747 testbed aircraft, and assessment of maintenance practices).
    Question. The AANC and the Center of Excellence have focused their 
research and technology development efforts largely on structural aging 
in view of the current fleet of commercial aircraft. The FAA has 
recognized the nonstructural aging issues as needing to be addressed, 
for example, the wiring issue. Has the FAA committed any resources to 
nonstructural work through the Center this year?
    Answer. The FAA will be committing $550 thousand to AANC in fiscal 
year 2000 for Aging Electrical Systems Research.
    Question. Can you please tell the Subcommittee what the current 
nonstructural aging program expects to accomplish in 2000 and how much 
the FAA intends to commit to this area of research under the fiscal 
year 2001 budget request?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2000 funding will support the Aging 
Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory Committee's Intrusive Inspection 
Project and completion of aircraft circuit breaker testing. In fiscal 
year 2001, FAA has requested $2 million for nonstructural aging 
research.

                    FAA COST-BASED ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

    Question. Secretary Slater, during a hearing just one week ago 
today on modernizing the FAA, both the Inspector General and the FAA 
Administrator stated that the cost-based accounting system would not be 
completed until 2002. A cost-based accounting system is the critical 
element in the development of fees. Why do you assume the collection of 
new user fees in 2001, when the cost-based accounting system will not 
be complete?
    Answer. The FAA's cost accounting system is being implemented in 
phases. The first phase, currently underway, is to implement the Air 
Traffic Services line of business, which accounts for the majority of 
FAA costs. Other lines of business will be implemented in fiscal year 
2001 through fiscal year 2002. FAA has completed work on enroute and 
oceanic portions of Air Traffic Services, comprising approximately $2.5 
billion of fiscal year 1998 costs. Identification of the fiscal year 
1999 costs of these services will be completed in March 2000. FAA will 
also complete work on the cost of Flight Service Stations this fiscal 
year. In total, all of these services will account for approximately 
$4.9 billion in agency costs. Since the FAA has valid cost data now for 
enroute and oceanic services, that information would be available for 
the establishment of cost-based user fees in fiscal year 2001 for these 
services.

                     FAA EXCISE TAXES AND USER FEES

    Question. Secretary Slater, the President's budget proposes a new 
user fee within the Federal Aviation Administration and assumes 
collection of $965 million in 2001. In 2005, the President's budgetary 
receipt projections show the proposed fees increasing to $2 billion. 
The budget specifically states that current aviation excise taxes will 
be reduced over time as more efficient, service-based charges are 
phased in. However, your projections do not show a reduction in excise 
taxes in the outyears. Can you explain this apparent inconsistency?
    Answer. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, the budget proposes to set 
total aviation excise taxes and new user fees equal to the expected FAA 
operational and capital needs in the subsequent year. The proposed fees 
increase from $965 million in 2001 to $2 billion in 2005 to reflect 
phasing in the fees over 2 years. The Budget reflects the total 
revenues proposed to be collected from the aviation community. This 
total is not affected by the conversion from taxes to fees.

              FISCAL YEAR 2000 ACROSS-THE-BOARD REDUCTION

    Question. Secretary Slater, in last year's Consolidated 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000 (Public Law 106-113), the 
President and the Congress agreed to an across-the-board reduction of 
0.38 percent in discretionary programs as part of an effort to ensure 
that spending in fiscal year 2000 did not dip into the Social Security 
surplus. We were successful in that effort, but in the process the 
Department of Transportation had to reduce the program spending by 
$179.6 million in fiscal year 2000.
    First reports had the Department targeting FAA's Airport 
Improvement program for the entire reduction, but according to the 
budget documents that did not occur. Rather, each office and agency 
took a part of the reduction with most coming from the Federal-aid 
highway program (-$105.3 million) and the FAA Grants-in-Aid for 
Airports program (-$54.4 million).
    Mr. Secretary, would you please provide the Subcommittee with the 
program, project, and activity details underlying the across-the-board 
reductions for each agency?
    Answer. The program, project, and activity details follow.

     PUBLIC LAW 106-113 REDUCTIONS BY PROGRAM, PROJECT, OR ACTIVITY
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year 2000
                                  --------------------------------------
                                       Base      Reduction   Adjust base
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration:     27,625,292     -105,260   27,520,032
 Federal-aid Highways (see
 following table)................
Federal Railroad Administration:
    Next Generation High-Speed          27,200         -103       27,097
     rail: Tracks, structures/
     technology..................
    Rhode Island Rail Development       10,000          -38        9,962
    Alaska Railroad                     15,000          -38       14,962
     Rehabilitation..............
Federal Transit Administration:
    Capital Investment:
        New Starts (see following      973,047      -11,197      961,850
         table)..................
        Bus (see attached table        543,303       -6,206      537,097
         by PPA).................
    Transit planning & research:        26,600         -243       26,357
     National program (see
     following table)............
Federal Aviation Administration:     1,950,000      -54,362    1,895,638
 Grants-in-aid for Airports......
U.S. Coast Guard:
    Acquisition, Construction,          77,000       -1,478       75,522
     and Improvements: Seagoing
     Buoy Tender (WLB)...........
    Alteration of Bridges:
        Florida Ave. RR/HW               3,000          -29        2,972
         Bridge, New Orleans, LA.
        Limehouse Bridge,                1,000          -29          972
         Charleston, SC..........
    Environmental Compliance and        16,989          -65       16,924
     Restoration.................
Maritime Administration:
    Operations and Training:
        US Merchant Marine              34,073         -129       33,944
         Academy.................
        State Maritime Academies.        7,000          -27        6,973
        Other Operations and            31,000         -118       30,882
         Training................
        Title XI Program.........        6,000          -37        5,963
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development       12,017          -46       11,971
 Corp.: Operations and
 Maintenance.....................
Office of Inspector General:            44,616         -170       44,446
 Salaries and Expenses...........
Surface Transportation Board:           15,388          -58       15,330
 Salaries and Expenses...........
Office of the Secretary:
    Minority Business Outreach...        2,900          -18        2,882
    Transportation, Planning, R&D        3,227          -10        3,217
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total reduction............  ...........      179,661  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Federal-aid Highway Program--Treatment of 0.38 Reduction Under the 
              Fiscal Year 2000 Omnibus Appropriations Act


                               BACKGROUND

    The fiscal year 2000 Omnibus Appropriations Act contains a 
government-wide rescission in the amount of 0.38 percent of the 
discretionary budget authority provided (or obligation limitation 
imposed) for fiscal year 2000 for each agency of the Federal 
government. For the Federal-aid highway program, it has been 
interpreted that this reduction applies to the Federal-aid obligation 
limitation.
    The Act further provides some discretion in administering the 
rescission, except that no program, project, or activity of any agency 
may be reduced by more than 15 percent. The reduction determined for 
the Federal-aid highway program is $105,260,000, which equates to a 
0.38 reduction in the $27.7 billion fiscal year 2000 Federal-aid 
obligation limitation, i.e., the Federal-aid highway program did not 
absorb a disproportionate share of the reduction under the broad 
authority provided.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE 0.38 REDUCTION WITHIN THE FEDERAL-AID OBLIGATION 
                               LIMITATION

    The Federal-aid obligation limitation is divided among programs and 
the States based on a multi-step process provided in TEA-21 and 
slightly modified in section 310 of the fiscal year 2000 DOT 
Appropriations Act. Under this process, limitation is first reserved, 
or set-aside, for administrative expenses and programs funded from the 
administrative takedown authorized by section 104(a) of Title 23, the 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the Highway Use Tax Evasion 
program, funds provided through Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, and 
carryover balances for allocated programs from previous years.
    The limitation remaining after these initial set-asides is then 
compared to the total remaining new authorizations of contract 
authority subject to the limitation for the year. This ratio of total 
limitation to total authorization (the ``limitation ratio'') is used in 
the remaining steps of the distribution to determine how much 
limitation each program or State receives. For fiscal year 2000, this 
ratio was determined to be 87.1 percent.
    Next, the limitation ratio is used to calculate how much limitation 
is set-aside for three specially designated programs--High Priority 
Projects, the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, and the Appalachian 
Development Highway System program. Limitation setaside for these 
programs is available until used. Similarly, $2 billion in limitation 
is setaside for the Minimum Guarantee program and this limitation is 
available until used; that is, it is ``no-year'' limitation.
    Again using the limitation ratio, limitation is then set-aside for 
allocated (not apportioned to the States) programs, except for those 
discussed above. The amount of limitation each allocated program 
receives is calculated by multiplying the new authorization for the 
fiscal year by the limitation ratio. For example, an allocated program 
authorized at $100 million receives $87.1 million in fiscal year 2000. 
Discretionary programs such as the Bridge Discretionary program, 
Transportation and Community and System Preservation program, and 
Public Lands Discretionary program, are subject to this provision. For 
fiscal year 2000, Congressional earmarks of discretionary programs 
contained in the DOT Appropriations Act were reduced by the same ratio 
as the overall category, i.e., they were funded at 87.1 percent of the 
earmarked amount. In fiscal year 1999, earmarks in the ITS deployment 
program, which was fully earmarked, were proportionately reduced. Those 
in the only other earmarked discretionary category, public lands, were 
not.
    Finally, after these aforementioned set-asides are made, the 
balance of the limitation is then distributed among the States, with 
each State's portion of the limitation based on its relative share of 
apportioned funds for the fiscal year. This ``formula'' limitation, 
which amounted to $20.896 billion in fiscal year 2000 prior to the 0.38 
percent reduction, is available only until the end of the fiscal year. 
The $105.260 million reduction for the Federal-aid highway program is 
being taken from this portion of the obligation limitation, thereby 
very modestly reducing each State's available limitation used to 
obligate funds for major Federal-aid programs.

     AMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2000 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION PURSUANT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 OMNIBUS
                                               APPROPRIATIONS ACT
                                              [PUBLIC LAW 106-113]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2000                       Revised fiscal
                                                              formula          0.38 percent    year 2000 formula
                         States                              obligation         reduction          obligation
                                                             limitation                            limitation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA................................................        384,338,074          1,936,056        382,402,018
ALASKA.................................................        207,758,883          1,046,560        206,712,323
ARIZONA................................................        346,390,196          1,744,898        344,645,298
ARKANSAS...............................................        272,075,867          1,370,549        270,705,318
CALIFORNIA.............................................      1,998,381,178         10,066,599      1,988,314,579
COLORADO...............................................        260,133,906          1,310,393        258,823,513
CONNECTICUT............................................        296,960,378          1,495,901        295,464,477
DELAWARE...............................................         97,970,572            493,515         97,477,057
DIST. OF COL...........................................         91,616,706            461,508         91,155,198
FLORIDA................................................        955,595,725          4,813,696        950,782,029
GEORGIA................................................        702,470,469          3,538,609        698,931,860
HAWAII.................................................        106,701,488            537,496        106,163,992
IDAHO..................................................        149,935,553            755,282        149,180,271
ILLINOIS...............................................        716,872,910          3,611,159        713,261,751
INDIANA................................................        483,509,231          2,435,618        481,073,613
IOWA...................................................        264,369,118          1,331,727        263,037,391
KANSAS.................................................        260,447,308          1,311,971        259,135,337
KENTUCKY...............................................        342,824,902          1,726,938        341,097,964
LOUISIANA..............................................        333,571,233          1,680,324        331,890,909
MAINE..................................................        111,969,808            564,034        111,405,774
MARYLAND...............................................        344,534,993          1,735,553        342,799,440
MASSACHUSETTS..........................................        385,222,264          1,940,510        383,281,754
MICHIGAN...............................................        676,689,106          3,408,738        673,280,368
MINNESOTA..............................................        316,828,617          1,595,985        315,232,632
MISSISSIPPI............................................        263,802,026          1,328,870        262,473,156
MISSOURI...............................................        525,406,831          2,646,672        522,760,159
MONTANA................................................        203,475,124          1,024,981        202,450,143
NEBRASKA...............................................        177,958,007            896,442        177,061,565
NEVADA.................................................        149,856,618            754,884        149,101,734
NEW HAMPSHIRE..........................................        105,380,514            530,841        104,849,673
NEW JERSEY.............................................        565,760,830          2,849,951        562,910,879
NEW MEXICO.............................................        204,440,139          1,029,842        203,410,297
NEW YORK...............................................      1,060,079,127          5,340,018      1,054,739,109
NORTH CAROLINA.........................................        557,184,939          2,806,751        554,378,188
NORTH DAKOTA...........................................        144,956,145            730,199        144,225,946
OHIO...................................................        725,645,538          3,655,350        721,990,188
OKLAHOMA...............................................        338,839,587          1,706,863        337,132,724
OREGON.................................................        261,335,465          1,316,445        260,019,020
PENNSYLVANIA...........................................        931,243,388          4,691,024        926,552,364
RHODE ISLAND...........................................        125,756,677            633,484        125,123,193
SOUTH CAROLINA.........................................        341,408,922          1,719,805        339,689,117
SOUTH DAKOTA...........................................        150,782,355            759,548        150,022,807
TENNESSEE..............................................        443,959,373          2,236,391        441,722,982
TEXAS..................................................      1,566,389,699          7,890,495      1,558,499,204
UTAH...................................................        172,572,570            869,313        171,703,257
VERMONT................................................        100,862,279            508,081        100,354,198
VIRGINIA...............................................        541,523,969          2,727,860        538,796,109
WASHINGTON.............................................        390,165,370          1,965,410        388,199,960
WEST VIRGINIA..........................................        180,821,517            910,866        179,910,651
WISCONSIN..............................................        405,531,698          2,042,816        403,488,882
WYOMING................................................        153,488,536            773,179        152,715,357
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL............................................     20,895,795,728        105,260,000     20,790,535,728
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
                                [Fiscal year 2000 section 5309 new start deltas]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Reduction Public       Revised
 State           Project location and description              Allocation        Law 106-113       allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AK/HI Alaska or Hawaii Ferry Projects                         $10,322,000          $118,781       $10,203,219
    AK Girdwood, Alaska Commuter Rail Project                    9,925,000           114,213         9,810,787
    AL Birmingham-Transit Corridor                               2,977,500            34,264         2,943,236
    AZ Phoenix-Metropolitan Area Transit Project                 4,962,500            57,106         4,905,394
    CA Sacramento-South Corridor LRT Project                    24,812,500           285,532        24,526,968
    CA San Francisco-BART Extension to the Airport              64,512,500           742,384        63,770,116
        Project
    CA San Jose-Tasman West Light Rail Project                  19,850,000           228,426        19,621,574
    CA San Diego-Mission Valley East Light Rail Transit         19,850,000           228,426        19,621,574
        Project
    CA San Diego-Mid-Coast Corridor Project                      4,962,500            57,106         4,905,394
    CA San Diego-Oceanside-Escondido Light Rail System           1,985,000            22,843         1,962,157
    CA Los Angeles-North Hollywood Extension Project            49,625,000           571,064        49,053,936
    CA Los Angeles-Mid-City and East Side Corridors Pro-         3,970,000            45,685         3,924,315
         jects
    CA Los Angeles-San Diego LOSSAN Corridor Project               992,500            11,421           981,079
    CA Orange County-Transitway Project                            992,500            11,421           981,079
    CA Stockton-Altamont Commuter Rail Project                     992,500            11,421           981,079
    CA San Bernardino-Metrolink Extension Project                  992,500            11,421           981,079
    CO Denver-Southwest Corridor Project                        34,737,500           399,745        34,337,755
    CO Denver-Southeast Corridor Project                         2,977,500            34,264         2,943,236
    CO Roaring Fork Valley Project                                 992,500            11,421           981,079
    CT Stamford-Fixed Guideway Connector                           992,500            11,421           981,079
    DE Wilmington-Downtown Transit Connector                       992,500            11,421           981,079
    FL Fort Lauderdale-Tri-County Commuter Rail Project          9,925,000           114,213         9,810,787
    FL Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties Rail            496,250             5,711           490,539
        Corridor
    FL Miami Metro-Dade Transit East-West Corridor Pro-          1,488,750            17,132         1,471,618
        ject
    FL Tampa Bay-Regional Rail Project                             992,500            11,421           981,079
    FL Pinellas County-Mobility Initiative Project               2,481,250            28,553         2,452,697
    FL Orlando-Lynx Light Rail Project [Phase 1]                 4,962,500            57,106         4,905,394
    GA Atlanta-South DeKalb-Lindbergh Corridor Project             992,500            11,421           981,079
    GA Atlanta-North Line Extension Project                     44,803,440           515,580        44,287,860
    IL Chicago-Metra Commuter Rail Project                      24,812,500           285,532        24,526,968
    IL Chicago-CTA Douglas Branch Line Project                   3,473,750            39,975         3,433,775
    IL Chicago-CTA Ravenswood Branch Line Project                3,473,750            39,975         3,433,775
    IN Indianapolis-Northeast Downtown Corridor Project            992,500            11,421           981,079
    IN Northern Indiana-South Shore Commuter Rail Pro-           3,970,000            45,685         3,924,315
        ject
 KS/MO Kansas City Area-Johnson County, KS, I-35                   992,500            11,421           981,079
        Commuter Rail Project
    LA New Orleans-Canal Street Corridor Project                   992,500            11,421           981,079
    ME Calais-Branch Rail Line Regional Transit Program            496,250             5,711           490,539
    MA Boston-South Boston Piers Transitway                     53,490,785           615,550        52,875,235
    MA Boston-Urban Ring Project                                   992,500            11,421           981,079
    MA Boston-North Shore Corridor Project                         992,500            11,421           981,079
 MA/NH Lowell, MA-Nashua, NH Commuter Rail Project                 992,500            11,421           981,079
    MD MARC Commuter Rail Project                                  697,730             8,029           689,701
    MD MARC-Expansion Projects-Silver Spring Intermodal          1,488,750            17,132         1,471,618
        and Penn-Camden Rail Connection
    MD Baltimore-Central LRT Double Track Project                4,714,380            54,251         4,660,129
    MD Wash.DC/MD-Washington Metro-Blue Line Extension-          4,714,380            54,251         4,660,129
        Addision Road (Largo) Project
    MN Twin Cities-Transitways Projects                          2,977,500            34,264         2,943,236
    MN Twin Cities-Transitways-Hiawatha Corridor Project        42,479,000           488,831        41,990,169
 MO/IL St. Louis-St. Clair MetroLink Light Rail (Phase          49,625,000           571,064        49,053,936
        II) Extension Project
    MO St. Louis-MetroLink Cross County Corridor Project         2,481,250            28,553         2,452,697
    NC Charlotte-North-South Corridor Transitway Project         3,970,000            45,685         3,924,315
    NC Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill-Triangle Transit               7,940,000            91,370         7,848,630
        Project
    NJ Newark Rail Link MOS-1 Project                           11,910,000           137,055        11,772,945
    NJ New Jersey Hudson-Bergen LRT Project                     98,257,500         1,130,714        97,126,786
 NJ/NY Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor                             4,962,500            57,106         4,905,394
    NJ West Trenton Rail Project                                   992,500            11,421           981,079
    NM Greater Albuquerque Mass Transit Project                  6,947,500            79,949         6,867,551
    NM Santa Fe/El Dorado Rail Link                              2,977,500            34,264         2,943,236
    NV Las Vegas-Clark County, Nevada Fixed Guideway             3,473,750            39,975         3,433,775
        Project \1\
    NY New York-Whitehall Ferry Terminal Reconstruction          1,985,000            22,843         1,962,157
        Project
    NY New York-LIRR East Side Access Project                    1,985,000            22,843         1,962,157
    OH Dayton-Light Rail Study                                     992,500            11,421           981,079
    OH Cincinnati-Northeast/Northern Kentucky Corridor             992,500            11,421           981,079
        Project
    OH Cleveland-Euclid Corridor Improvement Project               992,500            11,421           981,079
    OH Canton-Akron-Cleveland Commuter Rail Project              2,481,250            28,553         2,452,697
    OR Portland-Westside-Hillsboro Project                      10,979,040           126,342        10,852,698
    OR Portland-Wilsonville to Washington County, OR               496,250             5,711           490,539
        Connection to Westside
    PA Harrisburg-Capitol Area Transit/Corridor One                496,250             5,711           490,539
        Commuter Rail Project
    PA Pittsburgh-Stage II Light Rail Project                    7,940,000            91,370         7,848,630
    PA Pittsburgh-North Shore Central Business District          9,925,000           114,213         9,810,787
        Corridor Project
    PA Philadelphia-SEPTA Cross County Metro                       992,500            11,421           981,079
    PA Philadelphia-Reading-SEPTA Schuylkill Valley              3,970,000            45,685         3,924,315
        Metro Project
    PR San Juan-Tren Urbano Project                             31,760,000           365,481        31,394,519
    SC Charleston-Monobeam Corridor Project                      2,481,250            28,553         2,452,697
    TN Memphis-Medical Center Rail Extension Project             2,481,250            28,553         2,452,697
    TN Knoxville-Memphis Commuter Rail Feasibility Study           496,250             5,711           490,539
    TN Nashville-Commuter Rail Project                             992,500            11,421           981,079
    TX Austin-Capital Metro Northwest/north Central                992,500            11,421           981,079
        Corridor Project
    TX Dallas-North Central Light Rail Extension Project        49,625,000           571,064        49,053,936
    TX Galveston-Rail Trolley Extension Project                  1,488,750            17,132         1,471,618
    TX Houston-Regional Bus Project                             52,374,205           602,701        51,771,504
    TX Houston-Advanced Transit Program                          2,977,500            34,264         2,943,236
    UT Salt Lake City-North/South Light Rail Project            37,643,540           433,187        37,210,353
    UT Salt Lake City-Olympic Transportation                     9,925,000           114,213         9,810,787
        Infrastructure Investments
    VA Norfolk-Virginia Beach Corridor Project                     992,500            11,421           981,079
    VA Dulles Corridor Project                                  24,812,500           285,532        24,526,968
    VA Virginia Railway Express Commuter Rail Project            2,183,500            25,127         2,158,373
    WA Seattle-Puget Sound RTA Link Light Rail Project          24,812,500           285,532        24,526,968
    WA Seattle-Puget Sound RTA Sounder Commuter Rail             4,962,500            57,106         4,905,394
        Project
    WA Spokane-South Valley Corridor Light Rail Project          1,985,000            22,843         1,962,157
    WI Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Rail Extension Project             992,500            11,421           981,079
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
             Total                                            $973,047,000       $11,197,429      $961,849,571
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       \1\ An additional $1,488,750 in lapsed FY 1995 New Starts funds is made available to the Clark County,
         Nevada Fixed Guideway Project IAW Public Law 106-69.


                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
             [Fiscal year 2000 section 5309 bus allocations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Reduction
State   Project location    Allocation    Public Law 106-     Revised
        and description                         113         allocation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  AKAnchorage Ship          $4,466,325         $51,397      $4,414,928
     Creek intermodal
     facility
  AKFairbanks                1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
     intermodal rail/
     bus transfer
     facility
  AKJuneau downtown          1,488,775          17,132       1,471,643
     mass transit
     facility
  AKNorth Star Borough-      2,977,550          34,264       2,943,286
     Fairbanks
     intermodal
     facility
  AKWasilla intermodal         992,517          11,421         981,096
     facility
  AKWhittier                 1,146,357          13,192       1,133,165
     intermodal
     facility and
     pedestrian
     overpass
  ALAlabama statewide        2,481,292          28,554       2,452,738
     rural bus needs
  ALBaldwin Rural Area         992,517          11,421         981,096
     Transportation
     System buses
  ALBirmingham               1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
     intermodal
     facility
  ALBirmingham-              1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Jefferson County
     buses
  ALCullman, buses             496,258           5,711         490,547
  ALDothan Wiregrass           992,517          11,421         981,096
     Transit Authority
     vehicles and
     transit facility
  ALEscambia County             99,252           1,142          98,110
     buses and bus
     facility
  ALGees Bend Ferry             99,252           1,142          98,110
     facilities,
     Wilcox County
  ALHuntsville Airport       3,473,808          39,975       3,433,833
     international
     intermodal center
  ALHuntsville,              1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     intermodal
     facility
  ALHuntsville Space         3,473,808          39,975       3,433,833
     and Rocket Center
     intermodal center
  ALJasper buses                49,626             571          49,055
  ALJefferson State            198,503           2,284         196,219
     Community College/
     University of
     Montevallo
     pedestrian
     walkway
  ALMarshall County,           496,258           5,711         490,547
     buses
  ALMobile waterfront        4,962,583          57,107       4,905,476
     terminal complex
  ALMontgomery Union         3,473,808          39,975       3,433,833
     Station
     intermodal center
     and buses
  ALValley bus and bus         109,177           1,256         107,921
     facilities
  ARArkansas Highway         1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
     and Transit
     Department buses
  ARArkansas state             794,013           9,137         784,876
     safety and
     preventative
     maintenance
     facility
  ARFayetteville,              496,258           5,711         490,547
     University of
     Arkansas Transit
     System buses
  ARHot Springs,               992,517          11,421         981,096
     national park
     intermodal
     parking facility
  ARHot Springs,               555,809           6,396         549,413
     transportation
     depot and plaza
  ARLittle Rock,               297,755           3,426         294,329
     Central Arkansas
     Transit buses
  AZPhoenix bus and          3,721,937          42,831       3,679,106
     bus facilities
  AZPhoenix South              496,258           5,711         490,547
     Central Avenue
     transit facility
  AZSan Luis, bus               69,476             800          68,676
  AZTucson buses             2,535,880          29,182       2,506,698
  AZYuma paratransit           124,065           1,428         122,637
     buses
  CABell, buses and            198,503           2,284         196,219
     bus facilities
  CACalifornia                  79,401             914          78,487
     Mountain Area
     Regional Transit
     Authority fueling
     stations
  CACommerce, buses            357,306           4,112         353,194
     and bus
     facilities
  CAContra Costa               248,129           2,855         245,274
     County Connection
     buses
  CACudahy, buses and          119,102           1,371         117,731
     bus facilities
  CACulver City,             1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     CityBus buses
  CADavis, Unitrans            620,323           7,138         613,185
     transit
     maintenance
     facility
  CAHealdsburg,                992,517          11,421         981,096
     intermodal
     facility
  CAI-5 Corridor             1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     intermodal
     transit centers
  CALivermore                  992,517          11,421         981,096
     automatic vehicle
     locator program
  CALodi, multimodal           843,639           9,708         833,931
     facility
  CALos Angeles County       2,977,550          34,264       2,943,286
     Metropolitan
     transportation
     authority  buses
  CALos Angeles County       1,736,904          19,988       1,716,916
     Foothill Transit
     buses and HEV
     vehicles
  CALos Angeles              2,233,162          25,698       2,207,464
     Municipal Transit
     Operators
     Coalition
  CALos Angeles, Union       1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Station Gateway
     Intermodal
     Transit Center
  CAMaywood, buses and         119,102           1,371         117,731
     bus facilities
  CAModesto, bus               620,323           7,138         613,185
     maintenance
     facility
  CAMonterey, Monterey-        620,323           7,138         613,185
     Salinas buses
  CAOrange County, bus       1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
     and bus
     facilities
  CAPerris bus               1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     maintenance
     facility
  CARedlands, trolley          794,013           9,137         784,876
     project
  CASacramento CNG           1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     buses
  CASan Bernardino             992,517          11,421         981,096
     Valley, CNG buses
  CASan Bernardino           2,977,550          34,264       2,943,286
     train station
  CASan Diego North          2,977,550          34,264       2,943,286
     County buses and
     CNG fueling
     station
  CASan Francisco,           1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Islais Creek
     maintenance
     facility
  CASanta Barbara            1,736,904          19,988       1,716,916
     buses and bus
     facility
  CASanta Clarita bus        1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     maintenance
     facility
  CASanta Cruz buses         1,741,867          20,045       1,721,822
     and bus
     facilities
  CASanta Maria Valley/        238,204           2,741         235,463
     Santa Barbara
     County, buses
  CASanta Rosa/Cotati,         744,387           8,566         735,821
     Intermodal
     Transportation
     Facilities
  CAWestminster senior         148,877           1,713         147,164
     citizen vans
  CAWindsor,                   744,387           8,566         735,821
     Intermodal
     Facility
  CAWoodland Hills,            620,323           7,138         613,185
     Warner Center
     Transportation
     Hub
  COBoulder/Denver,            620,323           7,138         613,185
     RTD buses
  COColorado buses and       7,940,133          91,372       7,848,761
     bus facilities
  CODenver, Stapleton        1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Intermodal Center
  CTNew Haven bus            2,233,162          25,698       2,207,464
     facility
  CTNorwich buses            2,233,162          25,698       2,207,464
  CTWaterbury, bus           2,233,162          25,698       2,207,464
     facility
  DCFuel cell bus and        4,813,706          55,394       4,758,312
     bus facilities
     program,
     Georgetown Univer-
       sity
  DCWashington, D.C.         2,481,292          28,554       2,452,738
     Intermodal
     Transportation
     Center, District
  DEDelaware buses and         496,258           5,711         490,547
     bus facility
  DENew Castle County        1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
     buses and bus
     facilities
  FLDaytona Beach,           2,481,292          28,554       2,452,738
     Intermodal Center
  FLGainesville hybrid-        496,258           5,711         490,547
     electric buses
     and facilities
  FLJacksonville buses         992,517          11,421         981,096
     and bus
     facilities
  FLLakeland, Citrus         1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Connection
     transit vehicles
     and related
     equipment
  FLMiami Beach,               744,387           8,566         735,821
     electric shuttle
     service
  FLMiami-Dade Transit       2,729,421          31,409       2,698,012
     buses
  FLOrlando, Lynx            1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
     buses and bus
     facilities
  FLOrlando, Downtown        2,481,292          28,554       2,452,738
     Intermodal
     Facility
  FLPalm Beach, buses          992,517          11,421         981,096
  FLTampa HARTline             496,258           5,711         490,547
     buses
  GAAtlanta, MARTA          13,398,973         154,190      13,244,783
     buses
  GAChatham Area             3,473,808          39,975       3,433,833
     Transit Bus
     Transfer Center
     and buses
  GAGeorgia Regional         1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
     Transportation
     Authority buses
  GAGeorgia statewide        2,729,421          31,409       2,698,012
     buses and bus-
     related
     facilities
  HIHawaii buses and         2,233,162          25,698       2,207,464
     bus facilities
  HIHonolulu, bus            1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
     facility and
     buses
  IAAmes transit               694,762           7,995         686,767
     facility
     expansion
  IACedar Rapids             3,315,007          38,150       3,276,857
     intermodal
     facility
  IAClinton transit            496,258           5,711         490,547
     facility
     expansion
  IAFort Dodge,                878,377          10,108         868,269
     Intermodal
     Facility (Phase
     II)
  IAIowa City                1,488,775          17,132       1,471,643
     intermodal
     facility
  IAIowa statewide           2,481,292          28,554       2,452,738
     buses and bus
     facilities
  IAIowa/Illinois              992,517          11,421         981,096
     Transit
     Consortium bus
     safety and
     security
  IAMason City, bus            158,801           1,825         156,976
     facility
  ILEast Moline                645,136           7,424         637,712
     transit center
  ILIllinois statewide       8,138,636          93,656       8,044,980
     buses and bus-
     related equipment
  INGary, Transit            1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Consortium buses
  INIndianapolis buses       4,962,583          57,107       4,905,476
  INSouth Bend Urban         1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Intermodal
     Transportation
     Facility
  INWest Lafayette bus       1,736,904          19,988       1,716,916
     transfer station/
     terminal (Wabash
     Land ing)
  KSGirard, buses and          694,762           7,995         686,767
     vans
  KSGirard Southeast           476,408           5,482         470,926
     Kansas Community
     Action Agency
     maintenance
     facility
  KSJohnson County,            248,129           2,855         245,274
     farebox equipment
  KSKansas City buses          744,387           8,566         735,821
  KSKansas buses and         1,488,775          17,132       1,471,643
     bus facilities
  KSTopeka Transit             595,510           6,853         588,657
     downtown transfer
     facility
  KSWichita, buses and       2,481,292          28,554       2,452,738
     bus facilities
  KYKentucky (southern         992,517          11,421         981,096
     and eastern)
     transit vehicles
  KYLexington                  992,517          11,421         981,096
     (LexTran),
     maintenance
     facility
  KYRiver City, buses        1,488,775          17,132       1,471,643
  KYTransit Authority        2,481,292          28,554       2,452,738
     of Northern
     Kentucky (TANK)
     buses
  LABaton Rouge, buses         297,755           3,426         294,329
     and bus-related
     facilities
  LAJefferson Parish,           44,663             514          44,149
     buses and bus-
     related
     facilities
  LALafayette, buses           148,877           1,713         147,164
     and bus-related
     facilities
  LALouisiana DOTD,            521,071           5,996         515,075
     buses and and bus-
     related,
     including the
     purchase of vans
  LAMonroe, buses and          287,830           3,312         284,518
     bus-related
     facilities
  LANew Orleans, buses       3,275,305          37,691       3,237,614
     and bus-related
     facilities
  LAShreveport, buses          327,530           3,769         323,761
     and bus-related
     facilities
  LASt Tammany Parish,          59,551             685          58,866
     buses and bus-
     related
     facilities
  MAAttleboro                  496,258           5,711         490,547
     intermodal
     transit facility
  MABrockton                 1,091,768          12,564       1,079,204
     intermodal
     transportation
     center
  MAGreenfield                 496,258           5,711         490,547
     Montague, buses
  MAMerrimack Valley           464,002           5,340         458,662
     Regional Transit
     Authority bus
     facilities
  MAMontachusett, bus        1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     and park-and-ride
     facilities
  MAPioneer Valley,            645,136           7,424         637,712
     alternative fuel
     and paratransit
     vehicles
  MAPittsfield               3,573,060          41,117       3,531,943
     intermodal center
  MASpringfield, Union       1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Station
  MASwampscott, buses           64,514             742          63,772
  MAWestfield,                 496,258           5,711         490,547
     intermodal
     transportation
     facility
  MAWorcester, Union         2,481,292          28,554       2,452,738
     Station
     Intermodal
     Transportation
     Center
  MDMaryland statewide      11,413,940         131,347      11,282,593
     bus facilities
     and buses
  MIDetroit, transfer        3,933,343          45,263       3,888,080
     terminal
     facilities
  MIDetroit, EZ Ride           284,852           3,278         281,574
     program
  MIMenominee-Delta-           248,129           2,855         245,274
     Schoolcraft buses
  MIMichigan statewide      22,331,623         256,998      22,074,625
     buses
  MIPort Huron, CNG            496,258           5,711         490,547
     fueling station
  MNDuluth, Transit            992,517          11,421         981,096
     Authority
     community
     circulation
     vehicles
  MNDuluth, Transit            496,258           5,711         490,547
     Authority
     intelligent
     transportation
     systems
  MNDuluth, Transit            496,258           5,711         490,547
     Authority Transit
     Hub
  MNGreater Minnesota          496,258           5,711         490,547
     transit
     authorities
  MNNorthstar                9,925,165         114,215       9,810,950
     Corridor,
     Intermodal
     Facilities and
     buses
  MNTwin Cities              9,925,165         114,215       9,810,950
     metroplitan buses
     and bus
     facilities
  MOColumbia buses and         496,258           5,711         490,547
     vans
  MOFranklin County            198,503           2,284         196,219
     buses and bus
     facilities
  MOJackson County             496,258           5,711         490,547
     buses and bus
     facilities
  MOKansas City Area         2,481,292          28,554       2,452,738
     Transit Authority
     buses and Troost
     transit center
  MOMissouri statewide       3,473,808          39,975       3,433,833
     bus and bus
     facilities
  MOOATS Transit             1,488,775          17,132       1,471,643
  MOSoutheast Missouri       1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     transportation
     service rural,
     elderly, disabled
     service
  MOSouthwest Missouri         992,517          11,421         981,096
     State University
     park and ride
     facility
  MOSt. Joseph buses           496,258           5,711         490,547
     and vans
  MOSt. Louis, Bi-           1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     state Intermodal
     Center
  MOSt. Louis, buses         1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
  MSHarrison County          2,977,550          34,264       2,943,286
     multimodal center
  MSJackson,                   992,517          11,421         981,096
     maintenance and
     administration
     facility project
  MSNorth Delta              1,191,020          13,706       1,177,314
     planning and
     development
     district, buses
     and bus
     facilities
  MTMissoula urban             595,510           6,853         588,657
     transportation
     district buses
  NCGreensboro               3,314,013          38,136       3,275,877
     multimodal center
  NCGreensboro,              1,488,775          17,132       1,471,643
     Transit Authority
     buses
  NCNorth Carolina           2,473,351          28,462       2,444,889
     statewide buses
     and bus
     facilities
  NDNorth Dakota               992,517          11,421         981,096
     statewide buses
     and bus-related
     facilities
  NHNew Hampshire            2,977,550          34,264       2,943,286
     statewide transit
     systems
  NJNew Jersey Transit       4,962,583          57,107       4,905,476
     alternative fuel
     buses
  NJNew Jersey Transit       1,736,904          19,988       1,716,916
     jitney shuttle
     buses
  NJNewark intermodal        1,637,652          18,845       1,618,807
     and arena access
     improvements
  NJNewark, Morris &         1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Essex Station
     access and buses
  NJSouth Amboy,             1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Regional
     Intermodal
     Transportation
     Initiative
  NMAlbuquerque West         1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
     Side transit
     facility
  NMAlbuquerque, buses       1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
  NMLas Cruces buses           744,387           8,566         735,821
     and bus
     facilities
  NMNorthern New             2,729,421          31,409       2,698,012
     Mexico Transit
     Express/Park and
     Ride buses
  NMSanta Fe, buses          1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
     and bus
     facilities
  NVClark County             2,481,292          28,554       2,452,738
     Regional
     Transportation
     Commission buses
     and bus
     facilities
  NVLake Tahoe CNG             694,762           7,995         686,767
     buses
  NVWashoe County            2,233,162          25,698       2,207,464
     transit
     improvements
  NYBabylon Intermodal       1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Center
  NYBuffalo,                 1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
     Auditorium
     Intermodal Center
  NYDutchess County,           517,101           5,951         511,150
     Loop System buses
  NYIthaca intermodal        1,116,581          12,849       1,103,732
     transportation
     center
  NYIthaca, TCAT bus         1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     technology
     improvements
  NYLong Island, CNG         1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     transit vehicles
     and facilities
     and bus
     replacement
  NYMineola/                 1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Hicksville, LIRR
     intermodal
     centers
  NYNew York City              992,517          11,421         981,096
     Midtown West 38th
     Street ferry
     terminal
  NYNew York, West           1,736,904          19,988       1,716,916
     72nd St.
     Intermodal
     Station
  NYPutnam County,             466,483           5,368         461,115
     vans
  NYRensselaer               5,955,100          68,529       5,886,571
     intermodal bus
     facility
  NYRochester buses            992,517          11,421         981,096
     and bus facility
  NYSyracuse, buses          2,977,550          34,264       2,943,286
  NYUtica Union              2,084,285          23,985       2,060,300
     Station
  NYWestchester County       1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     DOT, articulated
     buses
  NYWestchester                971,674          11,182         960,492
     County, Bee-Line
     transit system
     fareboxes
  NYWestchester                992,517          11,421         981,096
     County, Bee-Line
     transit system
     shuttle buses
  OHCleveland,                 620,323           7,138         613,185
     Triskett Garage
     bus maintenance
     facility
  OHDayton, Multimodal       4,094,131          47,114       4,047,017
     Transportation
     Center
  OHOhio statewide           8,942,823         102,910       8,839,913
     buses and bus
     facilities
  OKOklahoma statewide       4,962,583          57,107       4,905,476
     bus facilities
     and buses
  ORCorvallis buses            297,755           3,426         294,329
     and automated
     passenger
     information
     system
  ORLane County, Bus         4,367,073          50,254       4,316,819
     Rapid Transit,
     buses and
     facilities
  ORLincoln County             248,129           2,855         245,274
     Transit District
     buses
  ORPortland, Tri-Met          645,136           7,424         637,712
     bus maintenance
     facility
  ORPortland, Tri-Met        1,736,904          19,988       1,716,916
     buses
  ORSalem Area Mass            496,258           5,711         490,547
     Transit District
     natural gas buses
  ORSandy buses                 99,252           1,142          98,110
  ORSouth Metro Area           198,503           2,284         196,219
     Rapid Transit
     (SMART)
     maintenance
     facility
  ORSunset Empire              297,755           3,426         294,329
     Transit District
     intermodal
     transit facility
  PAAllegheny County         1,488,775          17,132       1,471,643
     buses
  PAAltoona bus              2,977,550          34,264       2,943,286
     testing
  PAAltoona, Metro             835,699           9,617         826,082
     Transit Authority
     buses and transit
     system
     improvements
  PAArmstrong County-          148,877           1,713         147,164
     Mid-County, bus
     facilities and
     buses
  PABethlehem,                 992,517          11,421         981,096
     intermodal
     facility
  PACambria County,            570,697           6,567         564,130
     bus facilities
     and buses
  PACentre Area              1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Transportation
     Authority buses
  PAChester County,            992,517          11,421         981,096
     Paoli
     Transportation
     Center
  PAErie, Metropolitan         992,517          11,421         981,096
     Transit Authority
     buses
  PAFayette County,          1,260,496          14,505       1,245,991
     intermodal
     facilities and
     buses
  PALackawanna County          595,510           6,853         588,657
     Transit System
     buses
  PALackawanna County,         992,517          11,421         981,096
     intermodal bus
     facility
  PAMid-Mon Valley             248,129           2,855         245,274
     buses and bus
     facilities
  PANorristown,                992,517          11,421         981,096
     parking garage
     (SEPTA)
  PAPhiladelphia,            4,962,583          57,107       4,905,476
     Frankford
     Transportation
     Center
  PAPhiladelphia,            1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Intermodal 30th
     Street Station
  PAReading, BARTA           1,736,904          19,988       1,716,916
     Intermodal
     Transportation
     Facility
  PARobinson, Towne          1,488,775          17,132       1,471,643
     Center Intermodal
     Facility
  PASomerset County            173,690           1,999         171,691
     bus facilities
     and buses
  PATowamencin               1,488,775          17,132       1,471,643
     Township,
     Intermodal Bus
     Transportation
     Center
  PAWashington County          625,285           7,196         618,089
     intermodal
     facilities
  PAWestmoreland               198,503           2,284         196,219
     County,
     Intermodal
     Facility
  PAWilkes-Barre,            1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Intermodal
     Facility
  PAWilliamsport bus         1,191,020          13,706       1,177,314
     facility
  PRSan Juan                   595,510           6,853         588,657
     Intermodal access
  RIProvidence, buses        3,269,350          37,622       3,231,728
     and bus
     maintenance
     facility
  SCCentral Midlands         2,679,795          30,838       2,648,957
     COG/Columbia
     transit system
  SCCharleston Area          1,885,782          21,701       1,864,081
     regional
     transportation
     authority
  SCClemson Area               545,884           6,282         539,602
     Transit buses and
     bus equipment
  SCGreenville transit         496,258           5,711         490,547
     authority
  SCPee Dee buses and          893,265          10,279         882,986
     facilities
  SCSantee-Wateree             397,007           4,569         392,438
     regional
     transportation
     authority
  SCSouth Carolina           1,210,870          13,934       1,196,936
     Statewide Virtual
     Transit
     Enterprise
  SCTransit Management         595,510           6,853         588,657
     of Spartanburg,
     Incorporated
     (SPARTA)
  SDSouth Dakota             1,488,775          17,132       1,471,643
     statewide bus
     facilities and
     buses
  TNSouthern Coalition       3,473,808          39,975       3,433,833
     for Advanced
     Transportation
     (SCAT) (TN, GA,
     FL, AL) electric
     buses
  TXAustin buses             1,736,904          19,988       1,716,916
  TXBeaumont Municipal         992,517          11,421         981,096
     Transit System
     buses and bus
     facilities
  TXBrazos Transit             992,517          11,421         981,096
     Authority buses
     and bus
     facilities
  TXEl Paso Sun Metro          992,517          11,421         981,096
     buses
  TXFort Worth bus           2,481,292          28,554       2,452,738
     replacement
     (including CNG
     vehicles) and
     paratransit
     vehicles
  TXFort Worth               3,076,802          35,407       3,041,395
     intermodal
     transportation
     center
  TXGalveston buses            992,517          11,421         981,096
     and bus
     facilities
  TXTexas statewide          4,962,583          57,107       4,905,476
     small urban and
     rural buses
  UTOgden Intermodal           794,013           9,137         784,876
     Center
  UTSalt Lake City           2,481,292          28,554       2,452,738
     Olympics bus
     facilities
  UTSalt Lake City           2,481,292          28,554       2,452,738
     Olympics regional
     park and ride
     lots
  UTSalt Lake City             496,258           5,711         490,547
     Olympics transit
     bus loan project
  UTUtah Transit             1,488,775          17,132       1,471,643
     Authority,
     intermodal
     facilities
  UTUtah Transit             6,451,358          74,240       6,377,118
     Authority/Park
     City Transit,
     buses
  VAAlexandria, bus            992,517          11,421         981,096
     maintenance
     facility
  VAAlexandria,                992,517          11,421         981,096
     Transit Center
  VADulles Corridor          1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
     Park-and-Ride
     Express Bus
     Program
  VAFair Lakes League          198,503           2,284         196,219
  VALoudoun Transit            992,517          11,421         981,096
     multi-modal
     facility
  VAPotomac and              1,786,530          20,559       1,765,971
     Rappahannock
     Transportation
     Commission fleet
     replacement
  VAPrince William              84,364             971          83,393
     County Agency on
     the Aging bus
     replacement
  VARichmond, GRTC bus       1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     maintenance
     facility
  VARichmond Main            2,332,414          26,840       2,305,574
     Street Station
  VTBurlington               2,679,795          30,838       2,648,957
     multimodal center
  VTChittenden County          794,013           9,137         784,876
     Transportation
     Authority buses
  VTEssex Junction             496,258           5,711         490,547
     multimodal
     station
     rehabilitation
  VTKillington-                248,129           2,855         245,274
     Sherburne
     satellite bus
     facility
  WABremerton                  744,387           8,566         735,821
     multimodal center-
     Sinclair's
     Landing
  WAEverett,                 1,935,407          22,272       1,913,135
     Multimodal
     Transportation
     Center
  WAGrant County,              496,258           5,711         490,547
     Grant Transit
     Authority
  WAGrays Harbor             1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     County, buses and
     equipment
  WAKing Country Metro       1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
     King Street
     Station
  WAKing County Metro        1,488,775          17,132       1,471,643
     Atlantic and
     Central buses
  WAKing County park         1,339,897          15,419       1,324,478
     and ride
     expansion
  WAMount Vernon,            1,736,904          19,988       1,716,916
     buses and bus
     related
     facilities
  WAPierce County              496,258           5,711         490,547
     Transit buses and
     bus facilities
  WASeattle,                 1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     intermodal
     transportation
     terminal
  WASequim, Clallam            992,517          11,421         981,096
     Transit
     multimodal center
  WASnohomish County,        1,240,646          14,277       1,226,369
     Community Transit
     buses, equipment
     and facilities
  WASpokane, HEV buses       1,488,775          17,132       1,471,643
  WATacoma Dome                248,129           2,855         245,274
     Station
  WAVancouver Clark            992,517          11,421         981,096
     County (C-TRAN)
     bus facilities
  WAWashington State         1,985,033          22,843       1,962,190
     DOT combined
     small transit
     system buses and
     bus facilities
  WIMilwaukee County,        5,955,100          68,529       5,886,571
     buses
  WIWisconsin               14,143,361         162,756      13,980,605
     statewide bus
     facilities and
     buses
  WVHuntington              11,910,198         137,058      11,773,140
     intermodal
     facility
  WVParkersburg,             4,466,325          51,397       4,414,928
     intermodal
     transportation
     facility
  WVWest Virginia            4,962,583          57,107       4,905,476
     Statewide
     Intermodal
     Facility and
     buses
                       -------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal         537,348,250       6,183,585     531,164,665
           (initial
           allocations/
           projects
           adjusted)
                       =================================================
        Additional
     Allocations Under
    Public Law 106-113

  AKAnchorage, Alaska        2,481,250           9,500       2,471,750
     2001 Special
     Olympics Winter
     Games buses and
     bus facilities
  CASanta Clarita,             744,375           2,850         741,525
     California bus
     maintenance
     facility
  MNTwin Cities,             1,736,875           6,650       1,730,225
     Minnesota
     metropolitan
     buses and bus
     facilities
  NELincoln, Nebraska          992,500           3,800         988,700
     bus maintenance
     facility
                       -------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal           5,955,000          22,800       5,932,200
                       -------------------------------------------------
          Total            543,303,250       6,206,385     537,096,865
           ALLOCATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH, NATIONAL PROGRAM
                                            [Congressional Earmarks]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Fiscal year 2000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Reduction
                                                                    Conference    Public Law 106-     Revised
                                                                                        113
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hennepin Community Works Program, Hennepin County, MN...........      $1,000,000         $11,509        $988,492
Project ACTION (National Easter Seat Society)...................       3,000,000          34,523       2,965,477
Fuel Cell Bus Program, Palm Springs, CA.........................       1,000,000          11,508         988,492
Advanced Transit Systems and Electric Vehicle Program (CALSTART)       3,250,000          37,400       3,212,600
Santa Barbara Transportation Institute..........................         500,000           5,754         494,246
Zinc-Air Battery Research.......................................       1,000,000          11,508         988,492
Safety and Security (TSI and others)............................       5,450,000  ..............       5,450,000
Ady. Electric Transit Buses/Infrastructure (MBTA, MA)...........       1,500,000          17,261       1,482,739
Intermodal Tech Center (Gloucester, MA).........................       1,500,000          17,261       1,482,739
Transit Technology (Washoe County, NV)..........................       1,250,000          14,384       1,235,616
Electric Vehicle Information Sharing and Technology Transfer             750,000           8,631         741,369
 Program........................................................
Adv. Propulsion Control System (SEPTA)..........................       3,000,000          34,523       2,965,477
Portland, ME Independent Transportation Network.................         500,000           5,754         494,246
International Program...........................................       1,000,000          11,508         988,492
Pittsfield Economic Development Authority, Electric Bus Program.       1,350,000          15,535       1,334,465
Citizens for Modem Transit, Missouri............................         300,000           3,452         296,548
Wheeling, West Virginia mobility study..........................         250:000           2,876         247,124
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total Earmarks............................................      26,600,000         243,396      26,356,614
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Did DOT follow the provisions of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act that no program, project, or activity could be 
reduced by more than 15 percent? Did DOT follow the guidance of OMB 
that: reductions should be taken from the least critical funding 
available to the agency; reductions should be considered from funding 
above the President's request; no reductions should be taken that would 
require reductions-in-force (RIFs); and agencies should make targeted 
recommendations rather than across-the-board funding cuts?
    Answer. The Department complied with the law that no program, 
project, or activity could be reduced by more than 15 percent; and the 
Department followed the OMB guidance on how to apply the reduction. 
Specifically, the Department allocated the reduction so that operating 
programs affecting life and safety, such as Motor Carriers, National 
Highway Traffic Safety, FAA operations and capital, and Coast Guard 
operations were not reduced. The reductions to the remaining programs 
were focused, to the extent possible, on Congressional earmarks that 
were not Administration priorities, and accounts that were funded at 
higher levels than requested by the Administration. The Department's 
appropriations bill contained close to 600 funding earmarks. These 
earmarks were a logical place to absorb part of the reduction. For 
FAA's airport grant program, the reduction of $54.4 million was taken 
in this account since Congress enacted an obligation limitation 
substantially above the Administration's request.

                     BORDERS AND CORRIDORS PROGRAM

    Question. In last year's Transportation Appropriations bill signed 
by the President, Congress earmarked several projects in the Section 
1118-1119 Borders and Corridors program. One of those earmarks was a 
small, but much-needed $1 million project to realign the road serving 
the United States port-of-entry at Columbus, New Mexico. I understand 
that the State of New Mexico Highway and Transportation Department has 
chosen not to apply for these earmarked funds from the Federal Highway 
Administration out of fear that such an application would jeopardize 
the state's ability to receive funding for other projects for which it 
has applied in the 1118-1119 program. It certainly was not my intention 
in earmarking funds for such a small project to prejudice New Mexico's 
ability to receive funding for other critical border-related projects 
in the state.
    Does the Department of Transportation consider whether a state has 
received earmarked funds for a Section 1118-1119 project when deciding 
whether to award funds to the same state for other discretionary 
projects in the Section 1118-1119 program? In other words, are states 
penalized or prejudiced if they receive a congressional earmark, or 
does the Department review each state's projects on their merits and 
with regard to available funds, without considering these earmarks?
    Answer. The Department expects to make the final decisions for 
fiscal year 2000 Borders and Corridors awards in March. Because of the 
limited amount of funding available for this program, the Department 
will base its decisions only on the merit of each project.
    Competition for fiscal year 2000 funds is especially fierce because 
the Department has received requests for far more funding than is 
available. The Department has received approximately 150 applications 
totaling over $2 billion. The fiscal year 2000 budget provides $122 
million for the Borders and Corridors, but congressional earmarking has 
limited the amount of truly discretionary funding to about half of the 
total program. For fiscal year 2001, the Administration has requested 
to double the funding for this program.
                                 ______
                                 

           Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond

                    REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY

    Question. Mr. Secretary, let me bring up a budget specific item. 
You might refer to it as the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority or RABA--
I call it Bond/Chafee. This provision included in TEA-21 is very 
specific. It says that increased revenue to the Highway Trust Fund 
would be distributed equally across all Federal-Aid highway programs 
and recognized that the dedicated tax would be spent for its dedicated 
purposes. Last year your budget proposed diverting some of these 
revenues to other items and Congress rejected it. This year you propose 
to do something similar again. I will tell you now that I will work to 
make certain that diversion of funds from the Bond/Chafee fund do not 
occur.
    But I have to ask you, do you disagree with me on the tremendous 
highway infrastructure improvement needs that exist? I know that some 
of the programs your budget would divert Bond/Chafee funding to already 
receive Highway Trust Fund support. TEA-21 was clear in what received 
funding from the Highway Trust Fund that is supported by gas taxes. If 
these additional items are of such high priority why not propose to 
fund them in a straightforward manner with offsets?
    Answer. The Administration has proposed that a portion of the 
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority be dedicated to programs such as the 
Commercial Drivers License program, expanded passenger rail and the Job 
Access program in order to improve safety, mobility, and economic 
development--all priorities established in TEA-21. DOT agrees with the 
need for highway infrastructure investment, but there is also a need to 
view and invest in all parts of the surface transportation system.

                            AVIATION SAFETY

    Question. Now, let me switch topics briefly. I commend the good 
work of the Department of Transportation where under your leadership 
the Department is aggressively pursuing open skies agreements to 
facilitate increased global trade and U.S. jobs. As you have often 
stated, the first priority in transportation is safety, and all of us 
here support you on this.
    Last year, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 
performed an audit of the FAA to determine if they met international 
standards. It is my understanding that the FAA did very well, and I 
commend you and Administrator Garvey for that. I also understand that 
ICAO is auditing every member country, 185 in total, against these same 
international standards and that some of the countries are not doing as 
well as the FAA.
    Can you please provide for the record how the Department of 
Transportation provides technical regulatory assistance to other 
countries that do not do as well as the FAA in these ICAO audits? I am 
especially interested in countries where we have bilateral airspace 
agreements and how important the Department of Transportation's 
assistance is to ensuring that passengers and goods being transported 
to and from the United States are afforded the same level of safety 
regardless of the air carrier?
    Answer. Since the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program got 
underway last March, we have not received results from many of the 185 
audits. However, when appropriate in the aftermath of these audits, 
ICAO makes available the services of its Technical Cooperation Bureau 
(TCB) to assist nations in developing and implementing plans to remedy 
identified deficiencies to ensure that these nations provide the level 
of safety oversight required by ICAO standards.
    FAA supports TCB efforts and has made significant contributions in 
this arena. In June 1999, FAA completed development of a ``model 
aviation document,'' i.e. a model aviation law, aviation regulations, 
and implementing standards for flight operations and continuing 
airworthiness of aircraft. As a follow-on to this effort, FAA and ICAO, 
in the context of the ICAO TRAINAIR program, will soon complete 
development of inspector and instructor training courses that are based 
on the model aviation document. The model aviation document has been 
made available to ICAO and any ICAO Contracting State that makes a 
request. The courses will be available at the FAA Academy and any other 
ICAO-sanctioned training center. FAA is also involved in several 
collective safety oversight-related assistance projects, in 
collaboration with ICAO, in South America and Asia.
    Resources permitting, FAA also engages, on bilateral bases, in 
cooperative assistance work with individual civil aviation authorities. 
Examples include Venezuela and the People's Republic of China. While 
FAA is interested in raising the safety bar globally, it is 
particularly important that FAA efforts be focused on States that 
either have operators that operate to the U.S. or engage in code-share 
arrangements with U.S. air carriers.
    Question. Last item, also related to aviation safety. I would like 
to inquire about Alaska Airlines Flight 261, but first I would like to 
offer my condolences to the families and friends of the 88 people who 
perished in this tragic accident. This accident involving an MD-80 
series aircraft is very troubling. I've read that the MD-80 has an 
outstanding safety record, in fact one of the best in the industry. It 
has the reputation as a safe, reliable aircraft, and there are more 
than 1,000 of the aircraft being used by 69 airlines around the world. 
Alaska Airlines, which, as I understand it, has a good safety record, 
has pledged its support to the families and friends of those who lost 
their lives on Flight 261. It is my understanding that NTSB, FAA, 
Alaska Airlines, Boeing, pilots and many others are cooperating in the 
investigation, all with the same goal, namely to determine the cause of 
this tragic accident so that it can be prevented in the future. I was 
wondering if you could briefly comment on the MD-80, the Department's 
commitment to safety, and cooperation in accident investigations?
    Answer. The DC-9/MD 80 fleet of some 2,300 aircraft worldwide does 
indeed have an excellent safety record. Alaska Airlines has been flying 
since 1932 and its record has also been excellent.
    The Department is committed to providing full support to the NTSB's 
investigation. The investigation team has made remarkable progress in 
quickly finding the recorders and recovering critical pieces of the 
aircraft's flight control system. The cooperation among all parties 
involved in the investigation has been outstanding, and the Department 
is confident that the Safety Board will determine the probable cause.
    The Department will react quickly to the safety lessons learned 
during the investigation and will take action to assure that this 
tragic event will not be repeated.
                                 ______
                                 

              Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton

                  EUROPEAN UNION'S HUSHKIT REGULATION

    Question. Last year the European Union (EU) adopted a regulation 
banning certain aircraft meeting the highest internationally recognized 
noise standards from flying into Europe after 2002. At that time, I 
strongly objected to the so-called hushkit regulation, arguing that it 
undermined the integrity of the current and future international noise 
standards and had a discriminatory impact on U.S. carriers and 
equipment manufacturers.
    During the appropriations process, I spearheaded a Sense of the 
Senate Resolution encouraging the U.S. Government to take all 
reasonable means to ensure that the regulation was repealed and to file 
an Article 84 action within the International Civil Aviation (ICAO) if 
repeal was not achieved. More than six months have passed, and I 
understand the EU is no closer to repealing the rule. When will you be 
filing the Article 84 action? I am told that such an action is underway 
but has not yet been finalized. Can you give me a date certain by which 
the action will be filed?
    Answer. Led by the State Department's Legal Advisor's office, 
counsel and experts from several agencies collaborated on the United 
States' submission (the ``Memorial'') to ICAO. The action was filed on 
March 14, 2000.

                             SOUND TRANSIT

    Question. What is the current status of negotiations between the 
Federal Transit Administration and Sound Transit regarding a Full 
Funding Grant Agreement? Due to the fact that Sound Transit has been 
rated as one of the top projects in the country, do you see any 
obstacles to a Full Funding Grant Agreement being awarded this year?
    Answer. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is working to 
accommodate Sound Transit's aggressive time frame established for the 
Link Light Rail design-build effort. In January 2000, Sound Transit 
submitted a request for FTA approval of entry of Minimum Operable 
Segment (MOS-1) into Final Design. Approval of Final Design was granted 
on February 15, 2000. FTA and Sound Transit have begun discussions 
regarding a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for MOS-1. The fiscal 
year 2001 budget recommends Sound Transit for an FFGA at the $35 
million level.
    The Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act Conference Report directs FTA to enter into 
FFGAs only when there are no outstanding issues which would have a 
material effect on the estimated cost of the project or on the local 
financial commitment to complete the project under the terms of the 
agreement. To this end, FTA is currently reviewing the technical and 
financial capacity and project cost estimate, and other issues, which 
could potentially affect the timing of an FFGA.

                          FAA CONTRACT TOWERS

    Question. It has come to my attention that the FAA has threatened 
to cut funding to the Contract Tower Program on April 1. As you know, I 
have been a consistent supporter of this program. Cuts would adversely 
affect airports from Olympia to Walla Walla in Washington State. What 
is the current status of this proposal, and what is the justification?
    Answer. The FAA is facing a shortfall in its operating budget this 
year. That is why the Administration has proposed fiscal year 2000 
supplementals with the fiscal year 2001 budget; the supplementals would 
allow the shifting of some costs currently being borne by the 
Operations appropriation. No decisions have been made yet on the 
canceling of contract tower services. Obviously, DOT does not want to 
reduce funding for this program and hopes that Congress will provide 
the supplemental funding to ensure continued operations. The contract 
tower program is assumed to be fully funded in the FAA budget request 
for fiscal year 2001.
                                 ______
                                 

         Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

                IMPROVEMENTS FOR SMALL COLORADO AIRPORTS

    Question. Mr. Secretary, in different parts of Colorado, there are 
airports which have peaks and valleys as far as passenger enplanements 
go. I am concerned because they are usually smaller airports, compared 
to Denver and Colorado Springs, and they may be in need of some 
modernization. Can you tell me what sort of schedule some of the 
smaller airports in Colorado are on for receiving more modern 
facilities, and whether the budget you are proposing will trickle down 
to these airports?
    Answer. All of the airports in Colorado that have commercial 
service are included in the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport 
Systems (NPIAS). This makes them eligible for funding from the Airport 
Improvement Program (AIP). The FAA works with each airport in the NPIAS 
to develop an airport capital improvement plan that describes the 
projects that should compete for AIP funds in a three- to five-year 
time frame. Therefore, FAA is aware of the needs and priorities at 
these airports.
    If the airports have 10,000 or more annual enplanements, they 
receive AIP entitlement funds. Otherwise, the airports compete for 
discretionary funds with other airports of the same size. The AIP has a 
``small airport'' set aside. Funding will depend on availability of 
funds and priorities. The fiscal year 2001 budget, along with the 
increased cap on passenger facility charges, will create a record level 
of federally approved funds for airport development.

                       COLORADO CIVIL AIR PATROL
 
   Question. I would like to take a second to recognize the Colorado 
Civil Air Patrol. They do a wonderful job locating lost aircraft and 
rescuing some people in very challenging situations. I know that they 
are more of a Department of Defense budget item, but do you think more 
funding should be made available to them, and the other Civil Air 
Patrol offices?
    Answer. The Civil Air Patrol provides a valuable service. You are 
correct that it is the Defense Department, and not the Department of 
Transportation, that provides funding for civil air patrols and can 
more appropriately address the issue of funding.

                      NUCLEAR WASTE TRANSPORTATION

    Question. We have been debating the Nuclear Waste bill on the 
Senate floor all week long. I have frequently stated that I am 
concerned about the ability of our mountain railroads and highways to 
safely handle the transportation of this high-level nuclear waste to 
the proposed Yucca Mountain site. What are your thoughts on the 
proposed transportation of high-level nuclear waste, and what steps 
does the Department plan to take, should this bill become law, to 
ensure the safety of those sharing the roads with these shipments?
    Answer. The Department is doing everything it can to ensure the 
continued safe transportation of radioactive materials, including high-
level nuclear waste. It should be noted that the Department of Energy 
is the Federal agency with the lead responsibility in this area.

                  RAIL TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR WASTE

    Question. Under the current bill pending on the Senate floor, the 
Department of Transportation is in charge of the route in which nuclear 
waste is taken to Yucca Mountain. What precautions are going to be 
taken to ensure that railway transportation of nuclear waste is going 
to be safe, since currently there are no restrictions on railway 
transportation? What types of precautions will be taken on steep 
grades, bridges, tunnels, etc.? If an accident does occur on a railway 
passage, do you think there is sufficient infrastructure to cope with 
the emergency situation?
    Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) is the Federal agency with 
the lead responsibility in this area, including both the safe 
transportation and storage of nuclear waste. Since the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA) has regulatory oversight for the safety of 
railroad operations within the United States, FRA contributes to the 
safe transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) \1\ and High-Level 
Radioactive Waste (HLRW) \2\. These materials have been transported 
safely by rail in the United States for more than 40 years. In the mid-
1980s, partly as a result of the rail shipments from the Three Mile 
Island Nuclear Power Plant, FRA implemented its High-Level Nuclear 
Waste Rail Transportation Inspection Policy \3\ for all known rail 
shipments of SNF and HLRW. Under FRA Inspection Policy, there has never 
been a rail accident or incident involving the transportation of SNF or 
HLRW that has resulted in a release of the material from the packaging. 
Furthermore, there has never been a single death or injury resulting 
from a rail shipment of radioactive material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) defines ``spent 
nuclear fuel'' as ``fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor 
following irradiation, the constituent elements of which have not been 
separated by reprocessing.''
    \2\ NWPA defines ``high-level radioactive waste'' as ``(A) the 
highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of spent 
nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing 
and any solid material derived from such liquid waste that contains 
fission products in sufficient concentrations; and (B) other highly 
radioactive material that the Commission, consistent with existing law, 
determines by rule requires permanent isolation.'' The term 
``Commission'' as used in the definition means the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
    \3\ See Appendix A ``Federal Railroad Administration High-Level 
Nuclear Waste Rail Transportation Inspection Policy''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Working with the Department of Energy (DOE), the Association of 
American Railroads (AAR), railroad labor organizations, and 
representatives of affected States, FRA developed the Safety Compliance 
Oversight Plan for Transportation of High-Level Radioactive Waste and 
Spent Nuclear Fuel. It must be emphasized that the SCOP is a living 
document that has evolved from 40 years of accumulated experience 
regarding the safe movement of nuclear materials by rail. FRA will 
continue to work in partnership with the rail community to periodically 
review, evaluate and update the SCOP to keep pace with the latest 
developments and technologies involving the safe transportation of 
nuclear materials. A sound and meaningful safety partnership involving 
all elements of the railroad community is absolutely essential for 
maintaining the highest degree of safety for railroad shipments of SNF 
and HLRW and for maintaining public confidence in our nation's nuclear 
materials transportation program.
    In developing the SCOP, FRA has revised its previous policy to 
include the following safety enhancements in planning, inspection, 
training, and oversight activity areas:
Planning
    FRA, DOE, the offeror or agent, and the rail carriers will consider 
track classification in the route selection process to ensure that the 
highest-rated track is utilized.
    FRA will prepare an accident prediction model for the highway-rail 
grade crossings along the route. FRA will assist DOE in coordinating 
with appropriate state, local, and tribal agencies in route planning 
activities, using this model.
    The Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office of Intelligence and 
Security will assist FRA in coordinating safety precautions, such as 
the identification of ``safe havens,'' with the offeror, law 
enforcement officers, and intelligence communities.
Inspections
    FRA will arrange for a track geometry car to operate over 
designated routes.
    FRA will conduct visual inspections of bridges along the designated 
routes and review railroads' bridge inspection programs to ascertain 
structural integrity.
    FRA will review the rail carrier's rail flaw detection vehicle data 
to ensure that a rail flaw detection vehicle has been operated over the 
designated route, and necessary rail repairs are made prior to 
shipments.
    The SCOP requires that every train involved in the transportation 
of SNF and HLRW be equipped with a 2-way End-of-Train (EOT) braking 
device, regardless of train length. Prior to each shipment, and during 
each crew change point along the route, FRA will endeavor to inspect 
trains to ascertain that EOTs are operational.
    Along a designated route, FRA will inspect all automated warning 
devices, at highway-rail grade crossings along the route, to ascertain 
that they are operational.
Training/Oversight
    FRA will assist DOE, and the offeror or agent, in the development 
of Emergency Response training and safety briefings. FRA will liaison 
with the rail industry to verify that requisite training and briefings 
have been performed.
    Prior to the first shipment, and at least annually for subsequent 
shipments, FRA will review emergency response plans for designated 
routes and recommend modifications, if necessary.
    Prior to the first shipment, and at least annually for subsequent 
shipments, FRA will conduct the necessary reviews to ensure that train 
crews are properly certified, trained, and experienced in operating 
over the designated routes.
    FRA will place Operating Practices personnel in the rail carriers' 
dispatching centers for the first shipment on designated routes, and 
will review dispatching procedures periodically for subsequent 
shipments.
    Prior to the first shipment, and for subsequent shipments, as 
appropriate, FRA will focus on Operation Lifesaver training in 
communities along designated routes.
    FRA will continue to prioritize complaints regarding designated 
routes, and will continue to expedite the investigation and resolution 
of these complaints.
    FRA will ensure that train crew personnel and carrier's emergency 
response personnel receive specific training or briefing concerning the 
nature of the shipment.
    FRA will review the appropriate emergency response plans (offerer, 
carrier and DOE) to ensure that they adequately address the actions to 
be taken in the unlikely event of an accident or incident involving the 
train.
    Railroads are equipped to handle heavy pieces of equipment, such as 
locomotives and other freight cars. Their ``wrecking equipment'' is 
mobile and can be dispatched to a derailment site within a matter of 
hours. It is FRA's position that the railroads have the infrastructure 
to handle a derailment involving a nuclear cask.

                     DENVER--SOUTHEST CORRIDOR LRT

    Question. In the President's budget for fiscal year 2001, the 
Administration states its intention to enter into a Full Funding Grant 
Agreement (FFGA) for the Southeast Corridor in the Denver metropolitan 
area in the next year. Based upon what you know in regards to the 
schedule of the project at this time, when would the negotiations on 
the FFGA begin?
    Answer. The Department expects the Record of Decision for this 
project to be issued in March 2000. Also in March, the grantee plans to 
request FTA approval for entry into Final Design. Following this, FTA 
will begin negotiations on the FFGA. This is expected to begin in the 
early spring of 2000.
    Question. I understand that your people at the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA) have been persistent in pressing for a reliable 
capital cost estimate for the Southeast Corridor project. That is a 
good and prudent thing to do. However, with the state and local match 
in place, the project can spend $63 million in federal dollars in 
fiscal year 2001, but the Administration requested $20 million. Such a 
deferral of federal funding will only delay the project, increase 
interest costs, and ultimately increase construction costs. Could you 
look through the New Starts program and determine whether there could 
be other funds committed to Denver's Southeast Corridor project in 
fiscal year 2001 that could be spent in fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. When developing the recommended fiscal year 2001 budget, 
FTA first recommended funding for the 14 existing FFGAs in accordance 
with the Federal commitment schedule. When developing the recommended 
fiscal year 2001 budget for the new FFGAs, FTA recognized that most, if 
not all properties, would not receive the amount of funds they desired 
or would be optimum for the project in fiscal year 2001. With the 
commitment of fourteen existing FFGAs, there was only $211.7 million 
available in fiscal year 2001 for other projects in the pipeline. In 
fiscal year 2001 seven of the existing FFGAs should be completed 
freeing up more funds for the new FFGAs in fiscal year 2002 and beyond. 
FTA is not aware of any other New Starts funds available for Denver for 
fiscal year 2001.
    Question. Last November, voters in Colorado overwhelmingly 
supported a referendum to financially support the Southeast Corridor 
and other projects. How does this strong showing of support translate 
into making this project more competitive in relation to other 
projects? Also, were there any other cities that have passed a similar 
referendum in the past?
    Answer. Prior to the November referendum, the Regional Transit 
District (RTD) and Colorado Department of Transportation did not have a 
committed source of local funding for the Southeast Corridor project. 
The commercial paper bond revenues authorized by the vote are expected 
to generate $320 million, or over 90 percent of the local funding 
required to implement the project. This new committed funding source 
improved the projects capital plan rating from Low-Medium (reflected in 
the fiscal year 2000 Report on New Starts) to Medium-High. This rating 
is consistent with other projects which are in the latter end of the 
preliminary engineering stage of development and which have a 
significant amount of local funding commitments.
    A few other areas have passed referendums, which provide for 
dedicated and stable revenue sources for fixed guideway transit 
systems, including Seattle (in 1996), San Diego (1987), and Orange 
County, CA (1985).
                                 ______
                                 

           Question Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

                       CIVIL AVIATION--ARGENTINA

    Question. As you know, Newark International Airport has become a 
major international hub to Europe and Latin America. However, New 
Jersey does not have service to a major South American country--
Argentina. It is critically important that New Jersey get access to 
Argentina this year. I know that you have an Argentina route case 
pending before the Department so I will not ask you to predict which 
carrier will get the first frequency. However, I am concerned about 
reports that the government of Argentina may withdraw the new 
frequencies that are currently the subject of your route case because 
of the deteriorating condition of Aerolineas, the Argentine national 
airline. Could you please comment on this issue?
    Answer. The new government is reviewing the open-skies agreement 
with the United States and has indicated that they would like to come 
to Washington in March to hold informal discussions. The Department is 
not prepared to reopen the deal. The Department understands the 
importance to Newark of securing nonstop service to Argentina.
                                 ______
                                 

             Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

                            EMERGENCY RELIEF

    Question. Mr. Secretary, you are very familiar with the Emergency 
Relief program from your experience as Federal Highway Administrator. 
You have flown into many disaster-torn areas to assure the citizens 
that their bridges will be rebuilt and their roads will be repaired. In 
years past, whenever the requirement for emergency relief exceeded $100 
million per year, the Administration proposed an emergency supplemental 
to pay for these grants. This year, you are proposing that almost $400 
million of these costs be absorbed by the core highway program. This 
proposal will result in large amounts of funding being drained away 
from those states that have not had substantial natural disasters in 
order to pay off the applications of those states that have, like 
California, and others. What explains this change in policy on the part 
of the Administration?
    Answer. For any given year, it would be appropriate to request a 
supplemental appropriation when emergency relief needs exceed the $100 
million included in TEA-21. However, what FHWA has seen is that 
emergency relief needs have consistently outpaced the authorized 
funding level. The $398 million of additional contract authority 
reflects the ten-year average of Emergency Relief supplementals, 
excluding Loma Prieta, plus sufficient funds to pay off the current 
balance over three years. The Department reviewed several options for 
addressing the backlog of emergency relief needs, but did not address 
the underlying cause of this crisis. The $100 million authorized for 
emergency relief is clearly not sufficient for the level of need. The 
Emergency Relief Reserve Fund will provide a more long-term solution, 
and will prevent another crisis from developing.
    Question. Aren't many of your pending emergency relief applications 
a result of Hurricane Floyd and Hurricane Dennis? Why is the 
Administration requesting emergency supplemental appropriations in 
other agencies for these disasters but not in your agency?
    Answer. The Department estimates that only about 14 percent of the 
emergency relief backlog can be attributed to Hurricanes Floyd and 
Dennis. It is clear that even if these two events did not occur, there 
would still be a substantial backlog of unmet needs. Although a 
supplemental request would address the immediate needs following these 
two hurricanes, the Department has proposed creating a new Emergency 
Relief Reserve Fund in order to address the long-term emergency relief 
needs of the country.
    Question. Mr. Secretary, the balance of unfunded applications for 
emergency relief has been growing for several years, and the 
Administration has balked at requesting an emergency supplemental 
appropriation to cover them. Can you explain the Administration's 
rationale behind requesting almost $1 billion for assistance to 
Colombia, while leaving the nation's highway emergency needs in the 
cold?
    Answer. The Administration's budget request is not leaving the 
nation's highway emergency needs in the cold. The Department has 
requested $398 million in additional contract authority above and 
beyond the $100 million authorized funding level each year. This 
funding level would be sufficient to cover the current backlog over the 
next three years, and prevent another backlog from developing.
                                 ______
                                 

           Question Submitted by Senator Charles E. Grassley

    Question. As you know, over the past several years, we have been 
working closely with the state attorneys general, led by Tom Miller, to 
address factors that are limiting increased airline competition in 
various parts of the country, including Iowa. We have talked about the 
issues impacting the future of competition. As you have recognized, in 
some cased large air carriers utilize anti-competitive behavior to 
drive new entrants out of the markets.
    Last spring, Mike Hatch, the state attorney general for the state 
of Minnesota, asked the Department of Transportation to investigate 
actions taken by Northwest Airlines to drive Sun Country out of its 
market. In November of last year at a Congressional hearing, Nancy 
McFadden, DOT's General Counsel stated: ``We are concerned about anti-
competitive behavior. Currently, we have two preliminary investigations 
underway brought by AirTran and Sun Country.''
    Unfortunately, DOT has yet to take any action in response to either 
complaint. Please provide this committee with an update on the 
complaints of anti-competitive behavior filed last year by Minnesota 
Attorney General Mike Hatch and AirTran Airways. Also, when will formal 
action be taken on these complaints?
    Answer. Regarding AirTran's complaint, the Department continues to 
conduct extensive analyses of the information AirTran and Delta report 
to the Department, and the Department is considering whether to request 
additional information from Delta.
    Regarding Attorney General Mike Hatch's complaint about how 
Northwest Airlines has responded to Sun Country's entry into several 
Twin Cities markets, the Department requested Northwest's comments on 
his complaint. The comments received from Northwest did not address all 
of the Department's concerns, and the Department has therefore 
continued the informal investigation into the matter. DOT will soon 
have access to information that can be used to further assess 
Northwest's capacity and fare responses to Sun Country. This is 
detailed information that the airlines are required to file with the 
Department, and Sun Country's first report has just become available 
for review.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS


    Senator Shelby. Thank you. The subcommittee stands in 
recess.
    [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., Thursday, February 10, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2001

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2000

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Shelby, Lautenberg, and Murray.

   DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY INITIATIVES--FISCAL YEAR 2001

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                            U.S. Coast Guard

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL JAMES C. CARD, VICE 
            COMMANDANT

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

STATEMENT OF ROSALYN G. MILLMAN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

              Research and Special Programs Administration

STATEMENT OF KELLEY S. COYNER, ADMINISTRATOR

                    Federal Railroad Administration

STATEMENT OF JOLENE MOLITORIS, ADMINISTRATOR

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

    Senator Shelby. The committee will come to order. Good 
morning. The Committee on Transportation will meet today.
    Of the oversight responsibilities that we have on this 
subcommittee, none is more important than safety. Generally, we 
tend to incorporate our safety concerns into program oversight 
and into our review of the Department's management and funding 
issues.
    However, I believe it is very useful, every once in a 
while, to focus exclusively on safety issues as a way to get a 
better sense of what safety considerations are of paramount 
concern to individual safety agencies and to my colleagues on 
this committee.
    I will take this opportunity to express my concern about 
the impact of the proposed aviation firewall on safety programs 
at the Department of Transportation.
    Three of the agencies appearing before us today, the Coast 
Guard, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Research 
and Special Programs Administration, are funded entirely from 
non-firewall discretionary dollars, and more than half of the 
funding for the National Highway Safety Administration, or 
NHTSA, is non-firewall general funds as well. So, each of these 
witnesses has a very real stake in ensuring that discretionary 
funds are kept exactly that way, discretionary. Only by 
maintaining this discretion and flexibility can we respond to 
the priorities expressed in your budget request and through 
those expressed by Congress.
    We have stacked votes starting at 11:30, so I will submit 
the remainder of my statement for the record in order to 
maximize the time we have to discuss the issues with our panel.
    Today we have as witnesses Vice Admiral James C. Card, Vice 
Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard; Ms. Rosalyn Millman, Acting 
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration; Ms. Kelley Coyner, Administrator, Research and 
Special Programs Administration; and Ms. Jolene--is it 
Molitoris?
    Ms. Molitoris. Yes, it is.
    Senator Shelby. Molitoris, Administrator of the Federal 
Railroad Administration.
    They will discuss various safety programs and related 
initiatives in each of the agencies' budget requests. Because 
we have a very limited amount of time and four very different 
agencies represented today, I will ask all the witnesses to 
keep your statements extremely brief. I will put your written 
statement in the record for the staff and other members to read 
and this Senator especially. They will be submitted for the 
record without objection.
    Senator Lautenberg.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

    Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. As usual, they 
say you are on the money when you talk about firewalls, 
segregating some and not others. It would be awfully tough to 
work that way.
    If you will indulge me, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I am 
going to be as brief as you would like me to be because I have, 
as you do I know, two other hearings this day. So, I am going 
to give my statement and I will hop around and I will be back 
to make sure that I support my chairman, my good friend.
    I will miss him when I am not here, as well as all of you. 
This is kind of Lautenberg's last stand at the semi-helm 
anyway.
    Senator Shelby. His last stand. He is heavily armed, 
though.
    Senator Lautenberg. Working with the Coast Guard, I am 
going to single the Coast Guard out and I hope that none of the 
other agencies represented here will feel slighted. I feel just 
as strongly about you, but the Coast Guard has one that has 
gotten a lot of attention lately and I want to focus on that. 
Working with the Coast Guard has been one of the very unique 
privileges of serving in the leadership of this subcommittee.
    While I never failed to be impressed by the heroism and the 
hard work of the people in the Coast Guard, I must admit that I 
am greatly disturbed by what I have been recently reading 
regarding the service's declining state of readiness. Those of 
you who are associated with the Coast Guard, Admiral Card and 
the others, know very well that I have been a strong supporter 
and I continue to be. I respect so much what you do. I often 
mention the array of assignments that you are given without the 
resources in many cases to do them, and you manage to get most 
of them done well.
    But the focus is directed, as this body here requests--and 
I am talking about the U.S. Senate all together. I commend you 
and Admiral Loy, our Commandant, for the very direct and frank 
statements that he has made in recent months regarding the 
unavailability of rescue craft, the severe shortage that he 
faces in adequately trained people, and the great stress this 
situation places on the work force.
    These problems should trouble all of us, but I find them 
especially troubling when I review the causes behind them. One 
of those causes is the very rapid change in the operational 
priority within the Coast Guard, if I may say, directed by the 
Government. And it appears that there are those within the 
Administration, the Congress, the Coast Guard itself that are 
determined to beef up the Coast Guard's role in the war on 
drugs at any cost, even at the cost of the Coast Guard's 
ability to safely execute its most fundamental missions here at 
home.
    Mr. Chairman, at every hearing we have held this year, I 
have emphasized the need for balance when looking at our 
Nation's transportation needs, and nowhere is the need for 
balance more apparent than within the Coast Guard's budget.
    Now, I am not opposed to anything that the Coast Guard is 
doing in the area of drug interdiction. I stand behind each and 
every Coast Guard person who is currently fighting the war on 
drugs in the Caribbean. But I would like to share some figures 
regarding this war on drugs and the toll that it is taking on 
the rest of the Coast Guard. These are not my numbers, Mr. 
Chairman. They come directly from the Coast Guard.
    Beginning in 1995, the year after the huge migration of 
Haitian and Cuban migrants, drug interdiction activities began 
growing at a phenomenal rate. Indeed, since 1995, total 
spending of operational dollars just for drug interdiction has 
increased by over a quarter of a billion dollars, or 89.3 
percent. Cutter hours devoted to drug interdiction have risen 
85 percent, while aircraft hours have increased over 100 
percent. And over the same 5-year period, the Coast Guard's 
operating budget has grown by only 15 percent.
    So, the increased level of effort on drugs had to come from 
somewhere. One critical area that absorbed the cuts was the end 
strength in the Coast Guard. Even as its missions have 
expanded, total employment in the Coast Guard dropped by more 
than 7 percent over this period. Another area that paid the 
price is fisheries enforcement. Funding for fisheries 
enforcement actually declined more than 12 percent over this 
period. Cutter hours dropped 13 percent, while aircraft hours 
fell by more than a third.
    Now, on the subject of aircraft hours, the Commandant's 
recent statements have been so forthright, and I respect him 
for it. Candor, I think, is the best way to approach problems. 
He has only so many aircraft and too many of them are not 
usable because they have been cannibalized for spare parts.
    In a speech this past December, Admiral Loy shared with us 
the unfortunate story about a boater that died in a storm off 
the California coast. When the distress call went in to the 
Coast Guard's air station in Sacramento, they only had one 
aircraft that was ready to deploy. Usually there would be at 
least one backup available to relieve it when it ran short of 
fuel. That station has four C-130 aircraft, but on that day, 
one of them was undergoing maintenance. And where were the 
other two? Well, one had not flown for more than 6 months 
because it had been cannibalized for parts. And what about the 
fourth? Well, it was out of the country doing drug patrols. In 
this case, the only available aircraft circled the distressed 
sailor who was alive but struggling in the terrible weather. 
The outcome was horrible. The sailor was never seen after that, 
and after a 6-day search, all they found was the debris.
    Now, Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard does wondrous things. We 
all admire the courage and the skill of the people who are out 
there in the worst of weather. In the 16 years that I have 
served on this committee, I have never seen the Coast Guard 
priorities get so out of balance. The situation is simply 
unacceptable, and as I look at the Coast Guard budget request 
for fiscal year 2001, I am not at all encouraged. It is true 
that there are some resources included in this budget to 
improve the deteriorated readiness of the Coast Guard. But the 
largest requested growth items in the budget are still for 
expanded and expensive drug interdiction activities.
    I think we have to conduct this fight against drugs. I 
believe that it is a terrible blight on our constituents and 
our communities. But we have to make sure that we have a 
balance in what we are doing.
    The largest increase is to deploy eight additional 
helicopters to the Caribbean exclusively for the drug war with 
specially mounted guns and specially trained crews. And they 
are good at what they do and I am glad that they are there for 
us. But we cannot afford to neglect the other responsibilities 
that we have given to the Coast Guard.
    Mr. Chairman, the senior leadership of Congress, this 
subcommittee, the DOT, and the Coast Guard need to rethink the 
way we are allocating our resources. I support spending 
resources on drug interdiction, but we must first make sure 
that the Coast Guard can fully fund and execute its core 
missions here at home. It is not sufficient to ignore our 
activities here at home on a shoestring just so that we can 
expand our activities in the drug war. It is not fair to our 
recreational, commercial boaters, this maritime system that we 
have created in this country which is second to none. It has 
created this whole, gigantic marine industry as a result of the 
Coast Guard's imprint on how we navigate and how we rescue and 
how we signal. It is a wonderful thing. I know I am a miscreant 
sailor and I can tell you. It is not fair to the members of the 
Coast Guard who are charged with rescue.
    Mr. Chairman, the Vice Commandant is here with us today 
because the Commandant is participating in the announcement of 
the findings of the President's Council on Coast Guard Roles 
and Missions. That council has taken a comprehensive look at 
the Coast Guard's current roles and missions and concluded 
there are not any major Coast Guard missions we can do without. 
Not one of them. The committee, like Congress, does not want 
the Coast Guard to lessen its level of effort in any area. We 
want you to be magicians. That is what it is. If that is the 
case, then we need to think in terms of funding all of the 
Coast Guard's missions adequately. It is simply not acceptable 
to take from one to pay for another.
    Now, in focusing my statement on the Coast Guard this 
morning, I do not want to diminish in any way the important 
contributions made by the other agencies represented here. So, 
forgive me if this was the focus. The work all of you do is 
very important, as well as the people with whom you work. So, I 
welcome all the witnesses here this morning.
    Mr. Chairman, I apologize for taking so long but appreciate 
this opportunity to blow off some steam.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Vice Admiral Card.

                       STATEMENT OF JAMES C. CARD

    Admiral Card. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 
members of the subcommittee. I am Vice Admiral Jim Card, Vice 
Commandant of the Coast Guard, and it is my pleasure to appear 
before you today to discuss the Coast Guard's maritime safety 
mission.
    I want to take a second to thank Senator Lautenberg for his 
support over the years. He has been a great supporter of the 
Coast Guard. He really understands us very well, as we could 
tell from your statement.
    Ensuring the safety of mariners and passengers has always 
been a mainstay mission of the Coast Guard. We are widely 
recognized as an international leader in marine safety and 
search and rescue, and certainly while we have evolved to a 
highly effective multimission service, we have maintained our 
leadership in excellence in the safety arena. For us safety is 
job one.
    Our safety aim is to eliminate deaths, injuries, and 
property damage associated with marine transportation, fishing, 
and recreational boating. We do so by balancing prevention 
programs, response capability, and investigation services. 
Prevention is the key to improving safety in the marine world. 
We focus our activities on areas of greatest risk.
    Because most maritime accidents are the result of human 
error, the Coast Guard is increasingly focused on efforts to 
improve human performance. Our overarching strategy to do so is 
the ``Prevention Through People'' program whose vision is to 
achieve the world's safest, most environmentally sound, and 
cost-effective marine operations by emphasizing the role of 
people in preventing casualties and pollution. Key to this is 
knowing more about how people operate and what causes problems.
    Our 2001 budget requests a modest $400,000 to institute a 
program to capture near-miss and accident data. The system is 
called the International Maritime Information Safety System, 
IMISS, and it holds much promise.
    Another important and successful prevention program put 
together over the past several years has been our Port State 
Control program. We have seen in the last 2 years a great 
reduction in the number of foreign vessels which do not pass 
our Port State Control examination entering our country.
    But when prevention efforts all fail, the Coast Guard 
responds with boats and cutters and aircraft. These search and 
rescue efforts are our most well-known capability, and like 
calling 911, Americans expect someone to respond to their 
distress calls when on the water, and we do so with pride. In 
an average year, the Coast Guard responds to more than 40,000 
emergency calls, saving about 4,000 lives and assisting 80,000 
mariners in need of non-emergency assistance. Often we work in 
partnership with other Government agencies, State and local 
officials, to get this job done.
    In the 2001 budget submission, there are several 
initiatives aimed at restoring our readiness and improving 
maritime safety, prevention, and response capabilities for the 
future. Probably the most important is the Deepwater Capability 
Replacement Project. It is vitally important.
    Our National Distress and Response System Modernization 
Project will improve our ability to quickly find those in 
distress and be able to respond. Ports and Waterways Safety 
Assessments will greatly assist vessel traffic in sorting that 
out. Providing personal protective gear for our crews who are 
on the front line. Focusing on commercial vessel safety. Having 
more people in those surf stations with breaking bars.
    And probably on the operations side, most important is the 
personnel support initiatives to help us restore and maintain 
our work force.
    There are, however, safety challenges we have. Passenger 
vessel safety as it relates to vessel size and speed for 
commuter vessels. And the numbers increase. We always have to 
focus on prevention and response.
    Commercial fishing vessel safety, while we have improved in 
the last 5 years with a 30-percent reduction in deaths, is 
still one of the Nation's most hazardous occupations and one 
that the Coast Guard has little regulatory control over. We 
have to focus on human error, dockside examinations. We have 
operations on each coast, Safe Catch and Safe Return.
    The Marine Transportation System initiative, which we put 
together. Volume will double in this country in marine 
transport in the next 20 years. We have to make sure we are 
ready to take all the safety precautions that we need in that 
area.
    Probably our biggest challenge and the one that the Senator 
has outlined is our people. We have to make sure we have the 
right people, the right training, and the right equipment to 
carry out all these important missions.
    Today, Coast Guard men and women will save 11 lives and 
prevent countless marine accidents. They are dedicated and 
professional and very proud to serve their country. I am 
honored to be one of their leaders. I asked you to honor them 
by fully supporting the President's 2001 budget.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Thank you for this opportunity to discuss this important 
issue with you, and I will be happy to answer your questions.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of James C. Card

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the 
Subcommittee. I am Vice Admiral James Card, Vice Commandant of the 
United States Coast Guard. It is a pleasure to appear before you today 
to discuss the Coast Guard's maritime safety mission and related 
initiatives. Safety permeates most Coast Guard activities, and the 
President's fiscal year 2001 budget requests $973 million, a 6-percent 
increase over fiscal year 2000, for Coast Guard safety programs. This 
testimony, however, focuses on specific safety projects and initiatives 
designed to enhance safety.

              COAST GUARD STRATEGIC GOAL: MARITIME SAFETY

    The Coast Guard adheres to five strategic goals in providing 
service to the American people: Maritime Safety, Maritime Security, 
Protection of Natural Resources, Maritime Mobility, and National 
Defense. Today, we are here to discuss the Coast Guard's role in 
Maritime Safety as it relates to the bigger scheme of Transportation 
Safety. Specifically, our safety aim is to ``eliminate deaths, 
injuries, and property damage associated with maritime transportation, 
fishing, and recreational boating.'' Ensuring the safety of mariners 
has always been a mainstay mission of the Coast Guard. America depends 
on the Coast Guard to provide safe, efficient, and environmentally 
sound waterways for a myriad of commercial and recreational users. 
Competing demands on America's waterways--commerce, national security, 
public health and safety, environmental concerns, recreation, 
fisheries, and more--must be balanced. However, safety is integrally 
linked to all these concerns. Our efforts to achieve the Maritime 
Safety strategic goal are manifested through a systematic, risk-based 
approach that looks at the relative degree of probability versus 
consequences. This systematic approach consists of:
  --Prevention--minimizing the likelihood of a casualty;
  --Response--minimizing the consequences of a casualty; and
  --Investigation--which links lessons learned back to future 
        prevention efforts.
    Our most complex safety challenge is preparing for the low 
probability but very high consequence event.

                               PREVENTION

    Our prevention activities focus on areas of greatest risk, which 
consider both the probability of an incident occurring and the 
resultant consequences. To better assess and respond to risk, we look 
at it through different lenses, such as type of maritime activity or 
type of causal factor. Regardless of activity type, most maritime 
incidents resulting in death, injury, or property damage are the result 
of human error; therefore, Coast Guard efforts will continue to support 
the ``Prevention Through People'' concept.
    The Coast Guard's Prevention Through People (PTP) program is an 
outstanding example of government working with industry to make 
transportation safer. The concept is simple: working together we can 
change the corporate culture and address the majority of accidents, 
which are rooted in human performance. Implementation is not so simple, 
but by working with industry and labor leaders the culture change is 
occurring, both domestically and internationally. To encourage this 
concept, the Coast Guard has entered several partnerships with the 
different segments of the maritime industry.

Recreational Boating Safety
    Recreational boating is second only to highway travel in U.S. 
transportation fatalities. The recreational boating population 
continues to grow rapidly. While recreational boating fatalities have 
decreased over the last three decades, the number of deaths has leveled 
(roughly 800 annually) over the last several years. Again, human error 
is the most common cause of fatal accidents, and failure to use life 
jackets is the most common cause of death following these incidents. 
The Coast Guard coordinates a Federal-State recreational boating 
partnership, consisting largely of administering a Boating Safety Grant 
program. Although recreational boating safety (RBS) is largely a state 
responsibility, failure in RBS directly impacts the Coast Guard: 70 
percent of the Coast Guard's search and rescue (SAR) case load results 
from recreational boating incidents.
    The Coast Guard has three primary initiatives in the area of 
recreational boating safety: enforcement, response, and education. To 
enforce compliance with laws designed to minimize accidents on the 
water, we conduct about 50,000 boardings of recreational boats each 
year. When things do go wrong, we respond to about 40,000 search and 
rescue cases each year. Our major thrust, though, is in the area of 
prevention. To that end, through the dedicated efforts of our Auxiliary 
volunteers, we conduct 150,000 Courtesy Marine Examinations of 
recreational boats each year. Also, we teach boating safety to 250,000 
people each year in formal classes, give over 2,800 safety lectures, 
and operate safety information booths over 6,500 days annually. In 
2000, we are expanding our Courtesy Marine Examination program by 
authorizing members of the United States Power Squadrons to conduct 
these exams under the direction of the Auxiliary, and in the near 
future we will similarly involve some States in this program, in 
coordination with the National Association of State Boating Law 
Administrators. As you can see by these numbers, our civilian 
volunteers play a substantial and vitally important role in enhancing 
the safety of their fellow boaters.

Commercial Vessel Safety
    The largest percentage of maritime worker fatalities occurs in 
commercial fishing, one of the nation's most hazardous occupations and 
an industry over which the Coast Guard has little regulatory authority. 
The Coast Guard is focusing on reducing human error, along with 
enforcement of safety regulations, to reduce accidents in the 
commercial fishing industry.
    In the short term, we will increase our presence on fishing docks 
with the goal of greater interaction on common safety goals of 
fishermen and the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard conducts voluntary 
dockside examinations of commercial fishing vessels in order to ensure 
that all required safety equipment is on board and maintained properly. 
These voluntary exams have proven to be an effective tool in reducing 
risk and loss of life. Our fiscal year 2001 budget requests $0.6 
million to enable us to work with the fishing industry to increase the 
number of fishermen who participate in these safety examinations.
    Other short-term plans will increase local outreach through the 
sharing of best practices and lessons learned from accident 
investigation reports, as well as regional media campaigns designed to 
improve overall community awareness of the causes of vessel losses, 
ways to increase the fishermen's chances of survival, and the positive 
impact of dockside examinations on safety.
    While other commercial vessels (i.e., tankers, freighters, 
towboats) have lower fatality rates than the fishing industry, the 
Coast Guard is working to improve safety aboard these vessels as well.
    Our passenger vessel safety program is carried out through a regime 
of international and domestic safety standards. Compliance programs 
ensure that vessels meet these standards. Development of standards 
began back in the mid-1800s and continues today. It is a continuous 
improvement process of incorporating new technology, lessons learned, 
and knowledge gained from casualty investigations, practical 
experience, and research and development projects. Much of the history 
of the regulation of maritime safety has been reactive: disasters 
followed by legislation. Maritime safety has transitioned from the 
historical ``reactive'' approach to today's proactive, systematic, 
risk-based approach, exemplified by the Passenger Vessel Safety Act of 
1993, which focused on passenger vessels evading inspection through 
charter arrangements. The risk posed by these vessels was recognized 
before casualties occurred, and action was taken to prevent casualties.
    Our standards address both variables in the risk equation: the 
probability that something will go wrong and the resulting consequences 
should it occur. Our approach is to reduce the probability of an 
accident through prevention programs and continual improvement of our 
response capability.
    We are continuing our leadership and participation with the 
International Maritime Organization (IMO) to improve international 
safety standards, especially efforts to increase flag state compliance 
and accountability. Our Port State Control (PSC) initiative has been 
successful in improving compliance and consistency by PSC authorities 
around the world. Of the 7880 foreign-flag ships that arrived in the 
U.S. in 1998, 373 were detained because of their substandard condition. 
In 1999, only 260 foreign flag ships were detained, a 30 percent 
decrease from 1998, and a 52 percent reduction in the last two years, 
representing an increased level of safety in the foreign fleet visiting 
our ports. The number of arriving vessels has remained consistent, and 
we examined a similar number of vessels. Our risk-based matrix appears 
to be successful in screening all arriving vessels to ensure that the 
highest risk vessels are boarded.
Other Prevention Initiatives
    In addition to maintaining about 50,000 aids to navigation on U.S 
waterways, the Coast Guard also operates Vessel Traffic Services in 
major U.S. ports. The Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA) is 
a formal risk assessment process that employs an open dialogue with 
port users in order to identify minimum user requirements and candidate 
ports for Vessel Traffic Services (VTSs). It is a risk-based decision 
making process that relies on user consultation to determine the risk 
drivers and appropriate vessel traffic management measures for 
mitigating that risk. The process requires the participation of 
professional mariners with local expertise in navigation, mobility, and 
port safety, as well as port stakeholders with a vested interest in the 
environmental, public safety, and economic consequences of marine 
activity. Ten ports have completed the PAWSA process. In each case, it 
has been well received by the port community and the agencies that 
regulate the port. From these sessions, we have provided the local port 
with a baseline of risk from which periodic reassessments can be 
conducted, and we have identified safety concerns that need to be 
addressed. Using information gathered during these efforts, we can 
conduct comparative and cost benefit analyses to evaluate solutions 
that meet the needs of the waterway users and are cost effective. As we 
gain more experience in the process, and as supporting guidance and 
other tools evolve, we believe PAWSA will improve to the point where it 
will be usable by any field unit without extensive outside support.
    We see many opportunities to employ new technologies to improve 
safety such as those employed in intelligent transportation systems. 
For example, the Coast Guard and various sectors of the shipping and 
carrier industry are working to finish development of a new navigation 
safety tool called AIS, or Automatic Identification System. AIS will 
give mariners the ability to integrate several different technologies 
to improve their own navigation and their knowledge of other vessels 
around them. AIS incorporates electronic chart systems; the Department 
of Defense's Global Positioning System (GPS); differential GPS, a Coast 
Guard-operated high-precision local correction system for GPS; and a 
radio communications package linking AIS-equipped vessels. AIS will 
significantly improve navigation safety and collision avoidance, saving 
lives and preventing property loss, as well as significantly enhancing 
the protection of the marine environment. Through systems like AIS, we 
can provide the mariner with an array of integrated, accurate, and 
real-time information necessary for safe navigation of America's ports 
and waterways.
    The International Maritime Information Safety System (IMISS) 
initiative is focused on the reduction of marine accidents through a 
voluntary reporting system that captures causal information, and 
lessons learned on maritime near-accident (near-miss) events (e.g., 
near collision situations, near-pollution events, etc.) modeled after 
the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). The Coast Guard, Maritime 
Administration, maritime industry, and recently the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have been working together 
to put IMISS into place. It is also intended to capture related 
precursor events (hazardous situations) and lessons learned (e.g., crew 
fatigue issues, equipment maintenance issues, communication issues, 
etc.) that, but for some corrective action in the chain of events, did 
not result in the occurrence of an accident. The cost savings by 
preventing just one major accident involving a large loss of life or 
damage to the marine environment could be billions of dollars. 
Additionally, if we take this concept and apply it across all of the 
transportation modes and other applicable service industry segments, 
both the physical savings (lives and property saved and reduced damage 
to the environment) and the fiscal savings (private and public dollars 
saved) are higher still. We have an industry-based working group under 
the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) with 
commitments from over 500 individuals and organizations to help us with 
the project. Our fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $0.4 million 
to continue development of this project.

                                RESPONSE

    When prevention efforts fail, the Coast Guard responds with an 
appropriate combination of boats, cutters, and aircraft in order to 
mitigate injuries, property damage, and environmental damage. In order 
for response to work effectively, we must be promptly notified. 
Therefore, we not only focus on improving our search and rescue 
response, but also on increasing the ability of mariners in distress to 
notify us in time to permit a successful response.
    Like calling 911, Americans expect the Coast Guard to respond to 
their calls for help at sea. Our responses include providing some form 
of emergency assistance to approximately 80,000 people, saving 
approximately 4,000 lives from imminent danger. While most maritime 
casualties occur in near-coastal waters, it is certainly not true in 
every case.
    In 1980, the Coast Guard coordinated the rescue of 519 passengers 
and crew from the passenger vessel PRINSENDAM 330 miles from Valdez, 
Alaska. In November 1998, after refueling both in Bermuda and at sea 
aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer, a Coast Guard helicopter crew from 
Elizabeth City, North Carolina, rescued all four crewmembers from the 
42-foot sailboat KAMPESKA in 30-knot winds and 20-foot seas, 
approximately 400 nautical miles off the North Carolina coast.
    In April 1999, crews aboard Coast Guard fixed and rotary wing 
aircraft risked winds up to 50 knots and seas as high as 30 feet to 
rescue two survivors, both experienced ocean sailors, from the 
overturned catamaran ACAPELLA approximately 800 nautical miles east-
northeast of New York. These and other offshore cases are clear 
indicators of the need for a deepwater search and rescue capability. 
Our search and rescue efforts also transcend the bounds of the high 
seas and coastal waters.
    The citizens of Grand Forks, North Dakota may never have considered 
how the Coast Guard touched their lives, but when the swollen Red River 
flooded their city, the Coast Guard was there to assist. And very 
recently, Coast Guard air and boat crews tirelessly rescued over 500 
people, from New Jersey to North Carolina, stranded by devastating 
floods left by Hurricane Floyd. The dedicated professionals of the 
Coast Guard place themselves in harm's way every day while selflessly 
rendering assistance to others in distress.
    Increased expectations not only come from the American public, but 
also from the international maritime community that looks to the Coast 
Guard as a world leader in the international field of search and 
rescue. Maritime commerce and travel are global activities that require 
a global safety system, and a vital aspect of that safety system is an 
effective global search and rescue response capability. The Coast 
Guard, along with some of our international partners in the SAR 
community, are recognized as leaders in developing a family of 
international treaties, such as the International Convention on 
Maritime SAR and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at 
Sea (SOLAS), which help provide a global maritime search and rescue 
capability.
    We are also leaders in helping the IMO establish global SAR plans, 
procedures, techniques, and training. Our efforts are aimed at 
integrating SAR Regions (SRRs) encompassing the globe by working with 
individual countries responsible for their assigned regions. The SRR 
for which the U.S. Coast Guard is responsible encompasses about 50 
percent of the North Atlantic Ocean and over 75 percent of the North 
Pacific Ocean, an area in excess of 28 million square nautical miles. 
Based on this framework, we have established bilateral agreements with 
various countries including Russia, China, Japan, and Mexico. We have 
also recently concluded a trilateral agreement among the United States, 
Canada, and the United Kingdom.
    We have had some particularly noteworthy accomplishments in 
supporting the global SAR system. One of the jewels of our 
International SAR system is the Automated Mutual-assistance Vessel 
Rescue System (AMVER), which in 1998 celebrated 40 years of being a 
vital, real-world, real-time segment of the maritime safety system. 
Endorsed by the IMO, AMVER is a global ship reporting system with 
12,000 ships participating from 143 nations, which constitutes 40 
percent of the world's merchant fleet. On an average day, over 2,700 
ships are on the AMVER ``plot'' that is maintained by the Coast Guard 
and are available to effect any necessary rescue or assistance in their 
transit area. AMVER has established an impressive lifesaving track 
record considering that more than 1,400 lives were saved between 1993 
and 1998. In just one case in 1994, six AMVER ships successfully 
rescued 504 passengers from the Italian cruise liner ACHILLE LAURO, 
ablaze off the coast of Somalia. Though AMVER is administered and 
maintained by the United States Coast Guard, it is indeed a global 
system available as a very powerful and effective lifesaving tool to 
rescue organizations throughout the world. It is an extremely valuable 
component of the overall SAR response posture.
    The Coast Guard is also a primary supporter and the world's largest 
user of the multinational Cospas-Sarsat system. This satellite-based 
system is an extensive network that provides global satellite coverage 
for the detection of distress beacons on land or at sea, detecting 
Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) from ships and 
Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) from aircraft.
    Moreover, the Coast Guard was instrumental in contributing to a new 
International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue (IAMSAR) 
Manual that was recently developed and published by both IMO and the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). For the first time, 
this three-volume set provides consolidated guidance to nations on the 
administration, organization, and execution of search and rescue. It is 
being heralded as a landmark document of international cooperation. We 
are, in fact, adopting the IAMSAR Manual as the National Search and 
Rescue Manual of the United States. Additionally, our personnel are 
working closely with developing nations to help them model their 
maritime services after the U.S. Coast Guard, since their missions are 
more akin to ours than they are to those of a blue water navy.
    Several other initiatives have been undertaken to ``raise the 
safety bar.'' Our fiscal year 2001 budget requests $3.1 million to 
continue worldwide implementation of the Global Maritime Distress and 
Safety System (GMDSS), which will significantly enhance maritime 
communications and maritime safety. We can, for example, for the first 
time broadcast urgent marine information broadcasts, including weather 
warnings, and ensure that every GMDSS ship in our areas of 
responsibility immediately gets the information we broadcast. GMDSS 
includes a redundant capability to ensure that if one device becomes 
inoperable, another component can be used to send a distress alert or 
communicate distress information. Finally, the system is designed to 
include location and identification information in every distress 
alert. Some segments of GMDSS pay very big dividends: in 1997 alone, 
over 540 lives were saved through the use of EPIRBs.
    Another critical safety enhancement is our initiative to re-
capitalize the National Distress and Response System Modernization 
Project (NDRSMP). The Coast Guard is recognized as a world-class rescue 
organization, but we can only be as effective as the system we use to 
monitor distress calls. As proposed, NDRSMP will improve Federal, 
State, and local command and control communications within port areas 
during emergency situations by providing complete VHF radio coverage of 
coastal areas and navigable waterways where commercial and recreational 
traffic exists. The new system will also automatically record and play 
back distress calls, and allow Coast Guard watchstanders to slow them 
down and adjust the quality until the message can be understood. It 
will also determine and preserve an electronic fix when a distress 
signal is received. NDRSMP is a national priority and is an absolute 
must to ensure America's waterways remain safe.

                             INVESTIGATION

    The marine community is incredibly diverse, with a wide array of 
vessel types, sizes, and equipment that varies across a broad range of 
commercial and recreational activities. The Coast Guard is both a 
seagoing Service with substantial experience operating its own vessels 
as well as the primary regulator of the marine industry. Each year, the 
Coast Guard investigates approximately 5,000 marine casualties. Coast 
Guard inspectors and investigators are unmatched in their expertise, 
gained through thousands of daily interactions on the waterfront and 
the ocean with the full spectrum of vessels and marine facilities. This 
expertise gives the Coast Guard a unique ability to focus quickly and 
accurately on the most likely causes of a marine casualty.
    Investigations of casualties provide critical information about the 
safety risks of specific vessel types and operating conditions that 
help the Coast Guard to better target its prevention efforts. The Coast 
Guard has broad and robust technical expertise in naval architecture, 
marine engineering, and salvage, as well as a strong seagoing expertise 
by the very nature of the service. That expertise is necessary to focus 
quickly on potential causal factors which can be extraordinarily 
complex in marine systems. The current process allows the Coast Guard 
to take the lead in investigations it deems most vital in refocusing 
prevention programs. By virtue of its extensive experience with the 
maritime community and its regulatory role, the Coast Guard is the 
agency best able to focus the investigation quickly and efficiently and 
then implement any needed changes to immediately improve marine safety. 
In cases in which an investigation uncovers safety issues that appear 
urgent, the Coast Guard is able to issue safety alerts quickly and 
commence regulatory program changes based on compelling interim 
findings. For example, following the sinking of the amphibious 
passenger vessel MISS MAJESTIC at Hot Springs, Arkansas, in May 1999, 
the first safety alert was issued 5 days after the incident, the second 
13 days after the first alert.

                               CONCLUSION

    In many cases, it is not the breadth but the pace of change that 
challenges us. The growth of international maritime trade will 
inevitably jump sharply in the next twenty years. Some estimates place 
the increase between 200 and 300 percent of current levels. The number 
of U.S. passengers has been steadily increasing over the past decade 
due, in part, to the increased use of high-speed commuter ferries 
traveling at over 40 knots and new passenger ships designed to carry 
5,000 people. This contributes significantly to increased waterways 
use, congestion, and risk. However, we recognize this trend and are 
working to offset the increased risk through our prevention, response, 
and investigative efforts, both internationally and domestically.
    To ensure the viability of a Coast Guard that will meet the 
nation's safety needs in the future, we request your support of our 
fiscal year 2001 budget request, which provides the necessary resources 
to support our work force adequately, especially in light of the stark 
competition to attract and retain quality people in today's economy. 
Coast Guard men and women carry out their duties in a harsh and 
dangerous environment on a daily basis. To ensure the safety of our 
people, we must continue to provide them with modern tools and properly 
maintained equipment so they can carry out their duties in the most 
efficient manner possible.
    Toward that end, the Deepwater project will begin the 
recapitalization of our aging fleet of vessels, aircraft, and C4ISR 
(command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, sensors, 
and reconnaissance) assets with an integrated system that will not only 
fill capability, technology, and logistics gaps, but will also enable 
us to meet the maritime challenges we foresee in the 21st century. The 
Coast Guard's fiscal year 2001 budget requests $42.3 million to 
complete planning and design work prior to initiation of specific 
construction projects.
    Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important issue with 
you today. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

                    STATEMENT OF ROSALYN G. MILLMAN


    Senator Shelby. Ms. Millman.
    Ms. Millman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to 
make my first appearance before the subcommittee and discuss 
critical highway safety issues.
    I also want to express my pleasure at appearing today with 
my colleagues testifying in the one DOT way that we approach 
transportation safety.

              SAFETY MISSION REQUIRES INNOVATION STRATEGY

    The fiscal year 2001 budget estimate for the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration reflects President 
Clinton's and Secretary Slater's highest transportation 
priority: safety. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause 
of death for Americans between 5 and 29 years old and account 
for more than 90 percent of all transportation fatalities.
    Secretary Slater's goal is to reduce by 20 percent the 
number of traffic deaths and injuries from 1996 to 2008. 
Success will have far-reaching national implications in terms 
of lives saved, injuries avoided, and families kept intact.
    NHTSA's missions are to reduce the number, rate, and 
severity of motor vehicle crashes and to enable States and 
local communities to solve their unique traffic safety 
problems. Our safety strategy will succeed or fail, depending 
on our ability to embrace innovation. Business-as-usual 
approaches will not accelerate our drive for safer vehicles and 
roadways. Accomplishing these objectives demands attention to 
both crash avoidance, such as reducing alcohol impaired driving 
and decreasing rollover propensity; and crash worthiness--
better head protection and increased child safety seat usage, 
for example.
    The fiscal year 2001 budget estimate provides the 
resources, more than $499 million, an increase of $133 million 
over the fiscal year 2000 level, for an ambitious program to 
foster a climate of safety innovation through regulatory and 
non-regulatory approaches, new ways of doing business, and 
supporting research and development.

                        FOUR PROGRAM COMPONENTS

    Our successful programs generally have four components: 
partnerships, strong laws, vigorous enforcement, and public 
information and education. Mr. Chairman, my written statement 
provides more details about NHTSA's highway safety improvement 
approach.

                      FISCAL YEAR 2001 INITIATIVES

    In the time remaining, I would like to highlight a few of 
NHTSA's fiscal year 2001 initiatives.
    NHTSA proposes a concerted research program on crash 
protection for older occupants, a supporting research and 
development effort that will provide important information for 
the future of highway safety. Elderly people are much more 
likely to die than younger people in comparable motor vehicle 
crashes. The proposed research, through our National 
Transportation Biomechanics Research Center, will yield more 
accurate injury measurements and thresholds and alternative 
occupant restraint systems that improve protection and 
survivability.

                  NATIONAL ADVANCED DRIVING SIMULATOR

    Also under the umbrella of supporting research and 
development, NHTSA proposes studies using the soon-to-be-
completed National Advanced Driving Simulator. This state-of-
the-art facility with the University of Iowa will enable us to 
examine under controlled conditions such driving behavior 
scenarios as driver fatigue and inattention, skill degradation 
among older drivers, and distraction from the driving task that 
new in-vehicle technologies, such as wireless telephones, may 
cause. Mr. Chairman, completion of NADS would not have been 
possible without the very strong support from this 
subcommittee. We thank you.

                        SAFE PASSAGES FOR YOUTH

    The fiscal year 2001 budget estimates include about $11 
million for NHTSA's proposed initiative, Safe Passages for 
Youth. The 16- and 17-year-olds have the highest rates of fatal 
crash involvement per vehicle mile traveled. New strategies are 
essential helping our young people save their own lives. A 
program using each of the four parts, partnerships with 
organizations that work specifically with teenagers, strong 
laws such as zero tolerance and graduated driver's licenses, 
vigorous enforcement, and public information and education, 
have the best potential for increasing seat belt use, reducing 
under-age drinking and driving and encouraging compliance with 
posted speed limits and discouraging aggressive driving 
behavior.

                    MINORITIES AND RURAL POPULATIONS

    Highway safety in America has improved but not uniformly 
across the country. Minorities, including African Americans and 
Hispanics, and rural populations are over-represented in 
highway crash and injury statistics. Rural residents are about 
25 percent of the U.S. population, but motor vehicle crashes in 
rural areas account for 60 percent of all fatalities.
    Senator Shelby. How do you define rural resident? How is 
that defined?
    Ms. Millman. We use the Census definition.
    Our fiscal year 2001 budget contains a new initiative, 
Target Populations, to help NHTSA hone its traffic safety 
information and education methods to communicate more 
effectively with these groups.

                           ADVANCED AIR BAGS

    No traffic safety issue during my tenure is likely to 
receive more public attention than advanced air bags. Since 
NHTSA announced its November 1996 strategy to improve air bag 
safety, the agency has conducted investigations, issued safety 
advisories to the public, researched injury patterns, and 
consulted with numerous organizations, such as safety advocates 
and manufacturers. The final rule will greatly benefit from 
these activities, and we are committed to issuing the rule in 
accordance with the TEA-21 schedule.

                               CONCLUSION

    Road safety in America has improved greatly since the 
Federal program began in the 1960's. The fiscal year 2001 
budget estimate now before your subcommittee seeks to build on 
our past successes and develop new knowledge and methods to 
overcome the remaining obstacles to the highest level of 
safety.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would be pleased to answer 
any questions.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Rosalyn G. Millman

    Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before the subcommittee, 
along with my colleagues, to discuss important transportation safety 
issues. Testifying together today symbolizes the ONE DOT strategy we 
follow in working together to improve overall transportation safety. I 
am especially pleased to have the opportunity to thank the subcommittee 
for its past support of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's (NHTSA) programs and efforts to provide innovative 
approaches to reducing the number of traffic fatalities and injuries, 
and the costly human and economic consequences of motor vehicle 
crashes. I look forward to working closely with the subcommittee in 
continuing to develop a successful national highway safety program.

                        HIGHWAY FATALITY TRENDS

    Transportation safety is one of this Administration's top 
priorities as we enter the 21st Century. The mandates of the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) clearly place 
NHTSA in the forefront of national highway safety leadership in 
developing and implementing innovative programs. The fiscal year 2001 
budget request of $499.5 million will enable us to meet the greater 
challenges of this role and to build on our solid record of success. We 
are witnessing impressive inroads in solving highway-related fatality 
and injury problems, coming ever closer to our 2008 goal to reduce 
highway-related fatalities and injuries by 20 percent. Our unflagging 
leadership has resulted in the lowest highway traffic fatality rate on 
record, a low of 1.6 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. 
In 1998, traffic injuries were down by 156,000 from 1997. Alcohol-
related highway deaths are at a historic low of 38 percent. Seat belt 
use is at an all-time high of 70 percent. And, Mr. Chairman, from 1975 
to 1998, NHTSA programs related to restraint use, motorcycle helmet use 
and underage drinking laws have accounted for 155,000 lives saved.
    Yet, much remains to be done. Reaching our 2008 goals requires more 
creative approaches to on-going and newly identified traffic safety 
problems, resulting from new technologies, expanding demographics, and 
changing driving behavioral patterns. To meet these increasing 
challenges, we plan to more creatively design integrated approaches to 
traffic safety issues and introduce several innovative programs, 
developed to address some of the most conspicuous and critical highway 
safety issues.

                            CRASH AVOIDANCE

    Improving crash avoidance capabilities of motor vehicles is 
paramount in reducing vehicle-related injuries and deaths. Our Crash 
Avoidance and Driver Vehicle Performance initiative will study the 
underlying principles of crash prevention; examine advanced 
technologies to improve vehicle handling and stability; and conduct 
laboratory testing to assess vehicle rollover potential, especially 
that of sport utility and other high center of gravity vehicles. In 
addition, these crash avoidance activities will address questions 
concerning driver inattention and distraction; elderly driver safety, 
mobility, and driving challenges; and the tradeoffs between fitness to 
drive and mobility.
    New technologies such as Automatic Collision Notification (ACN) 
systems have already been the subject of NHTSA operational field 
testing, through the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative program. This 
cross-cutting initiative involves other research programs as well, 
coordinating our efforts to obtain the best results for our investment. 
We are proposing to link the Special Crash Investigations program with 
an industry partner to perform in-depth investigations of crashes 
involving vehicles with ACN systems. Our program is also developing 
improved research methods for injury-prediction algorithms to enhance 
emergency medical system capabilities, thus enhancing ACN system value. 
We will complete research and development of an easily installed ACN 
system and evaluate the system cost in relation to its effectiveness in 
saving lives and in reducing time for rehabilitation and recovery.

                          HEAVY VEHICLE SAFETY

    The Secretary of Transportation has placed a great deal of emphasis 
on improving heavy truck safety and has set an aggressive goal of 
reducing the number of truck-related fatalities by 50 percent in 10 
years. Meeting this goal will require a concerted, multi-disciplinary 
effort by many parts of the Department. In support of that goal, NHTSA 
is proposing several initiatives for research to improve braking 
performance, use of disc brakes on tractors and trailers, use of 
adaptive suspensions to counteract incipient rollover and Event Data 
Recorder (EDR) research to capture information prior to and during 
crashes. This research will provide us with a clear understanding of 
crash causation and help to develop suitable countermeasures.

                       IMPAIRED DRIVING PROGRAMS

    Although alcohol-related highway fatality statistics have been 
notably reduced, dropping to a record low of 38 percent in 1998, more 
effort is required to reach our goal of 30 percent, or 11,000 by 2005. 
Our programs propose more aggressive use of NHTSA partnerships and the 
strategies identified through the Partners in Progress: An Impaired 
Driving Guide for Action program. Our focus is on developing, testing, 
and evaluating messages in a new major public education program aimed 
at the three highest risk groups: 21-34 year-olds; repeat and high 
blood alcohol content (BAC) offenders; and underage drinkers, including 
college students. Notable examples are: (1) the fiscal year 1999 five-
year campaign, You Drink & Drive. You Lose. program which focuses on 
re-energizing state and community efforts to deter impaired driving; 
promoting public information and education; media campaigns; technical 
program support; new research; and community support; (2) the Drugs, 
Driving and Youth program, involving judges, prosecutors, and law 
enforcement, with a new emphasis to include juvenile judges at the 
community level; and (3) the new fiscal year 2001 initiative, Safe 
Passages for Youth, targeting teens and youth, using science 
curriculum, teen courts, peer-to-peer programs, parent and teen 
outreach, and public service announcements. State and local enforcement 
agencies will be awarded grants to increase youth compliance with 
underage drinking, zero tolerance, seat belt use, and speeding/
aggressive driving laws.
    Innovative research programs are designed to provide direct support 
in reaching our goals to reduce alcohol-impaired casualties. When the 
National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) becomes operational this 
summer, we will for the first time, be able to replicate and study the 
relationship between BAC and the likelihood of crash involvement under 
demanding driving conditions without putting drivers at undue risk. The 
results of these studies will have a profound effect in promoting 
alcohol and drug safety initiatives, including supporting research 
findings to strengthen drunk driving legislation and providing 
compelling educational materials to youth groups.
    Our strong support of the Presidential Initiative for Making .08 
BAC the National Legal Limit continues, substantiated by studies 
clearly showing that virtually all drivers are impaired at .08 BAC in 
such critical driving tasks as braking, steering, inattention, and 
judgment. Moreover, the risk of being involved in a single vehicle 
crash increases substantially at the .08 BAC level. The startling 
findings of one study show this risk is 11 times greater for a driver 
at the .08 BAC level than for a driver who is sober.

                      SPEED AND AGGRESSIVE DRIVING

    NHTSA is responding to increasing public demand for measures to 
deter aggressive driving. Judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and law 
enforcement officers have joined with us to develop a National Action 
Plan on enforcement strategies, prosecutorial options, and sentencing 
considerations. Several projects using advanced technologies are 
underway. The new fiscal year 2001 initiative, Safe Roads America: An 
Initiative to Reduce High Risk and Aggressive Driving, is part of a ONE 
DOT intermodal initiative that provides statewide enforcement 
demonstration grants that target selected high risk driving behaviors, 
such as unsafe lane changes, red light running, unsafe railroad 
crossings, and passing school buses. This initiative will be combined 
with a high profile media and educational campaign, focusing on high 
crash risk behavior.

                          AIR BAG INITIATIVES

    Since 1986, air bags have saved over 5,000 lives. To meet 
increasing highway safety challenges, we are committed to improving air 
bag safety as part of a strong occupant protection program. Air bag 
issues have crosscutting program implications throughout the agency. As 
a means to improve air bag effectiveness and safety, we are working 
toward issuing a final rule on air bag safety by March 1, 2000, the 
date specified by TEA-21. In response to public concerns, our staff is 
compiling information received through the Rulemaking process and has 
met with consumer protection and various traffic safety interest 
groups, including those from the insurance, automobile, and air bag 
manufacturing industries, to gain their perspective on this critical 
safety issue. We have also conducted nearly fifty crash tests of 
passenger vehicles at our Vehicle Research and Test Center, to research 
air bag safety issues. The goal of the process is to enhance the 
benefits and minimize the risks of air bags. In support of air bag 
initiatives, we will be purchasing a new family of adult and child 
crash test dummies for use in Vehicle Safety Compliance testing for the 
enhanced dynamic performance requirements of advanced air bags. These 
dummies will be used for applying the new injury criteria for occupant 
protection and developing compliance test procedures.
    NHTSA's research program is investing in innovative advanced air 
bag safety research. The Crashworthiness Safety Systems program will 
use EDR research to collect air bag deployment data from crash sensing 
and recording devices installed in crashed vehicles. Likewise, we will 
conduct research on adaptive air bags and sensing devices that could be 
used to provide pre-crash information to tailor the inflation level of 
air bags to provide optimal protection. The Special Crash 
Investigations program will investigate the performance of new air bag 
systems as they emerge in crashes. Our National Transportation 
Biomechanics Research Center is involved in research to address 
pediatric and small female injury criteria associated with interaction 
of air bags with out of position occupants, and is accelerating its 
efforts to understand complex injuries resulting from multi-directional 
air bag deployment. The National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) is 
investing in new initiatives which will include data collection on side 
and frontal advanced air bag performance and automatic air bag shut off 
systems, providing detailed information on real world crashes. In 
addition, we are developing expanded programs on air bag education to 
promote awareness of air bag issues. As with all other aspects of motor 
vehicle manufacturing, design and performance, the agency will continue 
to aggressively pursue enforcement actions against those manufacturers 
whose air bags do not conform to the agency's safety standards or 
contain a safety-related defect.

                               SEAT BELTS

    This year, 33 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 
qualified for a share of $54.6 million in incentive grants for 
increased levels of seat belt use. Much of the credit for these 
successes is due to our Buckle-Up America Campaign, an inter-modal 
undertaking supporting the Presidential Initiative for Increasing 
Safety Belt Use Nationwide. Emphasis is on enhanced public education 
programs; high visibility enforcement; building public partnerships; 
and encouraging states to enact strong occupant protection legislation. 
We are increasing national support through such programs as the 
Operation ABC Mobilization: America Buckles-up Children and our 
partnership with the Air Bag and Seat Belt Safety Campaign.
    In support of these programs, NASS is launching a three-year child 
safety seat study initiative to develop new estimates of the real world 
effectiveness of child safety seats in reducing and preventing child 
injuries in crashes. Researchers will monitor police and other 
emergency frequencies to allow them immediate response to the crash and 
the opportunity for gathering the highly perishable data on-scene. In 
addition, our Crashworthiness program is investigating occupant 
compartment safety improvements, including inflatable seat belt 
systems, and the National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center 
is proposing new initiatives for investigating the redesign of 
restraints to more realistically accommodate the needs of elderly 
drivers and passengers.

                           TARGET POPULATIONS

    A fiscal year 2001 comprehensive Target Populations initiative will 
be implemented to develop innovative, culturally and linguistically 
appropriate materials; conduct culturally relevant media campaigns on 
occupant safety and impaired driving, and enlist national minority and 
rural organization partnerships. Our fiscal year 2001 program will 
continue to focus on those hard to reach African American and Hispanic 
populations. The program will develop additional creative approaches to 
include Native American, Asian-Pacific Islanders, and rural 
populations. Creative approaches to supporting the Secretary's 
diversity program are expected to bolster data collection, research, 
and evaluation to determine the reasons for, and develop and evaluate 
innovative methods to combat the over representation of minority groups 
in traffic crashes and its casualties. Supporting this initiative, the 
President has directed special funding toward developing, improving, 
and implementing traffic safety programs in Indian Country.

                            CRASHWORTHINESS

    We are initiating efforts to improve occupant protection through 
using advanced vehicle technology to improve vehicle compatibility and 
develop crash testing methodologies. These efforts will focus on ways 
to enhance occupant protection through providing vehicle structure and 
interior compartment design improvements, combined with improved 
occupant restraint systems. Obtaining the desired results requires 
research and analysis of real world crash experience; development of 
crash test procedures that reproduce the crash event; evaluation of the 
likelihood of injury from crash test measurements; development and 
evaluation of vehicle countermeasures and their costs; and estimates of 
safety benefits achieved. The program is actively seeking methods for 
international harmonization in frontal offset and side impact crashes, 
vehicle compatibility, intelligent technologies, biomechanics and 
pedestrian research. Combining research efforts on advanced restraint 
systems with research on pre-crash radar and other sensing technologies 
to determine crash severities could be used to tailor air bag 
deployment to safely cushion vehicle occupants in crashes.
    Advanced technology research will be conducted on deployable energy 
absorbing structures; changing geometries of light trucks and vans 
(LTVs) through dynamic suspension systems to lower ride height; and 
advanced materials to minimize weight difference between LTVs and 
passenger cars. While this research is proceeding, we will continue to 
conduct extensive compliance testing to assure compliance of existing 
vehicles with our crashworthiness standards.

          NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION BIOMECHANICS RESEARCH CENTER

    The National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center continues 
innovative crash test dummy research development activities. These 
activities will provide enhanced test devices and support efforts to 
develop dummies for regulatory purposes. Specific emphasis is on 
expanding and extending the technology developed for the advanced 
frontal 50th percentile male dummy to sizes from the 12-month-old child 
through the 3- and 6-year-old child, to the 5th percentile female and 
95th percentile male, to support our crashworthiness programs. We will 
continue our efforts to simulate the human as realistically as possible 
in the automotive crash environment in order to mathematically predict 
occupant-vehicle interaction and the resulting injuries, and how to 
reduce that potential with automotive restraints and structures. Study 
emphasis is placed on high risk anatomy such as the skull, brain, neck, 
chest, and legs. We plan to actively participate in the International 
Harmonized Research Agenda efforts to generalize global understanding 
of biomechanics and to seek a unified technical opinion on dummy 
technology and crash injury measures and associated injury risk. NHTSA 
continues to promote university-based impact injury research involving 
the combined talents of physicians, engineers, and anatomists to 
develop definitive injury criteria for major body regions that are 
vulnerable to crashes. We are expanding our Crash Injury Research and 
Engineering Network (CIREN) to eight trauma centers and are continuing 
hospital-based, multi-disciplinary, crash injury studies that identify 
and analyze critical safety issues and accelerate identification of 
emerging crash safety issues. Additionally, we support efforts to 
develop and enhance understanding of complex injury mechanisms 
associated with air bag deployments and the technologies to improve 
them.
    Special emphasis will be placed on crash protection for the 
elderly. The need for this research has been reinforced by findings 
from the CIREN program, indicating that crash injuries sustained by the 
elderly are more severe, lead more often to long hospital stays, and 
result in higher mortality rates than identical injuries sustained by 
younger crash victims. Injury threshold levels for protection of 
various body parts will be developed, and measures to achieve crash 
protection for those levels will be developed and evaluated, using 
advanced dummy test devices. This research will allow designers to 
create restraint systems that distribute loading in ways that enhance 
safety. The proposed comprehensive research initiative will also result 
in augmenting biomechanical knowledge of all sizes of the human body.

              NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATISTICS AND ANALYSIS

    In fiscal year 2001, the National Center for Statistics and 
Analysis will expand its special crash investigations, especially those 
involving air bag-related child and adult fatalities. NASS will 
undertake new initiatives to increase crash investigations of vehicles 
that incorporate side and frontal advanced air bags, advanced sensing 
systems, automatic air bag shut-off systems, and automatic crash data 
collection systems. Research will include light truck aggressivity 
studies; a 3-year, on-scene, child safety seat study; and new field 
data collection technologies. We will decrease the time lapse between 
case investigation and public availability of data. Moreover, we 
propose to increase crash investigation data quality and completeness, 
promote improved collection and use of data from on-board crash event 
data recorders, and continue planning, researching, developing, and 
testing of new field data collection technology. Data are integral to 
state and local efforts in improving highway traffic safety. We will 
continue to expand, obtain, document, and make state crash data files 
available for analysis. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 
will broaden information availability through electronic media such as 
the Internet and CD ROM; link the FARS data with other national data 
bases and with state data files; and establish electronic links between 
FARS analysts and their sources, such as hospitals, coroners, medical 
examiners, and police jurisdictions, to increase the quantity and 
enhance the quality of drug and alcohol-related information.

               NATIONAL ADVANCED DRIVING SIMULATOR (NADS)

    The National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) is a world-class 
driving research tool that will provide a safe method for conducting 
research on driver performance and behavior during precrash events. It 
allows safe development of effective countermeasures to driver error. 
NADS is scheduled to be operational this summer. This technology will 
provide us with a real world view of driving, including driver response 
in normal and emergency situations, and it will provide essential 
information on driver reaction and error in driving situations, 
alcohol- and drug-influenced driving behavior, effects of aging on 
driving capability, and how roadway designs affect driver performance.

                   NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (NCAP)

    The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) is dedicated to providing new 
car buyers with crash test information in an easily understandable 
format. NHTSA is expanding this program to give the public more 
meaningful and accessible information on vehicle safety. These 
initiatives not only involve determining how well a vehicle performs to 
avoid crashes, but also its performance during a crash. Our plan is to 
test enough vehicles to be able to provide frontal and side impact 
information on 80-90 percent of new vehicles. We will also conduct 
approximately 10-15 tests with the small stature dummy in the driver 
and passenger seating positions to assess the safety potential of 
vehicles for the small stature segment of the population. These results 
will be used to provide information to small stature adults who are at 
greater risk in high speed frontal crashes. To provide more information 
to consumers to help make informed purchasing decisions, we will also 
provide stopping distance and headlighting information on an array of 
NCAP vehicles.

                        SAFE/LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

    The Safe/Livable Communities initiative seeks to improve the 
quality of community life through integrating enhanced safety, 
mobility, and access to services into the transportation programs of 
all modes. Currently, 11 community outreach forums are being conducted 
across the country. As a follow-up to these Forums, and building upon 
our experience with over 750 existing community programs, this new 
initiative will provide coordinated multi-modal technical assistance 
and materials. NHTSA will catalog all multi-agency community-based 
initiatives; provide community-based training programs; develop and 
distribute ONE DOT materials; and expand partnerships to include non-
traditional, multi-cultural partners. It will provide the Department 
with a single-point coordinator for meeting its safety, mobility, and 
environmental performance goals, including reducing highway-related 
fatalities; reducing the rate of rail-grade crossing crashes and 
railway trespass-related injuries; enhancing boat safety; protecting 
vulnerable groups, such as the disabled, the elderly, and children; 
reducing traffic congestion; and increasing transit, pedestrian, and 
bicycle travel.

                   SAFE MOBILITY FOR AN AGING AMERICA

    This is a new research and educational program that directly 
addresses the nation's rapidly changing driver demographics. It 
examines an aging driver population; conducts research into crashes 
involving older drivers; and develops and tests an older driver 
communications strategy through campaign materials and training. The 
program focuses on the significant knowledge gaps in developing 
strategies for creating and providing educational materials. This is a 
ONE DOT effort, with NHTSA collaborating with FHWA in developing 
electronically-based training courses for engineers to implement 
roadway designs that will accommodate older driver's needs. The program 
will concentrate on researching licensing and regulatory actions, 
assessment tools, effects and limits of rehabilitation programs, the 
impact of specific age-related diseases, existing geometric design 
guidelines, and crash protection for the elderly.

                     HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

    The Highway Traffic Safety Grants program includes Section 402 
State and Community Grants to support performance-based highway safety 
programs in every state, territory, and the Indian Nations for the 
purpose of reducing highway crashes, deaths, and injuries. The program 
supports national priority programs such as encouraging proper use of 
occupant protection devices, reducing alcohol and drug-impaired 
driving, reducing motorcycle crashes, and improving emergency medical 
services and trauma care systems. This program is a major influence in 
meeting the Secretary's goals of 90 percent safety belt use by 2005 and 
reducing alcohol-related fatalities to 11,000 by 2005, as well as 
reducing traffic fatalities and injuries. The Section 405 Occupant 
Protection and Incentive Grant Program provides grants that will 
encourage states to pass stronger laws and implement effective measures 
to increase safety belt and child safety seat use. The Section 2003 (b) 
Child Passenger Protection Education Grant Program encourages states to 
implement child passenger protection programs designed to prevent 
deaths and injuries to children, educate the public and train safety 
professionals on the proper use of child restraints. The Section 410 
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program 
encourages states to pass stronger laws and implement effective 
measures to reduce safety problems stemming from driving while impaired 
by alcohol. This supports the Secretary's Partners In Progress 
Initiative to reduce alcohol-impaired driving fatalities to 11,000 by 
the year 2005. The Section 411 State Highway Safety Data Improvement 
Incentive Grant Program encourages states to implement effective 
programs to improve state data that is needed to identify priorities 
for national, state, and local highway safety programs, including a 
traffic records coordinating committee and a strategic plan.

                               CONCLUSION

    Mr. Chairman, we are optimistic about the future impact of our 
programs, and the dedicated partnerships we have made in promoting 
safety for all who travel on the nation's highways. Our fiscal year 
2001 program reflects our commitment to creative and innovative 
strategies for reducing the tragic toll of highway crashes and their 
related social and economic costs.

                     STATEMENT OF KELLEY S. COYNER

    Senator Shelby. Ms. Coyner.
    Ms. Coyner. Thank you, Chairman Shelby, Senator Lautenberg, 
and Senator Murray, for the opportunity to appear before your 
committee to address our key commitment: safety. My name is 
Kelley Coyner. I am the Administrator of the Research and 
Special Programs Administration.
    RSPA is requesting $99 million in fiscal year 2001 for our 
programs which have the key objective of preventing harm to 
human life and the environment. These activities focus on three 
principal areas: pipeline safety, hazardous materials safety, 
and research and technology programs.
    We were reminded in the past year of the importance of 
pipeline safety when a pipeline explosion in Bellingham, 
Washington resulted in the deaths of three children and changed 
that small community forever. This incident has given added 
emphasis to our efforts to create and enforce regulations, to 
secure the safe operation of pipelines, with a particular 
emphasis on the four major causes of pipeline failure. We are 
actively addressing each of these causes: outside force damage, 
corrosion, human error, and material defects. We have requested 
a total of $47 million, more than a 28-percent increase over 
this year's level for pipeline safety.
    In particular, we have requested $5 million, the amount 
authorized by Congress in TEA-21, for damage prevention grants. 
Outside force damage continues to be the leading cause of 
disruption to pipelines and other underground utilities.
    We have a research effort underway to improve internal 
inspection technology to locate existing mechanical damage and 
detect this damage as it occurs.
    Another leading cause of pipeline failure is corrosion. We 
have a rulemaking designed to make our current regulations 
clearer and more effective. Over the course of the next several 
months, we will publish proposed regulations to strengthen 
these standards, and we will also require periodic testing of 
these lines.
    To address human error, another cause of pipeline failure, 
we have begun working with operators individually and in 
workshops to implement our new operator qualification rule, and 
we are checking on their progress through our standard 
inspections.
    Finally, to address material defects, we have a research 
effort underway to analyze plastic pipe performance and the 
adequacy of our regulations in this area.
    For fiscal year 2001, we are also requesting $23.6 million 
for pipeline safety grants. This funding is necessary to 
strengthen our State partners' abilities to carry out their 
responsibilities to the fullest and to meet the increasing 
demand for inspection activities and to improve our research 
and development efforts.
    In the United States, more than 3 billion tons of regulated 
hazardous materials are transported each year, and over 800,000 
shipments of hazardous materials are handled daily, a dramatic 
increase over past levels of transportation in the hazardous 
materials area.
    In order to improve safety and better protect people and 
the environment, RSPA has published a rule to revise the 
registration fee structure to support the hazardous materials 
emergency preparedness grants program. State and local 
governments use these grants to conduct emergency response 
planning and training activities to protect communities in the 
event of a hazardous materials incident. This increased 
funding, supplied by the registration fee structure, will 
ensure that a larger segment of the response community will 
receive critical initial and recurrent training at all levels 
and will enable them to more effectively protect people and 
property that could be endangered by accidents involving 
hazardous materials.
    In addition to the pipeline safety programs and the 
hazardous materials programs, our research and technology 
program is important to safety as well. This year the 
Department has requested $3 million in its budget to allow RSPA 
to begin a DOT-wide initiative that will allow all modes of 
transportation to better combat human error caused by fatigue. 
The goal of this effort will develop the knowledge base, 
strategy, tools and technologies to forecast and detect 
fatigue-compromised operators and to proactively manage 
fatigue. Our goal is to restore alertness and safety and to 
train operators to recognize and respond to potential hazards 
in this area.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    President Clinton and Secretary Slater have made 
transportation safety their highest priority, and RSPA is 
committed to protecting and increasing the safety of people and 
the environment in relation to our areas of responsibility. By 
working together with State partners, industry, local 
communities, emergency responders, and the technology 
community, we can continue to make our Nation's communities 
safe and liveable.
    Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions 
you may have.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Kelley S. Coyner

    Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name 
is Kelley Coyner, and I am the Administrator for the Research and 
Special Programs Administration (RSPA). I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak to the Subcommittee on our efforts to address our number one-
priority--safety.
    To support our enhanced programs and new initiatives RSPA is 
requesting $99 million in fiscal year 2001, an increase of $16 million 
over fiscal year 2000. These investments are necessary to protect 
lives, to create a well-educated population and workforce, and to 
strengthen partnerships among government, industry and academia to meet 
our challenges today and our goals for the future.
    As communities have expanded and populations have grown, so has the 
risk of transportation-related incidents. To combat this risk, last 
year, the Vice President launched a new effort to make communities more 
livable. We have been especially challenged with keeping our 
communities and families safe from the unintentional release of 
hazardous materials from pipelines and other modes of transportation 
and directing the safe transportation of relief efforts into areas 
struck by natural disasters.

                            PIPELINE SAFETY

    The challenge of maintaining the safety of pipelines grows each day 
as our nation's economic prosperity increases and an increase in new 
construction in our communities brings pipelines and people closer 
together. There are four major causes of pipeline failure, and we are 
actively are addressing each of them: (1) outside force damage, (2) 
corrosion, (3) human error, and (4) material defects. We have underway 
important initiatives to protect people and the environment and, in the 
event of a failure, accelerate response to minimize damage. We have 
requested a total of $47 million, more than 28 percent above this 
year's level, for the pipeline safety program.

                          OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE

    Most American's homes are connected to the vast underground web of 
pipes and wires. State-based one-call systems, which enable contractors 
to obtain information about where pipelines exist and avoid them while 
digging or excavating, have been effective in avoiding outside force 
damage. However, this damage continues to be the leading cause of 
disruption of pipelines and other underground utilities.
    The Secretary has challenged RSPA, the private sector and local 
communities to collectively reduce excavation-related pipeline 
incidents by 25 percent over the next three years. To reach this goal, 
we have received $1 million in fiscal year 2000 and requested $5 
million in fiscal year 2001, the amount authorized by Congress in the 
Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21), for damage 
prevention grants. We have a research effort underway to improve 
internal pipeline inspection technology to locate existing mechanical 
damage and to detect this damage as it occurs. We also are requiring 
pipeline companies to have public education programs in place to ensure 
that people are aware of the pipelines in their communities and have 
information about pipeline companies' safety records. We also are 
identifying what should be included in these communications plans and 
assessing their effectiveness.

                          PREVENTING CORROSION

    The other leading cause of pipeline failure is corrosion. While 
statistical analyses indicate the rate of incidents may be beginning to 
decline, we think the record warrants attention and indicates reasons 
to improve our corrosion control standards. We are especially 
interested in evaluating the best long-term corrosion control measures 
to determine if there are better means of further reducing corrosion. 
We have begun a rulemaking designed to make our current regulations 
clearer, more effective, and compatible with new technology.

                         ADDRESSING HUMAN ERROR

    A qualified workforce will help reduce the likelihood and 
consequence of incidents caused by human error--another important and 
preventable cause of pipeline failure. Last year we published a 
comprehensive rule requiring pipeline operators to develop and maintain 
a written qualification program that assesses the ability of each 
worker. We have begun working with operators individually and in 
workshops to implement our new operator qualification rule, and we are 
checking on their progress during our standard inspections.
Considering material defects
    The last of the four leading causes of pipeline failure is material 
defects. We plan to continue to investigate pipe strength for 
opportunities to learn and improve in this area. On gas distribution 
systems, we will focus on the strength of the plastic pipe, which could 
be susceptible to fractures as it ages. We have a research effort 
underway to analyze plastic pipe performance and the adequacy of our 
regulations in this area.
State safety grants
    We oversee and share responsibility with state governments to 
protect more than 2 million miles of pipelines. For fiscal year 2001 we 
are requesting $17.6 million for State Safety Grants. This $4.5 million 
increase over fiscal year 2000, is necessary to strengthen our state 
pipeline safety partner's abilities to fully carry out their 
responsibilities to meet the increasing demands for inspection 
activities. This amount does not include $5 million for damage 
prevention grants.
    More than 75 percent of incidents involving fatalities occur in 
densely populated areas on intrastate distribution pipelines. Because 
of this, the oversight activities at the state level have become of 
critical importance. To assist states we are requesting a 50 percent 
increase in funding to provide for additional inspection activities. We 
support the states through a wide variety of actions such as pipeline 
safety grants, regulatory training, and funding to facilitate their 
participation in RSPA initiatives.
    We have taken aggressive strides to address the causes of pipeline 
failure through regulatory action, investigation of new technology, and 
improved state programs. We have forged partnerships with local, state 
and federal agencies, public interest and environmental organizations 
to help share responsibility for pipeline safety. By working together, 
we can make it easier for people to live safely with the pipelines in 
their communities.

                          HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

    In the United States, more than 3 billion tons of regulated 
hazardous materials are transported each year, and over 800,000 
shipments of hazardous materials are handled daily. RSPA's Office of 
Hazardous Materials Safety has built a hazardous materials safety 
program that protects the public through strong safety standards, 
ensures that people know how to comply with those standards, and 
responds through strong enforcement to curtail illegal shipments and 
activities. In order to improve safety and better protect people and 
the environment, RSPA is committed to working with all segments of the 
hazardous materials community, including state and local officials and 
the public.
    To do this, RSPA has published a rule to revise the registration 
program fee structure to support the Hazardous Materials Emergency 
Preparedness grants program. State and local governments use these 
grants to enhance emergency response planning and training activities 
to protect communities in the event of a hazardous materials incident.
    The increased funding supplied by the registration program fee 
structure will ensure that a larger segment of the response community 
will receive critical initial and recurrent training at all levels and 
will enable them to more effectively protect people and property that 
could be endangered by accidents involving hazardous materials.

                     RESEARCH--HUMAN ERROR: FATIGUE

    The Department has requested $3 million in its fiscal year 2001 
budget to provide continuing support of a One DOT initiative that will 
allow all modes of transportation to address two critical areas to 
combat human error. The first is to focus on developing and 
implementing technologies and methods for Operator Fatigue Management 
(OFM). The second is to develop and implement Advanced Instructional 
Technology (AIT) for operators with a special focus on recognizing and 
responding to imminent crash threats. This new DOT initiative will 
develop the knowledge base, strategies, tools and technologies to 
forecast and detect fatigue-compromised operators and to proactively 
manage fatigue to restore alertness and safety and train operators to 
recognize and respond to potential incidents.

                               CONCLUSION

    President Clinton's and Secretary Slater's highest transportation 
priority is safety, and RSPA is committed to protecting and increasing 
the safety of people, property and the environment with regard to 
transportation. By working together with our state partners, our 
stakeholders, and local communities, we can continue to make our 
nation's communities safe and livable.
    Thank you, and I am pleased to answer any questions you might have.

                    STATEMENT OF JOLENE M. MOLITORIS

    Senator Shelby. Ms. Molitoris.
    Ms. Molitoris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murray.
    I am very pleased to be here this morning, Mr. Chairman, 
because your support of our budgets in the past has contributed 
to an increase in rail safety that is really unprecedented. We 
can continue to increase the saving of lives and reducing of 
injuries with your support.

                           SAFETY STATISTICS

    If you look at the chart, you will see the numbers really 
speak for themselves. Since 1993, injuries and deaths of 
employees have been reduced 43 percent. The train accident rate 
is down 9 percent; crossing collisions are down 27 percent; 
fatalities are down 34 percent; injuries are down 22 percent. 
These are dramatic, and have occurred while ton-miles are up 17 
percent during the same period.
    The real reason that this has happened is because people 
have been working together in partnerships in new ways with 
Operation Lifesaver, with rail labor and management and many 
other groups. It is the partnerships that are making it work. 
But if we have one death or one injury, it is too much, and so 
we have much more to do.
    Our written statement gives you a lot of information about 
many of our safety programs, positive train control, fatigue 
mitigation, train switching accidents--which actually account 
for 45 percent of the fatalities of employees--many, many 
rulemakings, and our effort to enhance the safety culture on 
railroads.
    Today I am going to focus on crossing safety and other 
safety initiatives, grade crossing and trespasser issues in 
particular.
    In 1999, crossing collisions and fatalities went down by 7 
percent and trespasser fatalities went down by 14 percent. 
These preventable tragedies still represent 96 percent of the 
fatalities in the railroad industry. Overall, between 1993 and 
1999, the reduction has been 30 percent, significant but just 
not enough.

                     GRADE CROSSING SAFETY MANAGERS

    One of the things that this committee did in approving our 
budget some years ago was to establish grade crossing safety 
managers, which has been tremendously effective. For example, 
in the 5-year period after their establishment, fatalities 
decreased 31 percent at grade crossings. So, their work is a 
very, very important threshold and it is very good. They focus 
on engineering, enforcement, and awareness programs. Our big 
partners in awareness and education are Operation Lifesaver and 
the railroads themselves.

                          OPERATION LIFESAVER

    A few of the highlights of our work with Operation 
Lifesaver might be interesting to you. For example, next month 
FRA will be releasing a videotape to truckers focusing on 
crossings and what they need to do to maintain their own safety 
and the safety of others.
    Senator Murray, in partnership with Washington State 
Operation Lifesaver and Operation Lifesaver, Inc., FRA 
developed a law enforcement roll call video to encourage 
enforcement of State laws on crossings, and 1,000 of these have 
been distributed to enforcement agencies.
    In the West, we partnered with Operation Lifesaver 
committees from Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah to develop 
crossing protection prevention programs with Native American 
communities.
    Just this past winter in Pennsylvania, at the Pennsylvania 
Farm Show, FRA unveiled a field-to-field grade crossing safety 
program focused on farm crossings. These private crossings can 
be very dangerous.
    We worked very hard with NHTSA, the Federal Highway 
Administration, and Operation Lifesaver on 70,000 trucker 
alerts. New public service announcements also will be aired 
this spring. We have reached about 3 million people directly 
through our media advisories, including 60,000 school bus 
drivers and our PSA's are heard by millions. But there is much 
more to do.

                         LOCOMOTIVE HORN RULING

    One more very highly visible event occurred recently. FRA, 
at the mandate of Congress, released a proposed rule on the 
sounding of horns at crossings. We think this rule can be a 
win-win rule because it can increase safety, and still provide 
ways to maintain quiet zones that many communities want. FRA is 
holding eight public hearings around the country and a long 
comment period which will end May 26. So, we think it is an 
opportunity for the citizens to get the answers that they need.
    It was interesting, because I had an opportunity recently 
to speak at the National Conference of Mayors. The mayors are 
really worried about this, and I am sure you have had a lot of 
discussion even in your area. We were able to explain what the 
rule says, let them know it is not going to happen overnight, 
and let them know we are going to work with them to find the 
funding in existing sources, and to help them get the job done.
    That sums up what we do. Safety is our first and most 
important job.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these things today 
and to answer your further questions and these of the 
committee.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Jolene M. Molitoris

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear 
before you today with my Department of Transportation (DOT) colleagues 
to discuss surface transportation safety programs, starting with our 
primary responsibility for railroad safety. During the past seven 
years, we have participated in an evolution in railroad safety that is 
unprecedented in the history of this industry. Last month, President 
Clinton said that the State of the Union is the best in history. In a 
similar vein, I can say that this industry has a safety achievement 
record that is better than ever before. This achievement can be 
credited to the formation of partnerships within DOT, between the 
Federal and State governments, and between FRA and stakeholders within 
the railroad industry, such as labor organizations, railroads, and 
suppliers.
    For example, from 1993 to October of last year, rail-related 
fatality rate was down 38 percent, and injury rates declined 49 
percent. The train-related accident rate is down 11 percent for the 
same period of time. Highway-rail crossing incidents were down 37 
percent from 1993--a dramatic improvement. Yet, we know we can do much 
better, working toward our ultimate goal of zero fatalities and zero 
injuries. With continued participation from all of our partners and the 
continued support of the Congress, we will continue to make measurable 
progress toward reaching our goal. (Attached to this presentation is a 
table showing our future goals under the Government Performance and 
Results Act of 1993.)
    We believe that continued strong investment in our safety programs 
can produce even more dramatic results. The President's Budget for 
fiscal year 2001 requests $103 million for safety and operations, up 
more than 9 percent from the fiscal year 2000. This funding will 
support ten additional safety-field positions, outreach programs for 
grade crossing and fatigue countermeasures, program evaluations on 
Safety projects and other projects that will enhance Safety regulatory 
and enforcement work and the collection and dissemination of Safety 
data. We have also requested 19 percent increase in research and 
development (to $27 million), 95 percent of which is directed at 
improvements in safety.
    Major priorities for FRA over the balance of this year and next 
include--
  --Working with Operation Lifesaver, Inc. to launch a new crossing 
        safety public awareness campaign;
  --Finalizing and implementing a Trespass Prevention Action Plan;
  --Completing the locomotive horn rulemaking;
  --Finalizing the Freight Power Brake rule;
  --Hastening the implementation of Positive Train Control Systems by 
        issuing flexible performance standards for new technology and 
        by advancing the National Joint PTC Program; and
  --Working with railroads and employee organizations, through the 
        Safety Assurance and Compliance Program on each railroad, to 
        implement system-wide safety procedures that will prevent 
        employee fatalities involved in switching operations.

             GRADE CROSSING SAFETY AND TRESPASS PREVENTION

    In recent years, approximately 95 percent of all rail-related 
fatalities have resulted from highway-rail grade crossing collisions 
and illegal trespassing. So I want to open this morning by providing 
you with an overview of the ongoing education, engineering and 
enforcement activities the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is 
undertaking to improve crossing safety, working in concert with other 
DOT agencies, States, local communities, and the private sector. This 
work goes hand-in-glove with our efforts to prevent trespassing on 
railroad rights-of-way. (Attached is a table showing the status of each 
of the initiatives under DOT's 1994 multi-modal Rail-Highway Crossing 
Safety Action Plan.)
    Education and Awareness.--In order to drive down risk at crossings, 
we must raise awareness of that risk among drivers and pedestrians. FRA 
is a founding sponsor of Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI), and we 
maintain a strong involvement in OLI outreach efforts nationwide. 
(FRA's budget request for fiscal year 2001 includes $600,000 for OLI.)
    Early in this Administration, we recognized that the traditional, 
targeted outreach that Operation Lifesaver had made so effective needed 
to be supplemented through the mass media. FRA's ``Always Expect A 
Train'' public education campaign has sought to raise awareness about 
the deadly consequences of trying to beat a train to a crossing or 
trespassing on railroad property. This campaign reached citizens in all 
50 States via more than 270 television and cable markets, 673 radio 
markets and 200 publications. Recognizing the merits of mass media 
strategies, OLI reinforced this message with a hard-hitting series of 
messages under the theme ``Highways or Dieways.''
    FRA and OLI recognize that these efforts are due for renewal, and 
we need to ensure that our message is efficiently and effectively 
delivered. We are currently working closely with Operation Lifesaver to 
develop new public service announcements which will be introduced this 
spring. Our budget request includes an additional $500,000 to take this 
important message into the homes of more Americans through a unified 
approach.
    We must also reach specific audiences that play key roles in 
crossing safety. 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, FRA, our ``ONEDOT'' partners, and Operation 
Lifesaver have developed a school bus driver training education program 
called The Responsibility is Ours. The program was distributed during 
1997 to all State departments of education and transportation. This 
program is continually monitored and updated. In 1999, FRA developed a 
School Bus Driver Safety Alert for distribution directly to bus drivers 
themselves. In the same spirit, working with the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA), we issued a Commercial Truck Driver Safety 
Alert. Both alerts are available on FRA's website (http://
www.fra.dot.gov). We are also working with Operation Lifesaver to 
develop and distribute in the next few months a video intended to raise 
awareness about crossing safety within the motor carrier community.
    Enforcement.--Crossing safety and the success of passenger and 
freight rail service are directly related. Collisions at Portage, 
Indiana and Bourbonnais, Illinois, dramatically brought home the 
exposure of train crews and passengers to the tragic consequences of 
train collisions with large motor vehicles. The Department of 
Transportation is working across a broad front to address this need. 
For example, the FHWA recently issued a regulation that would penalize 
commercial drivers who disobey crossing warning devices. Of course, the 
FHWA rule will be effective only if State and local governments follow 
through with needed enforcement. That is why FRA is devoting 
significant resources to elevate crossing enforcement on the agenda of 
law enforcement agencies through training programs and direct contacts 
with law enforcement officers.
    Engineering.--Since 1974, the ``section 130'' program has funded 
safety improvements at highway-rail crossings, including the 
installation of automated warning devices. This effort has been crucial 
to our success in reducing crossing deaths. Nevertheless, a majority of 
crossings continue to have only passive signs such as the basic 
``crossbuck.''
    By closing redundant and inherently unsafe crossings, we can 
reserve section 130 funds for improvements at the crossings that 
remain. In 1991, FRA established a goal to close 25 percent of the 
Nation's crossings by 2004. By the end of 1999, a total of 35,123, or 
12 percent of all public and private highway-rail grade crossings had 
been closed by States and localities in cooperation with the railroads. 
This effort must be continued as we seek corridor-based solutions to 
the crossing challenge. FRA and FHWA continue to work with State and 
local community officials to raise awareness that the safest and most 
efficient way to reduce crossing collisions is to eliminate or 
consolidate highway-rail crossings. One successful example of this 
initiative entailed FRA and FHWA partnering with the Western Governors' 
Association to improve rail safety throughout Western communities by 
working to eliminate redundant crossings. FRA provided crucial 
information for development of a reference guide on traffic safety and 
transportation efficiency that is used by local communities in the 
western United States.
    The future of engineering improvements at highway-rail crossings 
will be what we make it. DOT agencies sponsored a wide range of 
demonstration programs during the 1990's indicating that safer 
crossings can be achieved by using tools that are well proven and 
currently at our disposal. For instance, the State of North Carolina 
and the Norfolk Southern Railway, supported by FRA's high-speed rail 
program funding provided by this Subcommittee, developed the ``sealed 
corridor'' initiative to take crossing safety beyond conventional 
flashing lights and gates. Now is the time to apply lessons learned on 
a larger scale.
    Working with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, the 
FHWA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), FRA has contributed to 
the establishment of the DOT Leadership Conference Technical Working 
Group, which now includes participation by the new Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA). This broad-based intermodal group is examining, 
from the ground up, what we need to do to take crossing safety to the 
next level by taking a risk-based approach and using the new tools at 
our disposal.
    Congress has certainly recognized the importance of identifying and 
prioritizing the risks at grade crossings. Last year, the 
appropriations committees instructed FRA to identify the ten most 
hazardous crossings in each state; that project should be completed by 
this summer. We fully support Congress's intention and believe that 
risk identification and prioritization should become institutionalized 
in the crossing safety program. FRA has developed the analytical tools 
to do the job, but we lack the necessary data collection capacity. A 
provision in our rail safety bill would remedy that situation by 
requiring States and railroads to periodically update their grade 
crossing inventory so that crossing safety funds may be targeted first 
and foremost at the most dangerous crossings.
    Looking ahead still further, FRA has initiated the process of 
developing standards for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) at 
grade crossings. Working with the ITS Joint Program Office, we are 
sponsoring the development of a strategic plan and standards for the 
ITS Highway-Rail Intersection User Service. Coupled with emerging 
Positive Train Control Systems, ITS technologies at crossings and in 
vehicles will one day support dramatic improvements in crossing safety, 
as well as enhanced traffic management in communities with heavy motor 
vehicle and train traffic.
    Railroad trespassing is especially problematic because too many 
people do not understand that it is not only dangerous, but illegal 
since railroad property is private property. Preliminary data indicate 
that, again in 1999, over 50 percent of all rail-related deaths 
involved trespassing on railroad property. We know that railroad police 
cannot deal with this situation on their own. In an effort to increase 
enforcement of existing laws and encourage adoption of more stringent 
trespass laws, the FRA developed and disseminated model State trespass 
and vandalism prevention legislation in 1997 to all 50 governors and 
State secretaries of transportation, law enforcement agencies and 
transportation-related associations. Currently, only one State, Iowa, 
has enacted the model law, but public education efforts promise an 
increasing awareness of the need for effective enforcement. During the 
current year, we will work with our DOT partners to finalize a new 
Trespass Prevention Action Plan. While Federal involvement alone cannot 
solve this problem, the growing casualties from railroad trespassing 
will not be reduced if we fail to provide national leadership.
                     rulemaking for crossing safety
    Over the past several years, FRA has put in place requirements for 
inspection and testing of automated warning devices at crossings and 
has mandated alerting lights-often called ``ditch lights''--to make 
trains more conspicuous. Within the next few months, we will complete a 
preliminary cost-benefit analysis and decide whether to propose 
reflectorization of rail rolling stock to deal with a small, but 
unusual set of nighttime crashes where motor vehicles actually run into 
the sides of long trains.
    Another significant safety action is our pending proposed rule to 
require Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Crossings. This 
proposal is mandated by 1994 legislation, which was reconsidered and 
amended by the Congress in 1996. It is supported by FRA research that 
shows collisions increase by 62 percent at crossings with flashing 
lights and gates when train horns are silenced by local ``whistle 
bans.'' (Very significant effects were also found at crossings with 
only flashing lights or with only passive signs such as 
``crossbucks.'')
    The proposal is controversial due to the potential noise impacts in 
the more than 275 communities across the Nation that have local whistle 
bans and because it follows the dictates of the law by placing the 
burden of implementing alternatives to the locomotive horn on local 
traffic control authorities or law enforcement authorities. (The law 
contains no authorization for Federal funding.)
    After extensive outreach and study during the period 1995-1999, we 
have tried to fashion a proposal that provides the most flexible menu 
of options to communities that wish to establish ``quiet zones'' by 
compensating for the loss of the train horn. Presently, our regional 
grade crossing managers are conducting additional outreach sessions to 
explain the proposal and encourage comments. There are pages on FRA's 
web site to provide an in-depth background on this issue. In general, 
we find that the better the proposal is understood, the more receptive 
communities are to pursuing a reasoned dialogue on the subject; and we 
are convinced that we will have a better final rule if we all approach 
the challenge with that attitude.
    FRA will be holding eight public hearings on this proposal, 
starting with a Washington hearing on March 6. The public comment 
period will be open through May 26. As this process goes forward, we 
are committed to working in partnership with communities to advance 
safety and freedom from excessive train horn noise.

           OTHER SAFETY RULEMAKING AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

    FRA's rulemaking program and related technology development 
activities rely heavily on active and broad-based partnerships. It is 
hard to believe that FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) is 
less than four years old, given that we have done so much through the 
collaborative rulemaking process. The RSAC has given us revised Track 
Safety Standards, Railroad Communications rules, Locomotive Engineer 
Certification procedures and Steam Locomotive Safety Standards. In 
addition, Roadway Worker Protection rules, Passenger Equipment Safety 
Standards, and Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness requirements, 
were all developed through heavy reliance on a similar collaborative 
process. I am particularly pleased that our work in support of 
passenger safety has prompted the American Public Transit Association 
to develop detailed passenger safety standards to help implement and to 
complement the Federal rules. FRA will be working with its partners to 
launch a second phase of passenger rulemaking this year, incorporating 
the lessons from ongoing research and testing, including results of the 
full-scale crash testing program that is now underway at the 
Transportation Technology Center near Pueblo, Colorado.
    This past September, the RSAC issued a landmark report, 
Implementation of Positive Train Control Systems, which points the way 
toward advances in collision avoidance, speed control and more secure 
protection of roadway workers. In addition, the North American Joint 
Positive Train Control (PTC) Project is well underway. The project team 
has just issued a Request for Proposals for a system developer and 
integrator with proposals due March 24th. This project must succeed if 
we are to bring about greater safety improvements in the railroad 
industry in this new century.
    Let's remember that PTC has the potential to greatly increase not 
only the safety of railroad operations, but service, efficiency and 
long-term business performance as well. Railroads and their suppliers 
are working toward more effective traffic planning, but precise and 
secure execution of those plans will likely require implementation of 
new train control technology. Moving increasing passenger and freight 
traffic on the same rail network safely and on time will require train 
control systems that are highly capable. As the North American PTC 
project develops the technology, the RSAC PTC Working Group is 
developing proposed safety standards for train control systems that 
will be performance-based and flexible.
    Meanwhile, FRA is working with the United States Coast Guard, FHWA, 
and FTA on the deployment of Nationwide Differential GPS. We are 
requesting $18.7 million through the FHWA research and development 
account for this program. This highly accurate augmentation to the 
Global Positioning System will support our PTC initiatives as well as 
providing greater safety on highways and transit systems. This is part 
of a comprehensive set of DOT requests in support of modernization and 
augmentation of GPS, which will improve both the safety and the 
efficiency of transportation systems.
    The Administration directed the DOT to serve as the lead agency 
within the U.S. Government for all Federal Civil GPS matters. In 
support of this important role, GPS is ranked as the Department's 
second most important ``Flagship'' initiative. We have other important 
rulemakings still pending before RSAC. We are in the home stretch on 
proposed rules for an enhanced Locomotive Crashworthiness standard and 
improved Cab Sanitation. Additional proposals RSAC is working on will 
address Cab Noise Exposure, Next-Generation Locomotive Event Recorders, 
and Roadway Maintenance Machines; and we will have a final rule 
amendment shortly on use of Gage Restraint Measurement Systems to 
evaluate railroad tie conditions.
    Not every cooperative venture has a happy ending, of course. FRA 
will be issuing a final rule on Freight Power Brakes this year without 
the benefit of an RSAC consensus, but with a better understanding of 
the issue than would have been possible without collaboration.
Safety Assurance and Compliance Partnerships
    The success of our rulemaking efforts can be attributed to the 
willingness of the participants to listen to each other, set aside 
traditional differences, and act in the collective interest of safety.
    This same approach is necessary for our other safety work, as well. 
The Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) targets the root 
causes of systemic safety problems, thereby utilizing our limited 
inspector resources to their greatest advantage. Bringing together 
labor and management not only enhances communication and helps leverage 
our compliance resources, but also opens the door to more fundamental 
changes in the safety culture of the railroads.
    Over the past two years, in particular, we have begun to see a thaw 
in the rigid culture of punitive discipline, mutual distrust and 
limited communication that stood as a barrier to further safety 
improvements in the railroad industry. Modest experiments in 
cooperation have led to bolder action, and new possibilities have 
emerged, both on individual railroad properties and at the national 
level.
    One of the fruits of this new-found confidence is the report of our 
joint task force on Switching Operations Fatality Analysis or ``SOFA,'' 
which was presented by labor, carrier, and FRA representatives at the 
RSAC meeting of January 28. Railroad classification yards and switching 
operations are the most deadly working environment for railroad 
workers. Most of the solutions to this involve common sense, not high 
technology. The SOFA group has examined the underlying causes of these 
preventable accidents and has agreed on several steps that employees 
and railroads can take to reduce this loss of life. We want the 
railroads to send employees home uninjured each day to their families. 
When I hear of rail workers being impaled between two cars, I am angry 
and sad. I don't enjoy writing sympathy letters--they are so dreadfully 
inadequate. It is also disheartening to me that every death or injury 
that has occurred during the last 7 years has occurred on my watch. All 
of us at FRA feel the same sense of loss each time a rail-related 
casualty occurs.
    Last month, I spoke before the North American Rail Alertness 
Partnership (NARAP). Within the DOT, the Secretary has identified 
fatigue countermeasures as a ONEDOT Flagship Initiative. The railroad 
industry is already leading the way for its employees and serves as the 
model for the other surface transportation modes to follow in this 
important safety area. Our proposed safety reauthorization legislation 
would seek to ensure that comprehensive fatigue management plans are in 
place on every major railroad. Our budget request includes $300,000 to 
help implement, evaluate and disseminate information concerning fatigue 
management strategies.
    To build on these gains, our safety reauthorization bill seeks 
Congressional endorsement of this cooperative approach for an improved 
safety culture in the railroad industry. We request Congressional 
acknowledgment of efforts in that direction, especially with regard to 
the use of alternatives to formal discipline in appropriate cases, on 
certain leading railroads. For those railroad employees who are still 
not fortunate enough to work in a positive safety culture, our 
legislation proposes to strengthen existing whistle blower protections 
in order to deter future discrimination. Enactment of these provisions 
will foster the trust that has developed and help it grow.

                           FUTURE CHALLENGES

    Light rail.--In past years, it was often possible to establish new 
light rail service to relieve urban congestion by using abandoned rail 
rights-of-way. Today, a much leaner and very active freight railroad 
industry is heavily utilizing its main lines, and still seeking to 
provide freight service to customers located on secondary lines. The 
result is heavy pressure for intermingling of light rail and 
conventional rail service, or for use of existing rail rights-of-way 
for parallel light rail and conventional rail service. The 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) has spawned a 
significant number of new starts for which shared use of track or 
construction in a common corridor is attractive or even essential if 
public transportation needs are to be met at an affordable cost. The 
FTA and FRA have recognized this issue and have issued a proposed Joint 
Policy Statement focusing on shared use of track. The most important 
safety issues related to shared use include: (1) the potential for a 
catastrophic collision between light rail and conventional equipment; 
(2) shared use of highway-rail grade crossings and infrastructure and 
(3) employee safety. The proposed policy seeks to promote time-
separated operations, apply FRA regulations only as necessary to 
address common hazards, and defer to FTA's new State Safety Oversight 
program with respect to strictly light rail aspects of the operation. 
Meanwhile, FRA and FTA are coordinating at the regional level to 
evaluate safety challenges associated with parallel operations in the 
same corridor, including detection of freight-related hazards and 
adequate provision for highway-rail crossing safety.
    Intermodal safety.--The intermodal dimensions of transportation 
continue to grow with every passing year. To meet these challenges, FRA 
works closely with the Research and Special Programs Administration and 
the U.S. Coast Guard, among other agencies, to ensure that hazardous 
materials are properly packaged and documented for transportation. 
Increasingly, we are becoming aware that we can be more effective in 
addressing public safety needs across a broad front by partnering with 
NHTSA, the FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, and many industry and advocacy 
organizations in promoting crossing safety and trespass prevention. 
FRA's participation in promoting the ``Safe Communities,'' ``Buckle-Up 
America,'' ``Moving Kids Safely,'' ``Garret A. Morgan Transportation 
Futures Program,'' ``Aggressive Driving Team'' and other DOT 
initiatives gives us access to new audiences while allowing us to 
contribute to the Department's larger mission. As the past chair of the 
DOT Safety Council, I am an enthusiastic supporter of ``ONEDOT'' 
efforts that seek to instill the message of safety in our communities.
    Spent fuel.--To meet the needs of the future, our partnerships will 
need to be inter- as well as intra-departmental. The Department of 
Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are anticipating a 
large increase in the rail transportation of High-level Radioactive 
Waste (HLRW) and Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) to long-term storage 
facilities. Nearly 90 percent of these shipments are intended to move 
by rail. Spent nuclear fuel rail shipments have doubled in just the 
last few years from 20 to 40 shipments per year. This figure will climb 
to over 400 once long-term or interim nuclear fuel storage sites are 
established, which could occur in the next several years. To 
accommodate these important national and international goals, FRA will 
help ensure the safe transportation of nuclear hazardous materials by 
positioning specialized teams of inspectors that will oversee every 
nuclear material train movement from beginning to end and conduct a 
detailed, comprehensive inspection of the track, signal and grade 
crossing systems. (Attached to this presentation is a table outlining 
projected movements of HLRW and SNF.)
    During the last decade of the 20th Century, we began to find new 
ways of achieving progress through partnerships. As we stand at the 
threshold of a new century, we need continued commitment, courage and 
hard work from our partners to keep this process moving forward. The 
only way we can continue this momentum is to continue talking at the 
table and putting our agreements to work through partnerships within 
DOT, with States and local communities, and with all parts of the 
transportation industry. I appreciate very much the support of this 
Subcommittee for our efforts, and we promise you that we will do 
everything we can to utilize the resources you provide to FRA to 
achieve the maximum safety impact.

                                            SAFETY PERFORMANCE GOALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Calendar year
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1998                 1999                 2000     2001     2002     2003
                                      rate    1998 rate    rate    1999 rate    rate     rate     rate     rate
                                     actual  actual \1\    goal   actual \2\    goal     goal     goal     goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail-related fatalities rate......     2.08       1.48      1.38       1.30      1.30     1.23     1.16     1.10
Rail-related injuries rate........    31.14      16.78     14.40      15.99     12.90    11.60    10.40     9.38
Grade crossing accidents rate.....     3.47       1.98      1.77       2.00      1.57     1.39     1.23     1.09
Train accidents rate (including        4.25       3.77      3.47       3.79      3.38     3.29     3.21     3.12
 grade-crossings).................
Hazardous-materials releases rate.    16.70      11.90     11.30    ( \3\ )     10.70    10.20     9.64     9.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1998 was used as the base year for developing goals for years 1999-2003.
\2\ 1999 data are preliminary and cover the period January-October 1999.
\3\ Data is not available at this time.

  Status of Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan Support Proposals

    The Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan was issued by the 
Department of Transportation in June, 1994. The Action Plan contains 55 
specific items concerning enforcement, engineering, education, 
research, promotional and legislative actions that can be taken to 
improve highway- rail grade crossing safety. The following is an update 
on each of the 55 items detailed in the Action Plan.
Increased Enforcement of Traffic Laws at Crossings:
    1. Section 402 Funds.--NHTSA and FHWA continue to promote state 
funding for targeted public education, and law enforcement initiatives. 
In fiscal year 1999, 13 states dedicated $523,500 towards these 
efforts. Status: Ongoing
    2. Law Enforcement Liaison Program.--The FRA employs a full-time 
law enforcement liaison (currently the 5th officer to work at the FRA) 
who conducts extensive outreach activities to both the law enforcement 
and judicial communities. Regional programs are being established in 
which eight additional Officers will work part-time with FRA across the 
nation. In coordination with Operation Lifesaver, FRA has distributed 
over 1000 copies of a new professional education video entitled ``Roll 
Call'' to law enforcement entities across the U.S. Status: Ongoing.
    3. Outreach to Judiciary.--Articles have been published in the 
National Traffic Law Center (NTLC) newsletter. Outreach presentation 
has been made to Traffic Court Judges Seminar. FRA has published and 
distributed the ``Partnering in Safety: Judicial Outreach'' brochure. 
Status: Ongoing
    4. Rules of Evidence.--TRB researched state laws and published the 
article, ``Photographic Traffic Law Enforcement,'' in the December 1996 
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Legal Research 
Digest. Status: Complete.
    5. Commercial Driver's License.--FHWA and the American Association 
of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) sought to elevate crossing 
violations to ``serious'' for commercial drivers license (CDL) holders 
as required by 1995 legislation. The Final Rule was issued on September 
2, 1999. Status: Complete.
    6. Compilation of State Laws and Regulations on Highway-Rail 
Crossing.--The second edition (published in August 1995) has been 
updated and will be published in early 2000. The greatly expanded new 
edition will be available on the FRA website. Status: In progress.
    7. Safety Inquiry.--The FRA will hold an informal safety inquiry 
about standing rail equipment near grade crossings. Inspection, testing 
and maintenance (ITM) regulations prescribed best practices where 
signals exist. Status: In progress.
Rail Corridor Crossing Safely Improvement Reviews:
    8. Principal Railroad Lines (PRLs).--FRA defined a national system 
of principal rail lines, developed maps and encouraged reviews of PRLs. 
Status: Complete.
    9. The National Highway System (NHS).--FHWA has encouraged states 
to include upgrades or elimination of crossings on the NHS in their 
state planning processes. The OST Strategic Assessment Plan includes 
``continued safety improvements.'' Status: Ongoing.
    10. Upgrade Signing and Marking.--FHWA has sought to improve 
conspicuity of signs and markings at crossings. FHWA issued a memo in 
December 1994 to encourage use of higher-quality material. Status: 
Ongoing.
    11. Responsibilities for Selection and Installation.--FRA and FHWA 
have sought to clarify project responsibilities between highway and 
railroad authorities. Regulatory action was terminated in August 1997. 
DOT Committee is considering standardized national guidelines. Status: 
In progress.
    12. STOP Signs.--FHWA and FRA have sought to promote STOP signs as 
a traffic control device alternative as detailed in July 1993 memo 
issued to FRA and FHWA field offices. An NTSB recommendation has been 
issued. Status: Ongoing.
    13. Incentives for Crossing Consolidation- Cash Payments.--Under 
legislation requested by DOT, direct cash payments of STP funds are 
available to communities for crossing closures. Status: Complete.
    14. Incentives for Crossing Consolidation- Eligibility for 100 
Percent Federal Funding.--Under legislation requested by DOT closure 
projects are eligible for 100 percent Federal funding. Included in 
DOT's fiscal year 1997 Appropriations Bill. Status: Complete.
    15. Crossing Consolidation and Closure Case Studies.--FRA set forth 
guidelines and strategies based upon case studies in July 1994 
publication, ``Highway-Rail Grade Crossing. A Guide to Consolidation 
and Closure.'' American Association of State Highway Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO) published a report in March 1995. Status: In 
progress.
    16. Integrated Intermodal Transportation Planning.--FRA and FHWA 
conducted nine outreach meetings with MPO's and railroads (held in TX, 
CO, PA, MO, MA, WA, CA, GA & IL). Status: Complete.
    17. Check List.--FHWA and FRA developed a detailed procedure for 
performing corridor reviews. Provided to FRA and FHWA field offices in 
May 1995. Status: Complete.
    18. Highway-Rail Crossing Handbook.--FHWA is updating the 1986 
version. Preliminary draft material has been received. Target 
completion date is September 2000. Status: In progress.
    19. Vegetation Clearance.--FHWA encourages states to clear 
vegetation. Status: Ongoing.
    20. Corridor Review Participation.--DOT proposed to establish an 
STP incentive program for corridor reviews. DOT bill offered, but was 
not considered. Status: No further action.
    21. Distribution of Funds.--FHWA and FRA through the DOT proposed 
to revise the distribution formula for section 130 funds under NEXTEA. 
Status: Not considered. No further action.
Increased Public Education and Operation Lifesaver:
    22. Marketing Materials Plan.--FRA developed the Always Expect A 
Train public awareness campaign on highway-rail grade crossing safety 
and railroad trespassing. The multi media campaign was distributed to 
and disseminated in most media markets across the U.S. FRA is working 
with Operation Lifesaver to continue the success of the Always Expect A 
Train campaign by developing new video and audio public service 
advertisements (PSAs) to be released in May 2000. Status: Ongoing.
    23. Driver Training Materials.--NHTSA and AAMVA have developed a 
new model drivers' license manual published with a section on grade 
crossings. Status: Complete.
    24. National and Community Service.--FRA sought to support 
Operation Lifesaver State Coordinators through the Service Trust Act of 
1993. Americorps funding was not sufficient to include this program. 
Status: No further action.
    25. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents-On-Guard Notice.--FHWA 
published a notice about highway-rail grade crossing safety in February 
1994. Another notice on high profile crossings was issued in February 
1996. Status: Complete.
    26. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents-Advisory Bulletin.--FHWA sent 
a bulletin to trade press about grade crossing safety in February 1994. 
Status: Complete.
    27. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents-Public Service Print 
Advertisements.--FHWA developed print PSAs and distributed to trade 
press in January 1994. Status: Complete.
    28. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents-Trucker on the Train.--FHWA, 
FRA, ATA and OLI hosted trucking executives on locomotives. Kick-off 
event was in November 1994. Future joint rail-truck industry meetings 
and events under consideration. Status: Ongoing.
    29. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents-Operation Lifesaver.--FHWA has 
facilitated meetings between Operation Lifesaver and trucking 
companies. FRA developed and distributed 74,000 copies of its Trucker 
Safety Alert and 14,000 copies of the School Bus Driver Safety Alert. 
Both FRA fact sheets are available on the agency's website. Status: 
Ongoing.
    30. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents-National Safety 
Organizations.--FHWA has communicated about grade crossing safety to 
industry and law enforcement officials. Pamphlets have been published 
by National Safety Council (NSC) in March 1995 and September 1997. OLI 
produced training and awareness video in 1996. In July 1999, FRA 
participated in the Secretary of Transportation's ONEDOT Commercial 
Motor Vehicle Safety Workshop. Status: Ongoing.
    31. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents-On-Site Compliance Reviews.--
FHWA has reminded motor carriers about the risks at highway-rail 
crossings during oversight reviews. A December 1994 memo encourages 
discussion and distribution of materials. Status: Ongoing.
    32. Operation Lifesaver Matching Funds.--DOT proposed increased 
funds to Operation Lifesaver with non-public match required. The 1994 
DOT bill was not considered. The FRA's fiscal year 2000 grant to OLI 
totals $950,000, $350,000 of which will be used for the development of 
new public service advertisements, as directed. In addition, TEA-21 
provides $500,000 to OLI annually from FHWA. Status: No further action.
Safely at Private Crossings:
    33. Define Categories.--FRA is defining categories and minimum 
standards for private crossings. Statistics and comments from previous 
safety inquiries are being reviewed. Status: In progress.
    34. Safety Inquiry.--FRA will hold an informal safety inquiry about 
standards for certain private crossings. Status: In progress.
    35. Locked gate at Private Crossings.--FRA and FHWA will jointly 
demonstrate gates with controlled locks at private highway-rail 
crossings. Demonstrations are planned in New York and which has 
received a $275K grant and Oregon which has selected a demonstration 
site. Status: In progress.
Data and Research:
    36. Research Workshops.--Volpe held a workshop in April 1995 to 
discuss current and projected research needs. Report issued. Status: 
Complete.
    37. Host Research Roundtables/Workshops-Defense Conversion Fair.--
As part of the DOT Technology Fair, the FRA hosted an exchange program 
to familiarize Defense firms with industry needs. A Broad Area 
Announcement (BAA) sought proposals. Status: Complete.
    38. Demographics.--NHTSA published a study of fatal casualty 
statistics in November 1994. Status: Complete.
    39. Accident Severity.--NHTSA completed a study on accident 
severity statistics in February 1995. Unpublished memo report. Status: 
Complete.
    40. Signs, Signals, Lights and Markings--Signs and Signals.--FHWA 
is researching new traffic control and warning devices. Final Report 
was issued July 1999. Status: Complete.
    41. Signs, Signals, Lights and Markings--Train Horns.--FRA 
published a report in April 1995 on the impact of whistle bans 
nationwide. Analysis of Wayside Horns published in June 1998. NPRM on 
the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Crossings was issued on 
January 13, 2000. The comment period for the NPRM and related Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) closes on May 26, 2000. Status: 
In progress.
    42. Signs, Signals, Lights and Markings--Light Rail Crossing Gates 
for Left Turn Lanes.--FTA is investigating alternatives for left turn 
lanes with parallel tracks. Los Angeles County Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority (LACMTA) demonstration of 4 quadrant gates is 
progressing. Status: In progress. 43. Signs, Signals, Lights and 
Markings- Locomotive Conspicuity: FRA developed standards and rules for 
alerting lights on locomotives. Regulations' require that all 
locomotives be equipped as of December 1997. Status: Complete.
    44. Signs, Signals, Lights and Markings--Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices.--FRA and FTA sought to amend the MUTCD to address such 
issues as high-speed rail, temporary closure, multi-track signs, and 
work zones. Notice was published in the Federal Register in June 1995. 
Proposed amendments were published in the Federal Register on December 
21, 1999. Status: In progress.
    45. Innovative Technology--Automated Video Image Analysis.--FRA is 
investigating the potential for live video monitoring of crossings. 
Tests will be conducted in NY and CA. Proposals are being solicited 
through the Ideas Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) program. 
Status: In progress.
    46. Innovative Technology--Radar Activation System.--FTA sought to 
evaluate and demonstrate the feasibility of a radar-based system to 
detect trains and approach speed. Interminable administrative and 
contract problems delayed demonstration. Status: Terminated initiative. 
A substitute project is assessing 4-quadrant gates using video on 
MBTA's new Old Colony Line.
    47. 1-800 Computer Answering System.--All Class I railroad 
currently have operable 1-800 systems in place. FRA is working with the 
American Shortline and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) to 
develop 1-800 emergency notification systems. Software is being 
developed for small and medium-sized railroads to enable 1-800 
notification and signs are now posted at most crossings with active 
warning systems. The State of Texas has been provided with software as 
part of a two state pilot project. Status: In progress.
    48. Light-Rail Accident Statistics.--FTA is broadened the Safety 
Management Information System (SAMIS) system to identify crossing 
accidents. New data was first published in the 1995 SAMIS Annual 
Report. Process is under review. Status: Ongoing.
    49. Resource Allocation Procedure.--FRA proposed to recalculate the 
accident prediction formulas and rebuild the accident prediction model. 
During peer review of proposed new procedure, it was decided to retain 
the original. The current formulas are being updated. Status: In 
progress.
    50. The Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory.--FRA and FHWA have 
promoted voluntary updating by states. FHWA issued a memo on the 
subject. The Update Manual was published in December 1996. The FRA 
introduced new data and Y2K format in 1998 and has proposed mandatory 
updating by states and railroads in the Rail Safety Reauthorization Act 
1999. Status: In Progress. A safety inquiry about the display of 
crossing identification numbers will be held in the future.
Trespass Prevention:
    51. Demographic Study.--FRA is reviewing its trespass fatality 
statistics to focus on remedial efforts. Zip code maps are available. 
1997 and 1998 bulletins include new data. A data workshop was held in 
April 1998 and in May 2000, FRA, Operation Lifesaver and the Class I 
railroads have committed to a meeting at which a consensus agreement 
will be sought over how to create a snap-shot demographic portrait of 
trespassers. Status: In progress.
    52. Trespasser Casualty Reporting.--FRA successfully proposed 
collecting additional data on trespass casualties. New reporting 
requirement took effect in January 1997. Data is now available on the 
FRA website. Status: Complete.
    53. Workshop on Trespass Prevention.--FRA held a National Workshop 
on Trespass Prevention in November 1995 in Atlanta. Five Regional 
Workshops were held in 1996. Status: Complete.
    54. Regional Campaigns.--FRA developed a low-cost Public Service 
Announcement to increase trespass awareness. Always Expect A Train 
campaign introduced in Summer 1996. Status: Complete. Ongoing public 
outreach efforts continue.
    55. Model Trespass Prevention Code.--FRA developed, and distributed 
to each state, Model Trespass legislation in April 1997. Status: 
Complete. Available via the FRA website.
Status Key
    Ongoing.--An initiative which has become a routine or continuing 
effort.
    In progress.--An initiative which is still being developed and 
implemented.
    Complete.--An initiative for which a specific action has been taken 
or a product has been disseminated.
    Not Considered/No Further Action.--Insufficient authority or 
funding to pursue an initiative. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FE24.001

                                 ______
                                 

               Biographical Sketch of Jolene M. Molitoris

    Appointed by President Clinton in April 1993 and confirmed by the 
Senate, Jolene M. Molitoris is the first woman Administrator of the 
Federal Railroad Administrator (FRA) in its 34 year history. The FRA is 
an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation with responsibility 
for the safety of all rail freight and passenger service in the United 
States. During her tenure, Administrator Molitoris has become the 
champion for rail safety in the U.S. and around the world, establishing 
zero tolerance for any safety hazard as the industry standard, creating 
safety partnerships with rail labor and management and achieving 
historic increases in all safety categories as a result.
    Under Molitoris' leadership, the FRA began its transformation from 
a traditional regulatory agency into a result and customer focused 
organization. The FRA safety program adopted a systems approach, 
identifying root causes for safety hazards and system wide solutions 
that have become ``best practices'' in the industry. New partnership 
approaches to ``growing'' safety and rules development are now 
institutionalized in the Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) 
and the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). For the first time, 
labor, management and other constituents are at the table from the 
beginning, not at the end of the rulemaking process, resulting in 
1998's distinction as the most productive year for significant 
rulemaking in FRA's history. Most importantly, the period 1993--1999 
was the safest seven year period in U.S. railroading history, with a 43 
percent reduction in employee injuries and fatalities and 30 percent 
reductions in grade crossing injury and death. Other safety results 
include: reductions in complaints to regional offices by as much as 86 
percent; use of statistics to spot and stop dangerous trends; and 
cutting edge initiatives attacking such intrinsic industry issues as 
fatigue by establishing the North American Rail Alertness Partnership 
(NARAP).
    Amtrak, high speed rail and technology have also been at the 
forefront of FRA's efforts during Molitoris' tenure. The new high speed 
trains debuting in 2000 can be called the safest trains in the world 
because of FRA's specifications. And the first non-electric high speed 
locomotive, a public/private partnership between FRA and Bombardier, 
will be demonstrated in the U.S. during 2000. Molitoris' focus on 
positive train control (PTC) has been the catalyst that has resulted in 
an industry-wide investment for the first time, with American 
Association of Railroad members committing over $20.M to a PTC project 
in Illinois. Also from 1993--1998, FRA responded to more mega-mergers 
and acquisitions than ever in history and created a Safety 
Implementation Plan strategy to assure that safety would not be 
compromised in the process. Administrator Molitoris is the recipient of 
many honors. She was the 1989 and 1992 recipient of High Speed Rail/
Maglev Association President's Award for Outstanding Achievement. In 
1995 Women's Transportation Seminar (WTS), Washington, D.C. Chapter 
named Molitoris their woman of the year and in 1996 the WTS of the U.S. 
named her National WTS Woman of the year. Also in 1996, the Cooperstown 
Conference awarded Administrator Molitoris its Lawmaker/Federal Service 
Award. In 1999, Administrator Molitoris received three awards: the 
Indiana High Speed Rail Association created the Jolene M. Molitoris 
Golden Spike Award; the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations 
Foundation, Inc. awarded her the 1999 Ellis Island Medal of Honor; and 
in its December 1999 publication, Railway Age Magazine named 
Administrator Molitoris one of the 12 great railroaders of the century.
    Administrator Molitoris holds a B.A. from Catholic University of 
American and a M.A. from Case Western Reserve.

    Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg, do you want to start 
the questions? I know you have got to do some other things
    Senator Lautenberg. That is very nice, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate it.
    I wanted to focus a little bit on the Coast Guard.
    Mr. Chairman, I would ask that other questions that I will 
have for each of the witnesses be submitted in writing and 
would ask for a prompt response.
    Admiral Card, I want to give you an opportunity to comment 
on my remarks, and you did say that and confirm the readiness 
question. It is one that has to be focused on and dealt with.
    Last year the committee fully funded the budget request for 
operations, but the Commandant has said publicly the Coast 
Guard readiness continues its decline: aircraft availability at 
unacceptable rates and people overworked.
    Now, since we did fund the operations request last year, 
how did we get into this situation?
    Admiral Card. A couple of things I will say, sir. One is 
that, if you remember also, there was a readiness discussion 
last year, the Kosovo supplemental, and the Coast Guard 
identified $200 million for readiness concerns. But most of 
that was carried forward to this year's budget. So, of that 
$200 million, we were able to spend $40 million last year, of 
which $23 million was just paying some medical bills. So, we 
really were not able to pay attention to some of those things 
we even focused on last year.
    Second, you brought up an issue earlier. We went through, 
in our great effort to help balance the budget, we streamlined 
the Coast Guard, doing what we thought was our part, and we 
probably went too far, took too many people out of our overhead 
and out of our systems. And what is more, we got below our 
numbers. We reduced the number of people in the Coast Guard, 
and we went more than 1,000 people below that. It has taken a 
lot of effort to get the people back. We will hopefully have it 
back by the end of the year. It has also taken a lot of money 
out of other things to be able to put into that work force 
restoration.
    Senator Lautenberg. The question about further increases 
for the drug war effort looms large when our resources to 
support a fully effective--and I use the word balanced--Coast 
Guard platform is being ignored. How does that strike you?
    Let me not put you on too tough a spot because one of the 
things that I have seen with the Coast Guard and now in the way 
you were almost too responsive because the one thing that I 
believe happens around this place is that very often there are 
serious attempts to respond to cutbacks and things of that 
nature. But the Coast Guard took their mission very seriously, 
as they do with all of their missions, and I think you depleted 
your resources to a point where it hurt the operations.
    So, how do we justify, if we must, expanded functioning for 
the drug effort and still take care of our other missions?
    Admiral Card. Senator, this year's budget, the 2001 budget, 
goes a long way to helping us restore the work force readiness 
concerns. There is money in there for that. There is money also 
in there for maintenance.
    There is also money in there for the use of force from 
helicopters, which we think is very important. Right now, that 
will probably be the biggest single force multiplier that we 
have in the drug war.
    So, we would like to think it is a balanced approach and 
there is money in there for both things in the 2001 budget. 
That is why I asked that you would support that. We worked very 
hard with the Administration, with OMB, to get the monies in 
there. We think this is a start of being able to do that.
    Senator Lautenberg. You commented on the fact that the 
fishing industry is one of the most hazardous occupations that 
we know, and that is certainly true. The three of us sitting 
here all come from coastal States, and we know the risks that 
our fishermen run when they are out there.
    How do we maintain our compliance levels for inspection 
when we are so shorthanded? How about our boardings and things? 
Can you conduct those with the same staffing that you have got 
and conduct them as efficiently as you feel is necessary?
    Admiral Card. Sir, there is a modest increase for a number 
of people to do fishing vessel safety examinations also in the 
budget. We have recognized the need for that, and we are trying 
to emphasize more the dockside examinations to get people ready 
to go to sea from a preventive perspective.
    The other thing we have done is by some of the 
recapitalization with moving the coastal patrol boats further 
up north, we are not going to be taking those down south as we 
would the 110-foot patrol boats.
    But in all budget requests, it is a balance. And if you are 
asking me in the process would we do more if we had more, of 
course, we would. But we understand the balance in this whole 
process of bringing forth the budget to the Congress.
    This past year both Area Commanders have spent particular 
focus on fishing vessel safety: SAFE CATCH on the east coast 
with Admiral Shkor and SAFE RETURN on the west coast with 
Admiral Collins. We are starting to see some positive returns 
in those efforts. They do focus on a risk management basis on 
the most high-risk fishing vessels that we see.
    Senator Lautenberg. As I see it, you will be able to put on 
about 24 additional inspectors. Is that going to give you the 
numbers of people to really improve compliance within the 
fishing industry?
    Admiral Card. It is a step in the right direction, sir.
    Senator Lautenberg. If it is a one-step platform that you 
are reaching for, that is not bad, but if it is a 10- or 20-
step rise that you have to hit, why, that does not sound like 
it is really enough.
    I was at the South Pole just a few weeks ago, and I had the 
opportunity to board the icebreaker and meet the crew and the 
captain of the ship. I want to tell you that is not easy duty, 
especially when it takes such a long haul to do. But I thought 
the spirit and the willingness to just drone on and do a very 
important job was remarkable. The one thing that we want to 
make sure of is that they feel like they are getting the 
resources they need to do the job effectively.
    Mr. Chairman, I am going to submit the rest of my 
questions.
    Senator Shelby. Without objection.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Murray?
    Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 
having this very important hearing on safety. I would like to 
submit my full statement for the record, and just focus on the 
questions that I have.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Senator Shelby. Without objection.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Patty Murray

    Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to start by thanking all of 
you for coming up to the Hill today to discuss your safety initiatives 
in the fiscal year 2001 Transportation budget.
    As I told Secretary Slater when he came before the subcommittee two 
weeks ago, I believe this budget is one that I--and the members of this 
committee--can work with. It continues our common goals of improving 
safety, mobility, economic growth, and environmental protection.
    Safety has always been my number one priority in transportation and 
I know this administration shares my beliefs. This budget is evidence 
of that.
    It does a great job of helping to make all our modes of 
transportation safer. NHTSA receives a 36 percent increase in the 
budget; there are new initiatives about drunk driving; new enforcement 
tools to help get other dangerous drivers off the road; and strong 
initiatives for transit and rail safety. FRA receives a 9 percent 
increase for safety and operations, and the Coast Guard gets $64 
million in the President's budget for boat safety. I support all of 
these initiatives and will fight for these levels of funding.
    I am also pleased to see that RSPA gets a $10 million increase from 
last year's enacted level for the Office of Pipeline Safety to a 
proposed $47 million. As you well know, pipelines are not as safe as 
they can be in this nation. It took a accident that killed three young 
people and caused much environmental damage in my state 8 months ago to 
bring that fact to light.
    At the on-set I would like to point out that transporting hazardous 
liquids and gas through pipelines is the safest method possible. We 
won't improve safety by putting more of these products in barges and on 
trucks. However, many of these pipelines are getting old, and we are 
starting to see problems with them. Aside from the people in my state--
who won't let the pipeline reopen at all without adequate assurances it 
is safe--there have been recent releases in places like Pennsylvania 
and Louisiana. In addition, many new pipes are being laid in places 
like New Jersey, Maine and Montana. We need to ensure the public that 
these pipelines are as safe as they can be, and we need common sense 
changes to make sure that happens.
    I would also like to start off by thanking Kelly Conner, the 
Administrator of RSPA, and her staff who have worked very hard to help 
the people of my state deal with this horrible tragedy. I also want to 
illustrate my appreciation for all the work she has done to educate me 
and my staff so we can better understand how pipeline safety is 
regulated in our country.
    As I mentioned two weeks ago in this subcommittee, I've introduced 
legislation this session that would reauthorize the Office of Pipeline 
Safety, S. 2004, the Pipeline Safety Act of 2000, and Senator 
Lautenberg on this subcommittee has agreed to be a co-sponsor. I've 
been meeting with many of my colleagues on this issue. And for those of 
my colleagues that I haven't met with yet, I encourage you to look at 
my bill. It requires periodic inspection, requires individual 
government certification of pipeline operators, establishes a ``public 
right to know'' about problems with pipelines, and invests and 
encourages R&D so we can better inspect and test these pipelines. My 
bill also encourages your Department to develop strong and substantive 
partnerships with states if these state have the ability and resources 
to regulate pipelines.
    My colleagues in the House--led by Representative Jack Metcalf--
have introduced a similar bill.
    Your ``Budget in Brief'' says, ``RSPA will expand and strengthen 
its partnership with the states''. I think you should be expanding and 
strengthening these partnerships.
    In contrast, I understand that you've informed the states that are 
currently participating in a joint state/federal pipeline safety 
program that you intend to phase out state participation.
    As you know, my state and others like Virginia are very interested 
in becoming interstate agents. In fact, the proposed National 
Governor's Association Policy on Natural Gas Pipeline Safety, ``. . . 
urges Congress to direct OPS to reverse its existing policy of 
declining to grant any additional state interstate agent status for 
interstate pipelines.''.
    I strongly believe that states can be good partners in pipeline 
safety if they can prove they have the resources and expertise to 
handle the job.
    Would you please elaborate on this statement from your booklet and 
explain what you mean when you say you want to expand and strengthen 
partnerships with states? Could you explain in what areas you would be 
comfortable seeing states have regulatory authority over interstate 
pipelines if they prove they have the money and expertise to do so?
    My second questions involves your rule on the Qualification of 
Pipeline Personal that became effective on October 26 of last year.
    As you know, the NTSB first requested a rule on operator 
qualification back in 1987. Following some very bad accidents in 1996--
one that killed 33 people and injured 69 others--you published a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to require pipeline operators to develop 
a written qualification program for individuals operating pipelines.
    I am concerned that the rule your agency has implemented does not 
establish specific training requirements for personnel and allows 
companies to evaluate an individual's ability to perform tasks using 
such things as simple oral examinations, with little or no check by 
your agency as to the adequacy of such procedures.
    My question is why don't you think it is feasible to have 
individual federal certification of operators? It is feasible in the 
airline industry where the FAA determines the capabilities of 
individual employees who work on aircraft.
    I just have a few more questions.
    I know you are issuing a rule for comment next month on the testing 
of pipelines. I understand this is in lieu of the fact that you've been 
required since 1996 to implement a rule that would require regular 
inspection of pipelines in high risk areas.
    As you know, my bill and the House bill would require periodic 
inspections every 5 years. Will your rule require mandatory periodic 
inspections? If not, what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that we 
are relying on more than the industry's own self-interest?
    My next question concerns inspection technology, something I've 
learned a lot about in the past few months. I've learned about devices 
called ``smart pigs'', which run internally in a pipe to detect 
anomalies and corrosion. Unfortunately, only about 20 percent of the 
pipes in this country are equipped to handle these devices and their 
reliability is often questioned. I've learned about another type of 
testing--hydrostatic testing--where rushing water down the pipe to find 
leaks and cracks. But this type of testing can cause long-term damage. 
Obviously, the current inspection methods are not perfect, and it will 
take more research to give us the tools to ensure that pipelines are 
safe. My question is what types of research and development is OPS 
undertaking to better the level of inspection technologies?
    You know I and others are eager to see your pipeline 
reauthorization bill so we can make progress on this important issue in 
this short legislative year. So my final question is when do you plan 
on sending the Administration's pipeline safety reauthorization bill to 
Congress?
    Thank you.

    Senator Murray. Ms. Coyner in her presentation mentioned an 
accident on pipelines that occurred in my State last June 10 
where a pipeline exploded and three young children were killed. 
I, like most citizens in the State, really did not pay 
attention to the pipelines that went under our communities and 
by our schools and places of work until that occurred. I have 
spent a great deal of time since then looking at the whole 
issue surrounding pipeline safety. I want to thank Kelley 
Coyner and her staff for working with the people in my State as 
we resolve this problem and helping educate me and my office 
about how we regulate pipelines.
    As a result of what I have learned, I have introduced 
legislation on the reauthorization of pipeline safety that does 
a number of things, including requiring periodic inspection, 
which is not required right now; and requiring individual 
government certification of pipeline operators, which is not 
required now; establishing a public right to know so that 
people who live on or near these pipelines know of any problems 
that have occurred and know when inspections have been 
completed; and encouraging and investing in more research and 
development so we can better inspect these thousands of miles 
of pipes that are aging in our country today.
    Finally, my bill encourages your Department, Ms. Coyner, to 
develop strong and substantive partnerships with States if the 
States have the ability and resources to regulate the pipelines 
in their State.
    Your budget in brief actually says, ``RSPA will expand and 
strengthen its partnership with the States.'' And I think we 
should be expanding and strengthening those partnerships. But 
in contrast, I understand that you have informed the States 
that are currently participating in some of these joint 
Federal/State pipeline safety programs that you are going to 
phase out of that State participation.
    Can you tell me exactly what you mean when you say you want 
to expand and strengthen these partnerships with the States and 
maybe what you feel comfortable with in States having 
regulatory authority over these pipelines?
    Ms. Coyner. The President's budget request asks for what we 
would consider full funding of the State partnership grant 
program included in the current Pipeline Safety Act, and that 
is up to 50 percent of the expense of the program. It is 
critical, as you know, to have the technical resources and the 
inspection resources at the State level in order for them to be 
effective regulators and enforcers of the statute.
    The issue you referred to has to do with a fairly narrow 
issue in terms of what we call interstate agency status. This 
has to do with a particular way we engage with the States on 
looking at interstate pipelines.
    Senator Murray. Inter or intra?
    Ms. Coyner. Inter, lines that run between States. I know 
that one is a hard one to enunciate well.
    This has been part of a 6-year effort to change the 
direction of that program to focus on high risk areas and to 
better coordinate our inspection activities. It is not an 
effort to eliminate our partnership activities, but instead to 
focus really on two things. One is to make sure that we are 
getting the local resources adequately focused on intrastate 
lines, including local distribution systems where we have the 
highest rate of fatalities, and the second is to better 
coordinate our activities on interstate lines.
    Senator Murray. Very good.
    My second question has to do on your rule on qualification 
of pipeline personnel that became effective, I believe it was, 
last October. As you know, the NTSB actually requested a rule 
on operator qualification back in 1987, and following some bad 
accidents in 1996, one that killed 33 people and injured 69 
others, you did publish a notice of proposed rulemaking that 
will require pipeline operators to develop a written 
qualification program for individuals that operate these 
pipelines.
    I am concerned that the rule your agency has implemented 
does not establish a specific training requirement for 
personnel and actually allows companies to evaluate an 
individual's ability to perform tasks using things like an oral 
examination with little or no check by your agency as to the 
adequacy of those kinds of procedures.
    My question to you on this is why you do not think it is 
feasible to have individual Federal certification and training 
of these operators who are many times looking at a computer 
screen to determine whether or not pressures have changed and 
whether or not any action needs to be taken. It is feasible in 
the airline industry where the FAA determines the capabilities 
of individual employees who work on aircraft. So, why can we 
not employ the same model for pipeline operators?
    Ms. Coyner. There are two specific issues, and I think when 
you described your legislation, you hit on probably the most 
important technical reason. We do not have the authority to 
implement a certification program. It was actually taken out of 
our statute.
    But I think that what is important, in terms of looking at 
safety, is that the operator qualification rule, which was 
implemented last summer, is not a laissez-faire regulation. It 
does not allow companies to do whatever they want. Instead it 
looks at the broadest range of pipeline employees, rather than 
just focusing on, say, the person who is at the control panel. 
I think that is something that distinguishes us from what the 
FAA regulations look at.
    And it is our expectation that the person who sits at the 
control panel would be appropriately certified, that the welder 
who works on the line would also be appropriately certified, 
and that as we have begun checking on the implementation of 
that effort, we are looking for those kinds of things in the 
plans, and we will look at that when we do the enforcement once 
the rule becomes fully effective.
    Senator Murray. I think the expectation is not being met. 
So, I think that is something we do need to authorize.
    On another area, the testing of pipelines which had 
considerable discussion in my State--actually, you have been 
required since 1992 to implement a rule that would require 
regular inspection of these pipelines. My bill and the House 
bill requires periodic inspections at least every 5 years, 
depending on the geography of the area.
    Is your rule going to require mandatory inspections? And if 
not, what mechanisms are in place to ensure that we are relying 
on more than just the industry's own self-interests in terms of 
inspection?
    Ms. Coyner. In terms of the periodic inspection, I believe 
you are referring to the use of what we call smart pigs, 
internal inspection devices. Our expectation is that we will 
have a proposed rule out in the next several weeks requiring 
periodic testing of liquid lines, and that will be followed by 
a proposal concerning natural gas lines.
    There are two other issues which I think are important to 
note. One is that internal inspections are not the only way 
that we require companies to inspect their lines. There are a 
number of other techniques available to us such as leak 
detection surveys, aerial surveys that we conduct, and looking 
at what is going on with valves.
    But we believe, as I know that you do, that this is not 
going to get us where we need to be, and that part of the 
critical success here is that we develop new ways to inspect 
pipelines that cannot be inspected by these existing internal 
inspection devices. The budget request includes money for 
research and technology that would help us push further in that 
direction, and I know that your bill includes that as well.
    Senator Murray. Right. My bill also includes research and 
development.
    I have actually been surprised to find out how little we 
know about inspections and how best to do it. The so-called 
smart pigs can only test about 20 percent of the pipes out 
there right now is my understanding. An 80 percent of the 
pipeline that is currently laid cannot be inspected by that. As 
I said, these pipelines are getting older, 25, 30, 35 years old 
now. As they age, there are going to be problems.
    For the chairman's knowledge, when this occurred in my 
State I thought it was a unique accident. I was quite 
surprised, in doing my research, to find out there have been 
over 5,500 accidents in this country since 1992, with I believe 
over 300 deaths and many millions of dollars in damage done, 
both environmentally and in a lot of other areas.
    So, it is an issue that is of great concern to me. It 
should be of great concern to this entire country, and it is 
going to continue to be a problem until we find better ways to 
inspect these pipes, require routine inspection of them, and 
make sure that the people who are operating these pipelines 
have been correctly certified and trained.
    So, I am going to continue to push my legislation and talk 
to anybody who will listen to me about this. I do not want any 
more kids or families to go through what happened in my State. 
And I know that without us really pushing on this, it will 
occur again.
    So, Ms. Coyner, I really wanted to know as well when the 
administration is going to send over their reauthorization bill 
to Congress.
    Ms. Coyner. I expect that it will be transmitted very soon.
    Senator Murray. Because we expect to have a hearing very 
shortly on this.
    Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence on 
focusing on this one area, but it is a very critical one and I 
think one that this Congress needs to take note of. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator.

                      IMPACT OF AVIATION FIREWALL

    Admiral Loy, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, testified 
that an aviation firewall with a guaranteed general fund 
subsidy would ``bring this organization to its knees.'' I 
assure you that the detrimental impact on the Coast Guard of an 
aviation firewall is more dire today than it was last March. 
Would you agree with that?
    Admiral Card. Sir, I have already said how important every 
dollar we have is in the budget. Anything that would take those 
dollars away would by very detrimental to the Coast Guard.
    Senator Shelby. You are on thin ice to begin with, are you 
not?
    Admiral Card. Yes, sir.
    Senator Shelby. If legislation is enacted that guarantees a 
certain level of general funds on top of the airport and 
airways trust fund receipts and interest for the aviation 
accounts and navigational user fees are not enacted, what type 
of impact do you think that will have on the Coast Guard's 
search and rescue operations that we have been talking about?
    Admiral Card. Well, Mr. Chairman, earlier I said that 
safety is job one. I suspect that many other things would be 
cut back quite a bit. But anything that is going to cut back 
all those things and cut back our people will impact search and 
rescue operations as well. We think we are finely tuned, and we 
scrap for every dollar we get. What we do not get, you can see 
some of the results in the readiness concerns we have had.
    Senator Shelby. You do a good job, an excellent job, with 
what you have, but you are stretched. Are you not, sir?
    Admiral Card. We have been, and this budget will help us 
get better. But there are still, as I mentioned, readiness 
concerns.

                       HIGH PRIORITY INITIATIVES

    Senator Shelby. Ms. Millman, the President's budget 
requests an increase of $126 million above last year's 
appropriation to bolster the core research program and launch 
several so-called flagship initiatives regarding aggressive 
drivers, aging drivers, and younger drivers. Two weeks ago at a 
hearing on the Department of Transportation management 
challenges, however, I stated that the subcommittee would not 
support the diversion of highway funds for non-highway 
purposes. Considering that last year Congress rejected a 
similar approach, I would have thought that the administration 
would have proposed general funds to finance your increases. 
Unfortunately, for both of us, budget gimmicks have 
consequences.
    Keeping in mind that it is highly improbable that Congress 
can find the general funds to fully fund your budget request, 
which of these initiatives or others that I have not named 
would you consider of the highest priority for funding this 
year and what would you defer?
    Well, you know, you have got to make choices. If you do not 
make choices, we make choices for you but would rather you make 
choices.
    Ms. Millman. Right.
    Senator Shelby. Well, let me add this before you answer. 
Which priority programs would bring the greatest safety 
benefits to the driving public? Is that fair?
    Ms. Millman. Yes, and that is the basis on which we would 
make the determination which programs----
    Senator Shelby. Which ones would they be?
    Ms. Millman. Most important is seat belts.
    Senator Shelby. I know they all contribute, but just name 
some priorities.
    Ms. Millman. Seat belts are the most effective safety 
device that we have. Depending on the type of vehicle, they can 
increase the chance of surviving a crash by 50 to 80 percent. 
So, increasing seat belt use will always be one of our highest 
priorities.
    That is a crash worthiness type of technology. If you are 
in a crash, how can you protect yourself?
    Senator Shelby. We saw an instance of that recently in 
Kansas City, did we not?
    Ms. Millman. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. Where out of three, two did not have their 
seat belts on. One did and one walks away. Two are killed. One 
killed. One later dies.
    Ms. Millman. That is right.
    Senator Shelby. Right?
    Ms. Millman. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. And if the seat belts were on, all three 
may have walked away or at least been survivors.
    Ms. Millman. Looking at the accident, that was our 
analysis.
    But something we can do to avoid crashes in the first place 
is continuing to focus on alcohol-impaired driving.
    Senator Shelby. Absolutely. We have come a long way there, 
have we not?
    Ms. Millman. We certainly have. We were around 25,000 
deaths per year in alcohol involved crashes. Now we are about 
16,000, but 16,000 a year is still way too high.
    Senator Shelby. How many of those are younger people? Do 
you have a breakdown on the accidents related to alcohol?
    Ms. Millman. I can get you those numbers. But we know that 
teenagers tend to have a high use of alcohol when they are in 
fatal crashes.
    Senator Shelby. Can you furnish that for the record?
    Ms. Millman. Yes, certainly.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FE24.002
    
    Senator Shelby. It will be very interesting.

          HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION REGISTRATION FEES

    Ms. Coyner, on November 4, 1999, Chairman Wolf and I 
requested that the General Accounting Office perform an 
evaluation of the hazardous materials emergency preparedness 
grants program, which is paid for by registration fees charged 
to hazardous materials shippers and carriers.
    Concerns have been raised by some members of the HAZMAT 
carriers industry that the same shippers and carriers who pay 
for the HMEP grants program through their user fees also 
participate in and pay for well-established emergency planning 
and training programs in the private sector.
    We asked GAO to determine whether the grants program goals 
are being met by existing private sector initiatives and to 
identify any duplication of services.
    Last week RSPA promulgated a final rulemaking on the 
hazardous materials registration fee increase. I believe it was 
February 14 in the Federal Register. Do you think it was 
premature for RSPA to move forward with the assessment of a fee 
increase when the need for such an increase has not yet been 
reviewed by an impartial party such as the GAO?
    Ms. Coyner. We have been engaged in an effort for a number 
of years now with respect to the hazardous materials emergency 
grants program in terms of looking at what the total authorized 
levels have been and the unmet needs in terms of training 
individuals and being prepared. Our view is that one of the 
most important things we can do to impact what happens if there 
is a hazardous materials incident is to have trained 
responders, and that we are severely under-resourced in that 
particular effort.
    The rulemaking went through the usual process of notice and 
public comment, as well as a number of informal workshops.
    We have worked closely with the GAO on their study and 
review of this particular aspect of emergency preparedness, and 
we will continue to do so and will take into account their 
recommendations when they move forward on that particular 
study.
    Senator Shelby. Can I have your personal commitment that 
should--should because we do not know--GAO determine that there 
is a duplication of services among the private sector 
initiatives, other Federal emergency response programs, and 
your agency's emergency preparedness programs, that you would 
revisit the rulemaking in some way?
    Ms. Coyner. You can have my commitment that I would be glad 
to discuss with you the outcome of the GAO study and to take 
into account implications of it. But I do not want to prejudge 
the outcome of their study in terms of what their conclusions 
might be.
    Senator Shelby. Sure, I understand.

                       GRADE CROSSING COLLISIONS

    Mrs. Molitoris, according to the Federal Railroad 
Administration's hearing record last year, my State of Alabama 
had the fourth highest, as you know, number of grade crossing 
collisions in 1998, a total of--think of this--146 accidents in 
my State of 4.5 million people. Only Texas, much larger, 
Louisiana, about the same size, and California, the largest 
State, had more crossing collisions in that year.
    I have a fair amount of interest in seeing that the grade 
crossing safety is improved nationwide, but my State, the 
fourth largest, and that the number of accidents and deaths at 
crossings decrease.
    It is often said that only truly safe grade crossing is no 
crossing at all. How are crossing separations such as bridges 
and flyovers funded?
    Ms. Molitoris. Would you repeat that last thing? I am 
sorry. How are what?
    Senator Shelby. How are crossing separations such as 
bridges and flyovers funded?
    Ms. Molitoris. It depends, of course, on the particular----
    Senator Shelby. Is it not with Federal highway section 130 
funds, which you have no control over?
    Ms. Molitoris. FRA and FHWA work together. Section 130 
money can be used for hazard elimination. That is what it is 
called. It can be used for warning devices, closings or 
bridges. It is important to note that annual section 130 funds 
provided to a State usually are not sufficient to cover the 
cost of constructing a single bridge. You will find that most 
States will use other Highway Trust Fund sources for major 
infrastructure investments such as bridges.
    One of the things that we are encouraging from TEA-21 is a 
corridor approach, Mr. Chairman. That would be to look at a 
long distance, several miles or 20 miles, and examine what are 
the most appropriate and safe installations.
    Senator Shelby. Well, what we are interested in for 
railroads, trucks, cars, and planes is saving lives. Safety.
    Ms. Molitoris. Yes.

                     ACCIDENT AND FATALITY DATABASE

    Senator Shelby. Your agency collects data on grade crossing 
accidents and trespassing fatalities on the general railway 
system from every State and territory in the United States. 
However, your accident and fatalities database does not include 
rail transit grade crossing and trespassing incidents. Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Molitoris. The entire database, Mr. Chairman--we have 
asked in our safety bill to have it increased so that the 
required information is----
    Senator Shelby. But to have an accurate database, should 
not all rail crossings and trespassing accidents and fatalities 
be part of the database?
    Ms. Molitoris. That would be the most opportune. Yes, it 
would.

                 NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE SYSTEM

    Senator Shelby. Admiral Card, there have been a number of 
maritime accidents over the past few years in which the failure 
of the Coast Guard--we know you do a lot of work, good work, 
and we are big supporters, as you know, but there are failures. 
The failure of the Coast Guard to identify a distress call and 
initiate a search and rescue response in sufficient time has 
been a contributing factor to the loss of life. These tragedies 
highlight the need to modernize the National Distress and 
Response System and upgrade the capabilities of a system that 
was built nearly 30 years ago.
    Staff informs me that the acquisition strategy for this 
important modernization program is following the model used for 
the Deep Water Replacement Project. I am concerned that the 
Coast Guard would choose a complex, unproven acquisition 
approach for a system that is fundamental to the safety of 
recreational and commercial boaters.
    Now, what is the status of the National Distress and 
Response System modernization project? Where are we?
    Admiral Card. Mr. Chairman, the request for proposal was on 
the street and we have had responses back to the request for 
proposal. It is a two-phased approach to buy this. The first 
phase enables us to figure out what the design should be and 
put it in place, and the second phase will allow us to buy all 
the systems. So, we expect that by 2005 or 2006, it will all be 
in place. The first phase will be completed about 2001 or 2002.
    This is a combination of an information technology system, 
as well as a distress system. We are concerned and we want to 
make sure we get it right. We think that the strategy we put 
together will do that for us.
    Senator Shelby. If Congress provided additional funds for 
this project to the budget request, would the Coast Guard be 
able to accelerate the completion of the upgraded system, or is 
it just going to take some time?
    Admiral Card. It would be able to accelerate the phase two 
portion of buying it once we have figured out what it is, but 
the figuring out what it is in the first part will take as long 
as it will take to get that right. We are going as quickly as 
we can with that to make sure it is the right system.
    Senator Shelby. One of the shortcomings, as I understand 
it, of the current system is that it is dependent upon line of 
sight communications. In areas where coverage from a line of 
sight system is poor, such as most of the coastline of Alaska 
and other States, how will the modernized system improve the 
ability of the Coast Guard to detect boaters in distress?
    Admiral Card. Well, we will go to other communications 
technologies. As we are all aware, this sort of technology is 
increasing greatly. And we will make sure that we cover all the 
areas for which we are responsible in the new system.
    In the meantime, we have tried to do some short-term fixes. 
We have put a couple of dollars into some DF systems and some 
better recordings of the messages when they come in so you can 
understand. We have had some garbled calls. We did not have the 
right kind of equipment to be able to unscramble those and 
really hear those very clearly. So, we have done that sort of a 
short-term fix.
    But the real answer is the long-term solution which we are 
proposing and for which we have money in this year's budget.
    Senator Shelby. Admiral Card, it is my understanding that 
since the sinking of the recreation vessel MORNING DEW, the 
Coast Guard has initiated several interim measures to improve 
its search and rescue capability and the national distress 
system until the modernization project is completed, as you 
said, in 2005.
    What have been the interim measures that have been taken to 
avoid the recurrence of another accident like MORNING DEW?
    Admiral Card. First, and probably the quickest one, was to 
review all our policies, change those where needed, and make 
sure that our people understood very clearly what their 
responsibilities were. And we did that right away.
    As I have mentioned, we looked at those opportunities where 
we could put direction-finding equipment in so that you could 
tell, when someone was calling, what the line of direction 
might be. We did not have that. We have that in several places.
    We have also, again, bought these recorders and upgraded 
those.
    One thing that MORNING DEW did for us is, while we do very 
well, as you mentioned, you have to examine yourself and say 
where can we do better. It allowed us to be able to take a hard 
look at ourselves and improve our performance.

                         ADVANCED AIR BAG RULE

    Senator Shelby. Ms. Millman, there has been a lot of public 
attention recently regarding the advanced air bag rule, which 
is statutorily mandated to be published by March 1, which is 
just a few days from now.
    Although there is widespread agreement with most aspects of 
the proposed rule, the proposal to return to a 30-mile-per-
hour, rigid barrier, unbelted occupant test has created a 
formidable coalition of opponents that includes air bag 
suppliers, automobile manufacturers, the National 
Transportation Safety Board, and a number of respected safety 
organizations such as the Insurance Institute for Highway 
Safety, the National Safety Council, AAA, the National 
Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, and 
the American Trauma Society. They strongly oppose this test 
because it would lead to the installation of high-powered air 
bags that have caused the deaths of dozens of infants, 
children, and small adults.
    I, as well as other members of this committee, are 
concerned that the credibility of Federal safety standards are 
at stake, if that is mandated. This proposed rule could 
conceivably lead to the use of certain air bags that are once 
again linked to the death of people who should have survived 
otherwise, with even the slightest possibility that a return to 
30-mile-per-hour test has a potential to result in air bag-
induced deaths.
    Is there anything to prevent NHTSA from publishing a rule 
that meets the TEA-21 deadline but doesn't mandate the unbelted 
rigid barrier tests until the issues are further considered and 
better information is obtained? I know that is a mouthful.
    Ms. Millman. There was a lot in that question.
    Senator Shelby. But you are very familiar with this.
    Ms. Millman. I am.
    Let me preface my answer with a couple of----
    Senator Shelby. You are aware of all this, but I wanted to 
put it on the record.
    Ms. Millman. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. All these concerns by some blue ribbon 
groups.
    Ms. Millman. Yes.
    Air bags, since their introduction in about 1986, have 
saved over 5,000 people. So, we consider them a very effective 
occupant-protection technology.
    Senator Shelby. I personally like them. It might save my 
life, but I am not a small person and I am not an infant. I 
would like to be smaller, but----
    Ms. Millman. Over 5,000 saved, but yes, about 150 killed by 
air bag-induced injuries.
    This is a technology that we have been studying for almost 
30 years, and we are certainly doing everything we can in our 
rulemaking process to analyze the concerns that the auto 
manufacturers have raised about the speed for the unbelted 
test.

                    AIR BAG-RELATED ADULT FATALITIES

    Senator Shelby. Have you conducted or sponsored any 
research in which actual crash data suggests that adults have 
died in high-speed crashes because an air bag did not inflate 
with sufficient force?
    Ms. Millman. Yes. In 1997, we changed our rules to allow 
the manufacturers to use a sled test rather than a full vehicle 
test, and that is when a lot of the manufacturers made 
significant design changes to their bags. It would be in 
vehicles that are model year 1998 or later that would have the 
redesigned bags. So, there are very few of those vehicles in 
the fleet right now, and we have not been able to identify any 
crashes that involved the scenario that you described where an 
adult would be going through the air bag. But we still have 
that concern because there are so few of these vehicles in the 
fleet.

                        LIFE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

    Senator Shelby. Ms. Molitoris, Amtrak recently released a 
report to Congress on the planned infrastructure improvements 
to the south end of its northeast corridor, Washington, DC, to 
New York City. Life safety improvements to the tunnels below 
Pennsylvania Station in New York City are estimated to cost 
more than $300 million over the next 10 years. In the FRA's 
budget, $20 million is requested and was already funded as an 
advance appropriation in the year 2000 for the Penn Station 
redevelopment project. Will any of the $20 million in the 
administration's budget for Penn Station be used for life 
safety improvements to the tunnels?
    Ms. Molitoris. Mr. Chairman, Amtrak's planning includes 
some funds for the life safety development plans, but as you 
said, to actually fix them is a much larger investment.
    Senator Shelby. But this $20 million I understand is all 
for construction dollars, which will be at the Amtrak station.
    Ms. Molitoris. Mr. Chairman, may I get back to you to be 
sure that I am accurate on that?
    Senator Shelby. Sure, you can.
    [The information follows:]

    The Pennsylvania Station life safety improvements include 
improvements to the tunnels immediately beneath Pennsylvania Station 
and the James A. Farley Post Office Building. To date, Amtrak has spent 
approximately $35 million on these improvements from funds provided by 
FRA for Pennsylvania Station. Additional life safety improvements below 
these two buildings will be included in the final Pennsylvania Station 
Redevelopment Plan and are estimated to cost approximately $54 million.

                           TRANSIT CROSSINGS

    Ms. Molitoris. Mr. Chairman, may I just add to the previous 
question that you asked about the transit crossings? FTA does 
collect all of that data. We collect the data on railroad 
crossings. I think there are very efficient and effective ways 
to produce that for you together.
    Senator Shelby. You have got a shortfall without all the 
information, have you not?
    Ms. Molitoris. Well, it is easy to put that together, sir.
    Also, in terms of your State, we would be more than happy 
to do a special initiative in Alabama to address this very 
serious problem at your crossings.
    Senator Shelby. Well, I am interested in my State, coming 
from there, but on the other hand, we are interested in all the 
States.
    Ms. Molitoris. As are we, sir.
    Senator Shelby. I pointed out that my State had the fourth 
highest and it is much smaller than Texas and California in 
population and in size. But Louisiana was right there I believe 
number three. Were they not?
    Ms. Molitoris. I do not know the numbers by heart.
    Senator Shelby. So, there has got to be a reason. Would you 
look into that too?
    Ms. Molitoris. I certainly would, sir. You can tell by our 
charts that we are making progress, but one is too many.
    Senator Shelby. Sure.
    [The information follows:]

                                                TEN WORST STATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Number of
                             State                                  Crossings    Incidents  Fatalities  Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas..........................................................          18,509        364         41        172
Illinois.......................................................          15,746        198         53        113
Indiana........................................................           9,188        191         26         63
California.....................................................          12,848        190         24         70
Louisiana......................................................           6,716        176         20         70
Ohio...........................................................           9,585        144         21         54
Georgia........................................................           8,385        134          7         39
Mississippi....................................................           4,872        131         17         81
Alabama........................................................           5,434        122         12         34
Michigan.......................................................           8,429        114         14         43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although both Alabama and Louisiana have a relatively high number 
of crossings based on state size, the most likely factor contributing 
to the number of injuries and fatalities is the number of crossings 
without active warning devices. Fewer than 20 percent of Alabama's 
5,434 crossings and 18 percent of Louisiana's 6,716 crossings are 
equipped with these devices.

                    HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSING INVENTORY

    Senator Shelby. The Federal Railroad Administration 
maintains a comprehensive national rail crossing inventory, 
which is a critical tool in helping States and the railroad 
industry identify potentially hazardous crossings and 
prioritize funding decisions.
    According to an Inspector General audit of last fall, this 
inventory is not accurate, with discrepancies in a number of 
crossings between FRA data and the railroads' own records. Why 
are the errors and the discrepancies there, or why are there 
errors? What steps are you taking to correct this?
    Ms. Molitoris. Mr. Chairman, FRA gets its information from 
railroads and from States, and it is a fact that many States 
still do not have a complete and comprehensive database or 
neglect to update the information for the national inventory.
    Senator Shelby. How do you check that out for accuracy what 
they are giving?
    Ms. Molitoris. We work with the States, Mr. Chairman. For 
example, I know being from Ohio that some 5 or 6 years ago, 
when they really emphasized corridors, which we were 
encouraging them to do, they found many crossings that they did 
not know existed or were in a different location. There have 
been so many spinoffs, abandonments, changes in the 
infrastructure in a very rapid fire way during our 
Administration. The changes have really been dramatic. 
Sometimes the number of crossings changes dramatically because 
a whole line is abandoned.
    What it takes is a team of State, Federal, and railroad 
people to go out and walk them and go to see them corridor by 
corridor. It is a big investment and FRA is encouraging States 
to do that and railroads as well.
    Senator Shelby. You do not have a big motivator like 
withholding money, do you? You just have to encourage them to 
cooperate?

                      ROLLOVER PROPENSITY RESEARCH

    Ms. Molitoris. While many have been responsive, Mr. 
Chairman, there are a number of entities who have not updated 
their crossing inventories in many year. I do not know of 
anyone who has refused totally, but it does take money, time, 
and resources.
    Senator Shelby. Ms. Millman, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration has had a long-running interest in the 
area of rollover crashes, and according to your budget 
justification, the agency's current focus in this area is to 
develop a formula on rollover propensity and provide a ranking 
or rating system for consumers. Is that right?
    Ms. Millman. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. What is the status of this research effort 
and what can we expect and when can we expect some specific 
action to be identified by your agency?
    Ms. Millman. Thank you, sir.
    This is another issue that we have been looking at for 20 
or 30 years. We recently completed the research part of that 
work, and we have a report available in the docket, which is 
also available online.
    We have prepared a proposal that is currently in the 
clearance process within the Department. We think that we have 
a good proposal and that people will support it.
    We have found with our front impact and side impact ratings 
that people just cannot get enough information, and it is one 
of our most popular locations on our web site. We have seen the 
manufacturers now start to advertise, when they do well, this 
is a four star vehicle or five star vehicle. So, we think that 
the rollover proposal will have that same----
    Senator Shelby. You think the message is out there.
    Ms. Millman. It seems that that is what the public wants.

               TRUCKS, VANS, AND SUV ROLLOVER PROPENSITY

    Senator Shelby. Do you believe that consumers lack 
information about the greater rollover propensity of trucks, 
vans, and SUV's despite the widespread coverage by 
investigative journalists, consumer advocates, driving 
enthusiast organizations, yours, and others? Would your limited 
resources, for example, not be better dedicated to informing 
the public, which you alluded to, about the issues that they 
might not be so well informed about through other information 
channels? I know you mentioned the Internet.
    Ms. Millman. Other than?
    Senator Shelby. Anywhere. The more information they have, 
the better chance they have to make better decisions when they 
purchase something, which could really be life or death down 
the road.
    Ms. Millman. That is right.
    We produce a brochure called Buying a Safer Car that talks 
about features that add to the safety performance of a vehicle, 
and we do address the higher rollover propensity of light 
trucks, vans, and SUVs. What we have seen in our research, 
though, is that even within a class of vehicles, let us say 
sport utility vehicles, there are very significant differences 
in rollover propensity. So, we want people to know that if they 
have made the decision to buy a pickup truck, within that 
group, which ones have better safety performance than others.

                       ADDRESSING ROLLOVER ISSUES

    Senator Shelby. There are a lot of different ways to 
address rollover issues: one, a Government rating system for 
rollover propensity; two, encourage technologies that protect 
the occupant during this unusual type of crash; three, promote 
technologies that reduce the vehicle's likelihood of tipping in 
the first place; four, increasing seat belt usage, which we all 
believe in in these vehicles. I am sure there are many more. 
Those are just a few.
    Ms. Millman, what should be the focus in this regard and 
which strategy would save the most lives? Out of the four I 
mentioned or others that I had not thought of. Seat belts 
maybe?
    Ms. Millman. The most dangerous part of a crash involving a 
sport utility vehicle is the chance of ejection during a 
rollover, and we find that seat belt use tends to be lower 
among SUV occupants than other vehicles. They have a very high 
number of ejections, which tend to be very serious. So, seat 
belts certainly would make the most immediate impact.
    But, a combination of those techniques that you mentioned 
is really our best approach. Seat belts certainly in the short 
term; second, greater dissemination of information like the 
ratings that we are going to propose. But in the long term, 
certainly technology can address the propensity issue.

                             PORT SECURITY

    Senator Shelby. Admiral, port security is important. In the 
past several months, there have been a rash of incidents 
involving the smuggling of migrants, mostly from China, into 
the United States in large cargo ships. This particular 
activity raises the larger question of port security and 
safety. Considering that 95 percent of the goods exported and 
imported are processed at our Nation's ports, port security and 
safety has significant economic and national defense 
implications.
    What is the role of the Coast Guard in protecting our ports 
from migrant smuggling, illicit drug trafficking, the threat 
posed by terrorist groups? And what other Federal, State, and 
local agencies are involved with you? What initiatives do you 
have for 2001 in the budget? Is that too much? It is what you 
do every day.
    Admiral Card. We will get right after it, yes, sir.
    I think probably the most significant thing that is going 
on right now as far as the study goes is the Seaport Security 
Commission which is underway, including the Coast Guard, 
Customs, FBI, et cetera, to look at all that we need to have 
for our seaports.
    But certainly the Coast Guard has been involved in our 
multimission capacity in drugs and migrants and terrorism kinds 
of things. We have, around the country, all of our units 
strategically located. Every water area has a Captain of the 
Port who is in charge of that water area. One of his or her 
missions is security. That is backed by our Group Commanders as 
well. So, we have got a network of both command and control and 
people and resources to pay attention to these things.
    Many of these issues are better sought if they are pushed 
further away from the shore, and so you will see sometimes that 
we will be interdicting Chinese migrants 50 or 100 miles off 
the coastline because it is better to do it there. And in our 
drug strategy, we are trying to push that closer to where they 
are departing the scene down in Colombia, et cetera.
    But more needs to be done. There is concern for terrorism 
in our country. That is being addressed by this commission. It 
has also been addressed by the Marine Transportation System 
study that we brought forward. This budget includes some issues 
that will protect our people. We are going to be the first 
responders. We want to have some chemical, biological, 
radiological kinds of things available, plus some training, to 
know what to do initially until other agencies get there 
because we are going to probably be the first on scene, as we 
are in most cases.
    In a larger sense, we also have some other protection 
things in here for our people, survival equipment, cold weather 
equipment, some of those kind of things.
    But I think you will see out of the Seaport Security 
Commission things that we are doing. The Coast Guard will have 
a lead role in port security for our country, and we are 
located in those places to be able to make that happen.
    There will need to be cooperation with everyone else that 
needs to do it, including the State people and other Federal 
agencies. In that regard, we have instituted recently our 
Incident Command System which all State highway people use, 
fire people use. That makes it easier for us to respond as one 
when we go to any particular type of an incident.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Senator Lautenberg.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for 
having been away. One of the things that we were just 
discussing at the Foreign Operations Subcommittee is our 
commitment to Colombia and other Latin American countries to 
see what we can do about stemming the drug flow there. It 
unfortunately is a constantly expanding business, and when you 
think about it, the toll taken in our country every year is 
52,000 dead and about $110 billion worth of cost, it is an 
important assignment. And we in no way diminish the effort that 
the Coast Guard is required to put into it. But that means that 
we have to take care of other things in other ways.

                              MSIS SYSTEM

    I would ask you a question, Admiral Card, about the MSIS 
system, a project that was begun back in 1991. And the project 
is critical to your ability to meet the information needs and 
legal mandates of your marine safety and law enforcement 
missions.
    The project was supposed to be completed in fiscal year 
1996. All of us know that it is now 2000 and we have invested 
over $45 million. The project is still not completed. Why the 
delays in getting this done?
    Admiral Card. Probably several, sir, but let me say that 
the project is now on track to produce what we want in the next 
year or so. And we have got some money in this budget.
    Information technology projects, unlike buying a ship or an 
airplane or something else, were more difficult for us to get 
our arms around and describe correctly. I think you were at the 
other committee meeting earlier when the Chairman asked me 
about our National Distress and Response System Modernization 
Project. We are now much more capable of structuring those 
kinds of projects to be able to get positive results sooner, 
even though it seems like in the beginning it takes you longer 
to make sure you have a clear definition of what you want.
    We are on track to do that now. We will be off the old 
system probably within a year with more capability. Our 
Operations System Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia has 
picked that up for us.
    So, the details of how we got there, probably a combination 
of not being as clear as we thought we were going to be in the 
requirements and then some change in the way that the project 
looked along the way.
    But I think we are on track and within a year or a year 
plus, we will have the old system operating. We need to expand 
it with our law enforcement system so all of them work 
together.
    Senator Lautenberg. I hope that the prediction that it is a 
year away is more reliable than those forecast in the past.
    Admiral Card. Yes, sir.

                      HIGH-SPEED TRAINSET TESTING

    Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Molitoris, good to see you.
    Your agency is participating in the testing of the new 
high-speed train sets over the northeast corridor. You and I 
had a ride on the not-so-speedy high-speed train, and we are 
looking forward to the ultimate delivery of the equipment that 
can shorten the schedules between places.
    Now, we have had a problem in terms of getting the high-
speed equipment on line. That was due sometime last year, and 
we know that there was a problem. Tell me what you can about 
FRA's involvement in testing of the new train sets.
    Ms. Molitoris. Senator Lautenberg, Mr. Chairman, the Acela 
trains are going to be a tremendous addition to the fleet of 
Amtrak, but this is a new technology. As you know, FRA was 
responsible for the safety requirements that Amtrak 
incorporated into the specifications, and we have been 
consistently involved with Bombardier and Amtrak in the testing 
program. The responsibility really lies with the manufacturer 
to meet the requirements set by Amtrak and to provide the 
service required in the contract with Amtrak.
    I think we are making good progress, but I have not yet 
received a total confirmation on the date of delivery of these 
trains. I think it is fair to say that with a brand new 
technology of this complexity, it is not unusual to have a 
significant test period. It was the commitment of the Board and 
of Amtrak to assure that the introduction of the trains would 
be at a time when service would be of the highest quality.
    One of the exciting things that you and I were able to do 
was to ride the train totally electrified from Boston to New 
York. And that was an achievement of no small measure, sir, and 
a tribute to your leadership and also the support of the 
Congress throughout these years.
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, the fact that we need a long test 
period is what we understood, and we had train sets tested and 
running. We had a problem with wheel wear.
    And I would have to remind you, Ms. Molitoris, that 
technology on high-speed rail is certainly not new. It is 
disappointing, I must say, to learn, whether it is the 
manufacturer's responsibility or design responsibility and our 
demand for specifications that were wrong, the fact is that 
prospects are considerably dimmed by the experience to date. We 
are anxious to have these train sets in place and operating.
    The chairman of this subcommittee is not a fan, and 
understandably so, because he is skeptical about promises that 
are made that are not kept. This is the kind of thing that, 
frankly, gives me a lot of concern. You are kind of a second 
stage in this, but we hope that when these specifications were 
given that specs were, A, met and, B, that they were 
sufficiently designed, that there was sufficient design put 
into this that we were not asking for the impossible.
    Ms. Molitoris. Senator Lautenberg, may I just comment? 
There truly is a tremendous difference between the operating 
environment in Europe and the operating environment in the 
Northeast Corridor. It is a much more complex environment. It 
required specifications that were different. I think that the 
elements that are being tested and required certainly are the 
proper ones. We can assure safety to the passengers of the 
highest level, and I think that we will get there very soon.
    Fortunately, at the very same time that these northeast 
trains were being tested, we have a new high-speed, non-
electric locomotive so that the corridors throughout the 
country--some of very great interest in Birmingham--will be 
able to have high-speed trains also.

                           STATE COOPERATION

    Senator Lautenberg. In order to maintain the speeds that we 
expect from Acela along the north and the south end of the 
Northeast Corridor, we are going to require strong cooperation 
out of the commuter rail authorities from Massachusetts to 
Virginia. How have things gone so far?
    Ms. Molitoris. In terms of the relationship, Senator?
    Senator Lautenberg. Cooperation. Have we gotten what we 
needed from the States along the way?
    Ms. Molitoris. Well, I think there is a strong support 
network among the operators and the States, but indeed, there 
is a 10- or 12-year--maybe 20-year--outlook on the kinds of 
improvements in infrastructure to get to an improved state of 
repair on the south end. That is going to require investments.
    I think Amtrak continues to work closely with the commuters 
because, as you know, it is the commuters that have the huge 
numbers of trains every single day, especially in New Jersey, 
New York, and Connecticut.
    I think the working partnership is good. There are some 
elements that are still being discussed, but there certainly is 
not a final decision on all of the investments and how much 
will come from where. That is still under negotiation.
    Senator Lautenberg. So, we can expect that we will get the 
kind of help from the commuter organizations that we need and 
that we will be able, one day, to say that this is a completely 
coordinated program, because at this point there is a challenge 
by a lot of the commuters who say they need more of the time on 
the rail and that they cannot always make way for the high-
speed trains to operate. But we hope that we can resolve that 
conflict and get on with it.
    Your budget, with our strong interest in expanded high-
speed rail, has a new $468 million initiative. As you know, I 
have introduced a bill that would support roughly $10 billion 
in high-speed rail improvements through these federally insured 
bonds.

                          RAIL LINE CONGESTION

    One problem that is regularly cited as a limitation to 
deploy high-speed rail around the country is the problem of the 
right-of-way that is owned by freight rail and freight 
railroads. And they are busier than they have ever been as 
well.
    What does FRA do to improve the opportunities for use of 
those tracks, freight-owned tracks, for our high-speed rail 
needs?
    Ms. Molitoris. Well, of course, our focus is safety. The 
requirements that the railroads have to meet require all of our 
efforts. I do know, serving on the board representing the 
Secretary, that George Warrington has made a really new effort 
to become a good partner with the railroads and they with him. 
I would say to you that it is my observation that there has 
never been a stronger partnership between the freight railroads 
and Amtrak.
    However, the congestion difficulties that the freights are 
experiencing, some as fallout from some mergers and 
acquisitions, impact Amtrak. It is a very difficult situation. 
I think, however, that there is a real working partnership, 
train by train, between Amtrak and the freight railroads to try 
and address this. We are not where we want to be in terms of 
on-time service, and that is not just on the Northeast 
Corridor, which is doing very, very well, but it is throughout 
the country where we have this particular situation where all 
the tracks are owned by freight railroads.
    FRA is working on it. We have got to get the freights in a 
situation where they have less congestion and backup and more 
on-time performance themselves and the ability to get Amtrak 
through in a more timely manner.

                      AMTRAK/FREIGHT PARTNERSHIPS

    Senator Lautenberg. Are we going to ask them to do less 
business? How do we accomplish----
    Ms. Molitoris. Well, there are many ways, Senator 
Lautenberg. Certainly operational considerations. Amtrak does, 
by law, have first right to move.
    Also, I think it is interesting to note that the new 
business partnerships, mail and express business partnerships, 
that Amtrak is developing with almost every major freight 
carrier are an incentive for the freight railroads themselves 
to move Amtrak timely because these freight movements are 
business partnerships that Amtrak and Norfolk-Southern, BNSF, 
Union Pacific have developed. It is really a win-win situation. 
So, that is enhancing this partnership.

                        VEHICLE INCOMPATIBILITY

    Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Millman, I wanted to check 
something. I was just asking whether it had been discussed 
earlier, and if it has, please let me know.
    Almost half of the new vehicle registrations in 1998 are 
light trucks, including SUV's, pickups, mini-vans, and they sit 
higher off the ground. Have you discussed this at all? Has this 
been asked?
    Ms. Millman. Not today, no.
    Senator Lautenberg. You might get the question 
occasionally. In an accident between light trucks and 
conventional cars, the light truck inflicts more damage to the 
car. Now, a NHTSA study found that a head-on collision between 
a car and an SUV resulted in five deaths per car driver to one 
per SUV driver. When the SUV struck the side of the car, there 
were 30 deaths per car driver for every 1 of an SUV driver.
    Now, in light of these findings by your own agency, will 
the administration undertake any actions to improve safety for 
the drivers of conventional cars? I hear a lot of worry and 
concern by drivers of ordinary cars, particularly from those 
mothers with children in the car and so forth. They are 
frightened by the prospect. What is being done there?
    Ms. Millman. One of our first priorities is always avoid 
the crash in the first place. So, everything that we are doing 
on drunk driving and other kinds of crash avoidance activities 
will help address that specific problem.
    We are working with the manufacturers and doing our own 
research to identify ways that we can address that problem--
changing bumper height, changing the way the vehicles manage 
the crash energy. We do not have a specific rulemaking looking 
at it now. We are more in the research and analysis phase of 
it.
    Senator Lautenberg. Do the automobile companies seem to be 
concerned as we are about the problems? Business is pretty good 
in that area, and I do not know whether having to change the 
configuration of an SUV, to use the general term, is a likely 
possibility without some pressure from Government. How do you 
see it?
    Ms. Millman. The manufacturers are certainly pleased with 
the sales of the larger vehicles and are concerned about any 
requirements that might make them reconfigure those vehicles. 
But I think that they also recognize the public is interested 
in safety. We were discussing earlier NHTSA's safety ratings of 
vehicles. The public is very interested in those. So, I think 
that the manufacturers have an interest in trying to address 
the problem.

                           ROLLOVER STANDARDS

    Senator Lautenberg. Do you have, for example, a specific 
time table for establishing rollover standards for SUV's?
    Ms. Millman. Our focus right now is on providing more 
information to consumers so that they have a better 
understanding of the rollover issue and how individual vehicle 
models perform. We are not pursuing a regulation or standard at 
this time.
    Senator Lautenberg. We impose standards on trucks, on 
highway design, equipment that is used in construction, things 
of that nature. Why would it not be of interest to introduce 
some regulations so that we can ensure the bulk of the 
automobile-riding public that they are as safe as we would like 
to see them be, considering the difference in the structure of 
the vehicles?
    Ms. Millman. The agency has been trying to answer that 
question for 30 some years.
    One of the concerns is defining the threshold. If we were 
trying to say that there was a limit on rollover propensity, we 
would have----
    Senator Lautenberg. Do we have rollover standards for 
regular cars?
    Ms. Millman. No.
    So, in trying to set rollover propensity limits, we are 
asking at what point are we likely to see serious injury if 
there is a crash, and we have not been able to define those 
limits.
    Also, several factors play into the equation of whether the 
rollover is going to occur, and driver behavior is a 
significant part of that.

             CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR ROLLOVER PREVENTION

    Senator Lautenberg. Yes, but the construction standards for 
automobiles include the impact of a rollover as well. Does it 
not?
    Ms. Millman. I am sorry. I did not follow your question.
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, in the construction standards for 
cars, is there not a consideration of impact of an accident in 
terms of possible rollover?
    Ms. Millman. I do not believe so, no, but I will double 
check on that.
    Senator Lautenberg. Is there a roof-crush standard?
    Ms. Millman. Yes.
    Senator Lautenberg. So, it sounds to me like we ought to 
take a little bit closer look at the SUV's and that line of 
vehicles.
    I thank you very much, all of you. And thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
    Senator Gorton could not be here today, but I would like to 
note for the record that my colleague from Washington State, 
Senator Slade Gorton, wanted to be here to discuss the pipeline 
safety program and last summer's fatal accident, but he has 
been unavoidably detained. We will submit his statement on this 
issue for the record.
    Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I just interrupt for 
a unanimous consent request, that a speech made by the 
Commandant, Admiral Loy, in December entitled Readiness: The 
Reality Behind the Numbers, be included in the record?
    Senator Shelby. Without objection, it is so ordered.

               Prepared Statement of Senator Slade Gorton

    Mr. Chairman, a tragic pipeline accident in Washington state last 
year that killed three young people has focused my attention, as it has 
my colleague's, Senator Murray's, and that of the entire Washington 
state delegation, on the operation and funding of a relatively small 
office within the Department of Transportation with the enormous 
responsibility of ensuring the safety of liquid and gas pipelines. I 
see that the Administrator of the Office of Research and Special 
Programs, Kelley Coyner, within which the Office of Pipeline Safety is 
located will testify today.
    I am pleased to see that the President has recommended an increase 
in funding for OPS. While the proposed expenditures sound reasonable, 
it was unclear to me from reading the budget how much of the funds and 
OPS resources will be committed to concluding rule-makings that are 
required by Federal law, but that are shockingly overdue: in some cases 
by more than five years. These rules are intended to deal with issues 
critical to pipeline safety, including the use and frequency of 
internal pipeline inspection and the use of emergency flow restricting 
devices and leak detection equipment. I understand that OPS intends, 
prompted largely by the tragedy in Bellingham, to consolidate many of 
these rulemakings into a single ``pipeline integrity'' proceeding that 
it hopes to conclude this year, at least with respect to large 
operators. I expect the Office of Pipeline Safety to do this, and to 
make this rulemaking an absolute priority.
    Because of the interstate nature of pipelines, Federal laws and 
rules regarding their safety are largely preemptive, which is to say 
that states are generally prohibited from adopting stricter safety 
standards. Legislation introduced in both the House by Representative 
Metcalf, and in the Senate by Senator Murray, would relax this Federal 
preemption. I agree that state and local governments should have more 
authority. While Senator Murray's bill does not address this issue as 
directly as many in Washington state would like, it makes an excellent 
start and I intend very shortly to co-sponsor the bill and work with 
her on amending it to reflect the comments and concerns of the many 
interested parties in Washington state.
    The debate over Federal preemption, however, will be held in the 
Commerce Committee, not here. For purposes of appropriations it is 
important to recognize that despite preemption, states play a 
significant role in pipeline safety. They regulate, by mile, 
significantly more pipeline than does the Federal Government because 
they are regulate intrastate lines. On very limited occasions, the OPS 
has also designated states as its agent for purposes of inspecting 
interstate liquid pipelines, a designation that I understand Washington 
state would like to obtain in the interim before it is permitted by 
Federal law to assume greater authority. To assist states with these 
responsibilities, the Federal Government provides grants of up to 50 
percent of the cost of state programs. I fully support an increase in 
the funds available for these grants to help cover the costs in 2001 of 
the new pipeline safety functions that have been proposed in a bill 
moving through the Washington state legislature.
                                 ______
                                 

               Readiness: The Reality Behind the Numbers

                               AMENITIES

    It has been said that ``a conference is a meeting to decide where 
the next meeting will take place.'' That may be true of the WTO meeting 
out in Seattle this week, but I have much higher hopes for this 
gathering. My confidence comes partly from knowing that the importance 
of military readiness will draw the serious attention it deserves and 
partly because the CNA has done its homework so well in creating a 
forum for us to consider readiness issues in a way that can actually 
lead to improving readiness.
    The panel topics are relevant and practical. How do we assess 
readiness? Is there a people problem? Has operational tempo affected 
readiness? What are the operators saying? Have we shortchanged 
training, maintenance, and spare parts? How should we protect 
readiness?
    I'm delighted to join you as you grapple with these issues. I am 
grateful to Robert Murray [President of CNA], Dr. Samuel Kleinman [CNA 
VP], and Dr. Laura Junor [Conference Director] for their role in 
bringing us together. And I thank all of the conference participants 
and attendees for your commitment to military readiness.
  introduction: differences between business and military measurement
    Dave Thomas--the fellow who founded the Wendy's hamburger chain--
wrote a book about his meandering path to success in life. In that 
book, he briefly explained his approach to measuring the health of his 
company.
    As you might imagine from the commercials you've seen, Mr. Thomas 
didn't spend a lot of time poring over spreadsheets. He was a hands-on 
leader. He formed the habit of identifying a very small set of numbers 
that gave him a good sense of what was going on. He briefly checked 
those numbers every day, and then he spent the bulk of his energy out 
on the floor with his customers and employees exercising the kind of 
leadership needed to keep the numbers tending in the direction he 
wanted. These few numbers tracked carefully--combined with a lot of 
personal involvement--were all he needed to have a clear grasp of where 
he stood.
    Those of us in the readiness business quickly encounter problems 
when we try to follow Mr. Thomas's worthy example. If a small set of 
numbers exists that can convey an accurate sense of overall military 
readiness, it has so far eluded the most determined efforts to find it. 
Three important differences between hamburger stands and armed forces 
keep us from nailing down a convenient index of readiness.
    One difference between Dave's way and our way is that businesses 
measure results whereas military planners measure potential. Instead of 
measuring what we have done--how many hamburgers we sold and how much 
money we get to keep--we try to measure surge capacity--what level of 
effort would we amass if faced with an emergency?
    A second difference is that extraordinary human effort can 
undermine the apparent reliability of the measures that do portray our 
readiness condition. The devotion to duty so prevalent among service 
members often puts the lie to our honest claims of reduced capability. 
We saw that happen a couple months ago when Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd 
hit the eastern seaboard. The public saw the Coast Guard at the center 
of a massive and well coordinated disaster relief effort. What they 
didn't see was the intense scramble to locate parts and perform 
maintenance to get all of our Elizabeth City C-130's operational and to 
keep them flying throughout the operation. The performance they 
delivered could not have been predicted from analyzing our availability 
statistics, and we shouldn't kid ourselves into believing we can expect 
similar results as a matter of course.
    A third difference is that our measures resist aggregation. No 
matter how big a hamburger chain grows, you can combine the financial 
statements of the individual units, look at the totals and the ratios 
between various lines, and get an idea of the overall strength. It's a 
lot harder to see what combinations of military units might be able to 
do if they are needed to work together.
    The difficulty of measuring an intangible element like potential 
output quickly leads to the even more daunting challenge of explaining 
the basis for our readiness concerns to the American public, the 
administration, and to Congress.
    My plan this morning is to skirt these difficulties in measurement 
by looking in detail at a single operational community within the Coast 
Guard--our fleet of C-130 aircraft--and illustrating how our parts 
shortages, personnel issues, and increased optempo are serious 
individual problems that compound the effects of the other problems.
    I will focus on C-130's for three reasons.
    First, they are a common currency among the armed services. 
Everybody flies them, so the lessons they offer may resonate more 
broadly through the audience than those of systems unique to the Coast 
Guard. C-130's are the class of operating assets that is most dependent 
on DOD systems. Many of the stresses we feel are downstream 
manifestations of pain that is also felt by DOD.
    Second, C-130's are a microcosm of the readiness problems that face 
every operational community within the Coast Guard. The combination of 
aging assets and sensors, increased operational tempo, personnel 
shortages and inexperience, and parts shortages that besets our C-130's 
also hinders the effectiveness of our cutters and our other aircraft.
    Third, C-130's epitomize previously stable trend lines that are now 
headed in the wrong direction. Four or five years ago, C-130's were our 
most reliable platform. Now we struggle to meet even our normal day-to-
day commitments.

                       OPTEMPO, PARTS, AND PEOPLE

    Those trend lines raise serious concerns. Over the past four years, 
HC-130 availability has dropped from almost eighty percent to barely 
sixty percent. Air Station Elizabeth City, North Carolina, has five C-
130's, and they are expected to have one of them immediately available 
at all times. During the first six months of 1998, they met the 
standard for ail but one hour. During the first six months of this 
year, the hours without a ready plane jumped to thirty seven. A 
standard we used to achieve easily now seems unattainable. E City 
hasn't gone a single month without a coverage gap in more than a year.
    Optempo immediately looms as one cause. We've always worked our C-
130's hard. They're getting old. They fly low altitude patrols in a 
salty environment, and we program them to fly about a third more hours 
than the DOD services do. Over the past few years, we haven't added new 
planes, and our Search and Rescue obligations haven't been reduced, but 
we have asked our C-130's to perform a lot of deployments in support of 
our drug interdiction mission. As a result, C-130 days away from home 
station have increased more than 60 percent over the last four years.
    We've lost a full 25 percent of our availability while piling on 
additional mission requirements. That one-two punch consumes a whole 
lot of flexibility and surge capacity. Optempo feeds our parts 
problems. Older assets worked harder can be expected to break more 
often. When they do, they need more parts--parts that are becoming more 
scarce and more expensive.
    We try to keep the percentage of hours for which aircraft are not 
mission capable because of parts to less than five percent. Before 
1995, we were consistently at or near this standard. Since then, our 
parts-related unavailability has steadily risen, standing now at about 
16 percent, more than three times higher than it ought to be. Over this 
same period, the inventory value of C-130 parts awaiting repair or 
replacement has doubled.
    As budgets increase more slowly than costs, the problem reaches 
crisis proportions and desperately improvident measures suddenly seem 
reasonable and necessary. We look for other sources of funds--places 
like the training budget--and we cannibalize parts from otherwise 
serviceable aircraft to keep others flying.
    Experienced aviators recall times when cannibalization simply was 
not done. Today it is almost routine for air stations to have a 
designated ``Hangar Queen'' out of service for months at a time because 
its parts have been transplanted in other air frames. Cannibalization 
takes planes out of the rotation, increases the workload and 
maintenance on the other planes, and depletes flexibility in meeting 
response requirements.
    Worse still, cannibalization transmutes our parts shortage into 
personnel problems. When we cannibalize, we double the maintenance 
workload. The normal way for a mechanic to replace a part is to take a 
box off a shelf, remove the defective part, and install the new part. 
One part removed, one part installed. With cannibalization, two parts 
have to be removed and two parts have to be installed.
    This doubled work is performed today by less experienced 
maintenance crews than we had working a few years ago. The average time 
in grade of our chief aviation mechanics has dropped 50 percent over 
the last five years. What this means is that less experienced crews who 
should be getting more training are instead performing the extra work 
occasioned by cannibalization.
    These personnel pressures inevitably affect retention. We train our 
aircraft mechanics to be professionals, and they take pride in doing 
their jobs right. Because they are professionals, they know when we're 
doubling their work, and they know that cannibalization isn't the right 
way to do their job. Sooner or later, they have to ask whether they are 
willing to work twice as hard as they should in order to get paid less 
than they're worth to do a job in a way that offends their professional 
conscience. When they leave, our personnel shortages get worse.
    Overworking inexperienced crews in a good economy is not a good 
prescription for improving retention.
    The story here is that optempo, parts, and personnel problems feed 
off each other and compound each other.

                              CONSEQUENCES

    The practical real world consequences of this situation play out in 
our routine operations. During the month of October, we observed the 
following situations as a result of C-130 readiness problems. We missed 
law enforcement missions in Florida and in Alaska. We lost track of a 
suspected drug smuggler because maintenance issues forced a late 
launch. We lost training flights to SAR and LE missions. C-130's left 
their home bases late and returned early from law enforcement 
deployments because of maintenance problems. We had C-130's fly search 
and rescue missions at higher than normal search altitudes to 
compensate for cabin cooling limitations, thereby reducing the 
probability of detection. And we had C-130's reduced to visual searches 
because their radars didn't work.
    When we suffer such effects in one month of normal operations, we 
know we're operating without a net when called to perform major 
operations.
    We almost had a dramatic example when Hurricane Lenny cut a swath 
through the Caribbean a couple weeks ago. We had a deployed C-130 in 
the region, and like most C-130's it had deployed with exactly one 
crew--we can't afford to send spares.
    Just when the C-130 was needed for disaster relief operations, one 
of the crew members needed a root canal and was medically grounded. As 
it happened, the afflicted person was a basic air crewman, and the 
operational commander granted a waiver to fly one person short. It 
worked out fine. However, if almost anybody else on that crew had 
needed that root canal, the flight would have been canceled. Think 
about it, the United States Coast Guard, Semper Paratus since 1790, was 
one toothache away from not being able to respond to a hurricane!
    One aviator recently told me, ``What we're doing now is all that we 
can do.'' The frugal taxpayer may rejoice to hear this proclamation, 
but the stranded boater surely does not.
    The commanding officer at Air Station Barbers Point in Hawaii 
recalls the airlift undertaken when the super typhoon Paka hit Guam 
around Christmas of 1997. We mounted an all-out relief effort to bring 
Red Cross supplies out to the western Pacific. Looking at current 
availability rates for his C-130's, he doubts he could deliver an 
encore performance this Christmas.
    These problems also affect other armed services. Our air station 
out in Hawaii has a Long-Range Intercept mission requirement to have a 
C-130 available in case a civilian airplane has to ditch. Our air 
station increasingly finds itself unable to meet this requirement and 
has had to pass it off to Navy P-3s for as much as two days at a time. 
The P-3's are less well suited for this mission, and they already have 
jobs. So our readiness problem ends up becoming the Navy's readiness 
problem.
    If that had happened last week, the results could have been deadly. 
A general aviation plane did have to make a nighttime ditching, and a 
C-130 was needed to get on scene to mark the ditch course with lights 
and get a fix on the downed aircraft.

AIRSTA SACRAMENTO SAR CASE: LACK OF READINESS MAY ALREADY BE COSTING US 
                                 LIVES

    In one case last month, our readiness problems may have prevented 
us from saving a life. Air Station Sacramento has four C-130's. At the 
time of this incident, the first C-130 was the ready aircraft on 
immediate standby, and a second was ready to fly as a backup to the 
first. The third plane was deployed for counterdrug operations out of 
the country, and the fourth one was the hangar queen. It had been out 
of service since April and was being used as a parts source for the 
other planes.
    This situation might have been tenable except that the second C-
130--the backup to the ready aircraft--was overdue for some maintenance 
that could be extended only for a few more days before the airplane 
would have to be grounded.
    The air station had to perform the maintenance, but scheduling the 
maintenance required them to choose a day on which they would have no 
backup to the ready C-130. Not having a backup is a bad situation for a 
search and rescue unit because mariners tend not to consult our 
availability schedules before getting themselves lost, and some of them 
persist in remaining lost until multiple sorties are flown.
    But there was no choice. The air station picked a day with no law 
enforcement patrols planned, scheduled the maintenance, and took the 
plane off line to perform the work. Sure enough, there was a SAR call 
on the day they picked. Ordered to locate the source of an EPIRB alarm, 
the ready aircraft took off, flew 500 miles off Cape Mendocino, and 
found a genuine distress situation. A dismasted sailboat was battling 
70 mile per hour winds, mountainous seas, and low visibility. The 
boat's lone occupant was in serious trouble. The air crew could see him 
through the weather from time to time, but they couldn't establish 
communications. They dropped a radio to the sailboat, but the operator 
wasn't able to retrieve it from the heavy seas.
    Surface units were en route, but help was hours away.
    In a case like this--crippled vessel, extreme weather, no 
communications--we definitely wanted to maintain continuous air 
presence until a cutter could arrive on scene. And we could have 
maintained that presence if our second C-130 had been ready to fly.
    But it wasn't. It was being worked on, and there was no way to 
button it back together in time. We looked for other assets and found 
an Air National Guard C-130 in Portland, Oregon, but the distances 
involved meant that our C-130 would head home well before the relief 
plane arrived.
    The Air National Guard plane reached the scene as night was 
failing. By that time, the EPIRB had stopped transmitting. There was no 
sign of the sailboat, no sign of its occupant. Nothing but wind and 
waves and rain.
    We searched for six days. We flew eleven C-130 sorties from 
Sacramento. We brought in a buoy tender, a medium endurance cutter, and 
a high endurance cutter with an embarked HH-65 helicopter. The Air 
National Guard continued to provide C-130 support, and a USNS ship 
diverted to help. A huge effort. Spent more than we did on the more 
publicized JFK case. All we found was some debris.
    A second C-130 might not have made any difference to the lost 
sailor. It's possible that he would have died even if we had kept a 
plane overhead. But at the very least, we would have known when and 
where his boat went down.
    This case illustrates four unacceptable consequences of our 
readiness situation. First, we jeopardize our own crews by sending them 
into situations in which we know we can't provide a backup if they get 
into trouble. Second, we don't have the confidence we ought to have 
that we are giving stricken mariners the best possible chance to be 
rescued. Third, our inability to do the job right the first time 
requires the expenditure of far more resources than would have been 
needed if the right assets had been available when first needed. And 
fourth, when we finally close the case, we find our already precarious 
readiness posture has been further degraded by the parts and the people 
we burned out in the too-much-too late rescue effort.
    A readiness climate in which we habitually make extraordinary 
expenditures when it's too late because we can't bring the right 
resources to bear when it matters is simply intolerable to me--and 
ought to be intolerable to the American public.

                               CONCLUSION

    Earlier in my remarks, I mentioned a ditching case out in Hawaii. 
Everybody involved in that case praised the downed pilot for his poise 
and professionalism. After being rescued, the pilot explained why he 
remained calm and confident throughout his ordeal. He said, ``You know 
if you can hang on until the next morning that you're going to make it 
because the Coast Guard is going to come and get you. It's just a 
matter of if you can hang on.''
    Will Rogers once said that it's not what you don't know that gets 
you in trouble, it's the things you know that ain't so. This civilian 
pilot represents the American public in that he ``knows'' the Coast 
Guard will be there to save him if he can just hang on. Unfortunately, 
his knowing doesn't make it so.
    I believe the readiness problems in the C-130 world mirror similar 
problems of similar magnitude in our other operational communities. In 
fact, given that our C-130 fleet is younger and better maintained than 
many of our cutters, it's almost inevitable.
    The unfavorable trends in aircraft availability, parts inventories, 
and crew experience challenge our ability to provide mariners in 
distress with the rescue services Americans have come to expect.
    These problems impose two responsibilities upon us, which I will 
offer as challenges for this conference.
    The first responsibility is to speak frankly about the seriousness 
and the extent of the problems we face. We cannot permit the public to 
learn of this situation only when we fail dramatically to provide some 
service the taxpayers think they paid for. Many of our readiness issues 
are the sort of problem that really can be solved by throwing money at 
them. Twelve or thirteen million dollars to restore our parts 
inventories to where they were a few years ago would be a nice place to 
start. We should say so.
    The second responsibility is to come up with better ways to think 
about managing our readiness challenges. Understanding that immediate 
relief from budgetary constraints is unlikely, we need to attend very 
seriously to the problems that will persist when we shake the money 
tree and nothing falls into our baskets. Not having enough is not a 
sufficient reason for not doing our best with what we have. We will all 
face difficult choices about balance, setting priorities, deciding 
where to allocate the next dollar. This conference offers an excellent 
opportunity to frame our understanding of the work that lies ahead.
    Thank you.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Senator Shelby. Additional committee questions will be sent 
to the respective agencies for response in the record.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Agencies for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]

Questions Submitted to the Research and Special Programs Administration

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

       department-wide review of the hazardous materials program
    Question. DOT will release shortly a departmental Hazardous 
Materials Program Evaluation in which the Office of Inspector General 
participated. What results do you expect from this evaluation?
    Answer. The evaluation is showing some positive trends. For 
example, we expect DOT to establish a central focal point to coordinate 
a DOT-wide Hazardous Materials program. We will let Congress know when 
the results of this evaluation are released.

                               USER FEES

    Question. What has been the reaction from the pipeline industry to 
this proposed increase in user fees.
    Answer. It would not be appropriate for us to speak for the 
industry on this matter.
    Question. If the proposed increase in user fees is rejected by 
Congress (as so many of the Administration's user fee proposals have 
been), what other potential funding sources are available.
    Answer. We have no other proposed funding source.

                                 GRANTS

    Question. Why are interstate pipeline companies being asked to 
shoulder the entire cost of this program despite the authorization?
    Answer. Outside force damage associated with construction is the 
leading cause of pipeline failures. It is the cause of at least 33 
percent and 18 percent of the incidents in Gas Transmission and in 
Hazardous liquid lines, respectively. When we determine pipeline user 
fees, we prorate the assessment between gas and liquid in accordance 
with the degree of benefit which they accrue as a result of the 
Pipeline Safety program implementation.
                                 ______
                                 

              Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray

                          INTERSTATE PIPELINES

    Question. What do you mean when you say that you want to expand and 
strengthen partnerships with states?
    Answer. We have been committed over the past several years to 
working with states to strengthen the pipeline safety partnership and 
to providing adequate resources to support their activities. This 
budget provides record resources to increase states capabilities and 
builds on the actions we have taken in the State of Washington to work 
together to comprehensively evaluate and improve pipeline safety.
    Question. Could you explain in what areas you would be comfortable 
seeing states have regulatory authority over interstate pipelines if 
they prove they have the money and the expertise to do so?
    Answer. We do not support giving the states regulatory authority 
over interstate pipelines. The intention to ``expand and strengthen 
partnerships with states'' did not include giving states regulatory 
authority. Yet, we support states lending their technical knowledge and 
expertise to the Office of Pipeline Safety's oversight of interstate 
pipelines in areas where states knowledge of local safety and 
environmental concerns can be used to improve pipeline safety. We also 
support states being involved in responding to incidents, investigating 
and monitoring corrective measures with respect to safety-related 
conditions and other local conditions that increase risks to pipelines, 
handling local complaints and related inquiries, monitoring pipeline 
construction and reporting noncompliance with design and construction 
standards to OPS. We appreciate the states' involvement and knowledge 
in these areas.

                          PERIODIC INSPECTIONS

    Question. My bill and the House bill will require periodic 
inspections every five years. Will your rule require mandatory periodic 
inspections? If not, what mechanism will be in place to ensure that we 
are relying on more than the industry's own self-interest?
    Answer. Shortly, the Department will issue a rulemaking which will 
establish requirements for periodic testing. This rule will incorporate 
by reference a national consensus standard which identifies specific 
enforceable standards for the interval for internal inspection, repair 
criteria, and mitigation measures such as extra valves. The Department 
is concerned that a five year interval may result in some lines being 
tested too frequently. And it may be desirable to test some lines more 
often. Indeed through administrative action, the Department has 
required pipeline companies to test as frequently as every six months 
to a year. Similarly, the condition and nature of other lines does not 
merit testing as frequently as every five years, and we would prefer 
that safety resources be devoted to other more important activities.

                             CERTIFICATION

    Question. Why don't you think it is feasible to have individual 
federal certification and testing of operators? It is feasible in the 
airline industry where the FAA determines the capabilities of 
individual employees who work on aircraft.
    Answer. To be done properly, individual federal certification and 
testing of pipeline employees would be extremely costly. We believe 
that worker qualification will be achieved more effectively and 
efficiently by implementation of the operator qualification rule which 
we issued last year. To be qualified, an individual must be able to 
demonstrate the ability to successfully and consistently perform the 
task. Regulators will be looking to the operator to show how 
individuals performing covered tasks have been evaluated to ensure they 
are qualified.
    OPS expects testing and certification to be a major way in which 
operators demonstrate that an individual is capable of safely and 
effectively performing a covered task. However, the testing and 
certification will be done under established national certification 
programs in the private sector rather than by creation of a new Federal 
program.

                  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY

    Question. What types of research and development is OPS undertaking 
to better the level of inspection technologies?
    Answer. We are completing a $3.1 million research contract which 
commenced in June 1996 to identify and characterize pipeline mechanical 
damage by advancing magnetic flux leakage technology on an in-line 
inspection device, or ``smart pig.'' This research was conducted under 
a Memorandum of Understanding with the Gas Research Institute (GRI). 
The research team of Battelle, Southwest Research Institute, and Iowa 
State University conducted the research. The laboratory work conducted 
under this research has revealed a multilevel magnetization signal is 
needed to fully characterize the two components of mechanical damage, 
which are the changes in pipe geometry and changes in the properties of 
the pipe metal resulting from mechanical damage. A procedure to 
distinguish the difference using the multiple magnetization level 
approach has been proven. The research team has also determined the 
effects of pipe stress and mechanical damage on the magnetic fields 
induced in the pipe wall by magnetic flux leakage ``pigs'' and has 
evaluated alternative methods of classifying and characterizing 
mechanical damage using neural networks and nonlinear harmonics. This 
work may allow a mechanical damage detection capability to be added to 
existing corrosion ``pigs''. In fact, a domestic ``pig'' vendor, 
Tuboscope Vetco Pipeline Services, is testing a prototype mechanical 
damage ``pig'' using data obtained as a result of this research.
    At GRI's Pipeline Simulation Facility (PSF) near Columbus, Ohio, 
the research team upgraded the ``pig'' that serves as the Test Bed 
Vehicle (TBV) with state-of-the-art sensors, a new data acquisition 
system, and a more robust magnetizer system. The TBV has been used to 
gather data on mechanical damage defect sets in the 300-foot pull rig 
and in the 4700-foot pressurized flow loop located at the PSF.
    A final report on the three-year research is being drafted and 
should be completed by the end of April. Once completed, it will be 
available on the Office of Pipeline Safety's Internet web site, http://
ops.dot.gov.
    The three-year research project was conducted with orientation of 
the magnetic field in the conventional direction along the longitudinal 
axis of the pipe. An fiscal year 2000 initiative will identify and 
characterize mechanical damage by conducting testing with the magnetic 
field in the pipe's circumferential direction. We expect completion by 
April 2002.
    OPS has also requested funding for fiscal year 2001 to advance 
technologies for pipeline monitoring and pipe locating for broader use 
in protecting underground facilities. We expect to develop approaches 
to monitoring activity on the pipeline right of way so that excavation 
damage can be discovered in real time or near real time to preclude 
accidents from occurring. There is a range of emerging technologies for 
monitoring which can be used for prevention or detection of damage 
which deserve more research attention to advance their application to 
prevent pipeline failures. These would include use of acoustics, 
satellites and impressed current. We also have requested funding to 
identify and evaluate location equipment for buried plastic gas mains 
and services, develop performance criteria for improved generations of 
equipment with the desired locating capabilities, and investigate 
alternative ways to design plastic pipe so it can be more easily 
located.

                          REAUTHORIZATION BILL

    Question. When do you plan on sending the Administration's pipeline 
safety reauthorization bill to Congress?
    Answer. We will be sending the Administration's proposal shortly.
                                 ______
                                 

              Questions Submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard

           Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                    COAST GUARD YARD--CORE FACILITY

    Question. I'd like to raise the issue of the Curtis Bay Coast Guard 
Yard with Vice Admiral Card. As you know, the Coast Guard Yard has 
played a vital role in ensuring the readiness of the Coast Guard fleet 
through the construction, repair, and renovation of both vessels and 
aids to navigation peculiar to the Coast Guard.
    The Yard provides essential capabilities that are simply not 
available in commercial shipyards. Those capabilities include the 
Yard's instant response for emergency and non-emergency work, special 
ordnance and electronic repair expertise, instant ability to obligate 
funds without pre- and post-contract requirements and delays, and no-
risk performance guarantees. Without the help of the Yard, the Coast 
Guard would be unable to maintain its fleet and therefore unable to 
meet its mission of saving lives.
    Do you consider the Curtis Bay Coast Guard Yard to be a Core 
Logistics Facility?
    Answer. Yes. In response to requirements outlined by the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act of 1988, the Secretary of Transportation 
provided a list of ``essential logistics'' activities. The Coast Guard 
Yard is on that list. The Yard remains an essential component to meet 
Coast Guard support requirements for our fleet.

                   COAST GUARD YARD POLICY STATEMENT

    Question. If so, will you state that the Curtis Bay Coast Guard 
Yard is a Core Logistics Facility in the policy statement that is 
currently being developed by Headquarters?
    Answer. Yes, the Coast Guard will reaffirm the essential nature of 
the Yard in our new policy statement. Over the past 100 years, the Yard 
has adapted to significant changes and challenges the Coast Guard has 
faced. The Yard's flexibility is a key component of its value to the 
Coast Guard. The Coast Guard continues to evaluate how the Yard can 
best meet the needs of the fleet and also lend its expertise to other 
government agencies. The Coast Guard's assessment in this regard is a 
continuous process and includes accounting for changes in its fleet 
size and opportunities for new business.

                      REFURBISHING USCGC MACKINAW

    Question. Also, is the Coast Guard giving serious consideration to 
refurbishing the Great Lakes Icebreaker at the Curtis Bay Coast Guard 
Yard?
    Answer. The Coast Guard intends to replace (not refurbish) Coast 
Guard Cutter MACKINAW with a new construction multipurpose icebreaker.
    The Coast Guard has determined that a competitive procurement is 
the most appropriate strategy to achieve performance, cost, and 
schedule objectives. Market surveys conducted by the Coast Guard 
reflect significant commercial interest in this acquisition.

             USCGC MACKINAW REFURBISHMENT DECISION TIMELINE

    Question. When will the Coast Guard decide where the Great Lakes 
Icebreaker will be refurbished?
    Answer. The Coast Guard intends to replace (not refurbish) Coast 
Guard Cutter MACKINAW with a new construction multipurpose icebreaker. 
The Coast Guard intends to award a commercial contract to design and 
build the Great Lakes Icebreaker during the third quarter of fiscal 
year 2001.

                             AIR-21 IMPACT

    Question. Admiral Card, as you know, the Senate and the House 
currently are conferencing on the so-called AIR-21, the FAA 
reauthorization bill. One of the areas that remains unresolved is the 
issue of budgetary treatment for aviation programs. The House has 
proposed to create a firewall that would guarantee both trust funds 
revenues as well as general tax revenues for aviation programs. What 
impact would the House's budgetary treatment proposal have on Coast 
Guard safety programs?
    Answer. AIR-21 mandates large increases for FAA capital spending 
under the budget caps, making it more difficult to fund other 
discretionary programs, including the Coast Guard. Nevertheless, safety 
programs are a core mission which we will attempt to protect and we 
will continue to seek your support for the funding levels for the Coast 
Guard requested in the President's Budget.
                                 ______
                                 

      Questions Submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
                             Administration

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                         ADVANCED SIDE GLAZING

    Question. Has NHTSA finalized its decade-long research of this 
technology, and if not, when can we expect its completion?
    Answer. NHTSA is conducting additional research to address 
potential adverse safety effects that advanced glazing may cause. 
Specifically, this glazing might have durability problems, might make 
rescue more difficult by entrapping people in vehicles, and might 
increase head and neck injuries if it does not break out. To better 
judge the costs associated with advanced glazing, NHTSA is examining 
whether installing this glazing in windows without frames is feasible 
and cost beneficial. As a result of these concerns, NHTSA is currently 
conducting tests and performing further analyses to determine an 
appropriate test impact speed, to ensure repeatability of test 
procedures, and to evaluate selected impact points. This research is 
expected to be completed by the end of August of this year, at which 
time the agency will have sufficient information to arrive at a 
regulatory decision regarding ejection mitigation. However, with the 
new laminated window materials, the increased use of laminated side 
windows in Europe and Mexico, and a drive for harmonized world glazing 
standards, it is important that NHTSA continue research to provide 
objective analysis of the evolving safety opportunities and 
implications of advanced glazing. Furthermore, research will continue 
beyond August for studying entrapment issues, lacerations, and the 
revised costs associated with the newer ejection resistant glazing 
systems that will be introduced to the marketplace.
    Question. What other projects is NHTSA working on that take 
precedence?
    Answer. Ejection mitigation research is one of NHTSA's efforts with 
a high potential of large safety benefits. Consequently, this research 
has been fully funded and is underway. The side head air bag research 
is a parallel research program with the advanced glazing research 
program. Both of these research efforts are targeting the same 
potential benefit for reducing ejection likelihood.
    Question. What is the status of testing advanced side glazing for 
head and neck impact injury?
    Answer. Substantial work on evaluating the head and neck injury 
potential of advanced side glazing has been completed. The results and 
analysis from this effort are contained in the August 1999 status 
report. Additional analysis of head and neck injury is planned.
    The dummy neck responses in the sled tests were not repeatable, 
especially for the tempered glass impacts. Therefore, an additional 
series of sled tests was performed, using tempered glass. The results 
from these tests are currently being analyzed, and additional testing 
may be required.
    The level of door frame modification directly affects the occupant 
retention capability of advanced side glazings. The agency is, 
therefore, examining what effect that door frame modification has on 
head injury potential. The free-motion headform is being used to 
measure head responses from impacts into advanced side glazings mounted 
with differing levels of door frame modifications. This testing is 
currently underway.
    These additional head and neck injury evaluations will be completed 
in August 2000.
    Question. Does it make sense to implement side glazing standards 
while NHTSA pursues other more long-term research into preventing 
ejections and roll-overs?
    Answer. The agency expects to complete its advanced side glazing 
testing in the fall of 2000. The agency will make its final decision 
once the advanced glazing testing is complete and agency staff have had 
the opportunity to review the results of the testing. At that point, 
the agency will be able to compare the relative merits and drawbacks of 
side glazing standards versus other technologies to prevent rollover 
ejections.

                             SEATBELT USAGE

    Question. Ms. Millman, has your agency shied away this goal?
    Answer. NHTSA has not shied away from the goal of 85 percent seat 
belt use. While it is apparent that an 85 percent use rate is a very 
ambitious goal, steady progress is being made and we plan to maintain 
our vigorous approach to raising seat belt use rates nationwide. Two 
states, California and New Mexico, currently exceed 85 percent belt 
use. Eight other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have 
use rates near 80 percent.
    The agency has outlined a two-pronged approach to achieve a 
significant increase in seat belt use over the next year. This two-
pronged approach requires NHTSA to (1) expand the scope of the Buckle 
Up America Campaign in all 50 states; and (2) focus on several 
opportunities including: states with high seat belt use rates, states 
with new primary laws, states with potential to increase belt use, and 
states likely to pass primary seat belt laws.
    In addition to the two-pronged approach, NHTSA has also assisted 
the states financially with grant money authorized in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 
authorized $500 million over the next five years in grants to encourage 
states to increase seat belt use rates. In November 1999, NHTSA awarded 
$54.6 million to 34 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 
in incentive grant funds used for supporting programs that encourage 
seat belt use. In February of this year, NHTSA awarded 44 states, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico grants worth $25 million for 
innovative projects to promote increased seat belt use rates.
    Also, Section 405 of TEA-21 calls for occupant protection incentive 
grants to be awarded to States that adopt and implement effective 
programs to reduce highway deaths and injuries resulting from 
individuals riding unrestrained or improperly restrained in motor 
vehicles. In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA awarded 43 states and territories 
$9.5 million in funding.
    The combination of a two-pronged approach and grant money for the 
states should result in a substantial increase in seat belt use.

                     STATE SURVEY ON SEAT BELT USE

    Question. I understand that the NHTSA has collected the latest 
state survey data regarding seat belt use. What does the data tell us 
that seat belt usage is increasing?
    Answer. By March 1, 2000, all states, except South Dakota and 
Wyoming, submitted data from seat belt observation surveys conducted in 
1999. South Dakota and Wyoming informed the agency that they had 
conducted no observational survey in 1999. New Hampshire submitted an 
observed use rate without an accompanying report, and informed the 
agency that the survey methodology they had employed was not in 
compliance with the uniform criteria developed by the agency for the 
Section 157 incentive grant program. The agency has not yet completed 
the technical review of the submitted reports to verify the accuracy of 
the reported usage rates. However, a preliminary analysis of the 
reported rates indicates the average of the states' usage rates for 
1999, weighted by vehicle miles traveled, is approximately 70 percent, 
up approximately one percentage point from the weighted average for 
1998.
    Question. Considering that seat belt usage has remained essentially 
flat during the past four years, what new strategies is NHTSA intending 
to implement to achieve this goal?
    Answer. The agency acknowledges that seat belt use has not grown 
much as we hoped. It is apparent that the 85 percent use rate is a very 
ambitious goal. NHTSA plans to maintain a vigorous approach to raising 
seat belt use rates nationwide. Two states, California and New Mexico, 
currently exceed 85 percent belt use. Eight other states, the District 
of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have use rates near 80 percent. The agency 
has outlined a two pronged approach to achieve a significant increase 
in seat belt use over the next year. This two pronged approach requires 
NHTSA to: (1) expand the scope of the Buckle Up America Campaign in all 
50 states; and (2) focus on several opportunities including: states 
with high seat belt use rates, states with new primary laws, states 
with potential to increase belt use, and states likely to pass primary 
seat belt laws.
    Question. Is the goal for 2005 to increase seat belt usage to 90 
percent more realistic than the 85 percent goal?
    Answer. The goals to reach 85 percent by 2000 and 90 percent by 
2005 are both realistic. A primary reason that these goals can be met 
is the large amount of grant money that has become available under the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 
authorized $500 million over the next five years (beginning in fiscal 
year 1999) in incentive and innovative grants to encourage states to 
increase seat belt use rates. In 1999, NHTSA awarded $54.6 million in 
incentive grants to 34 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 
Rico. The grant funds will be used to support highway safety programs, 
including those encouraging seat belt use and special traffic 
enforcement programs. In addition, funds have been awarded to States to 
carry out innovative projects to promote increased seat belt use rates. 
In fiscal year 2000, 44 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 
Rico have been awarded grants worth $25 million. Also, under Section 
405 of TEA-21, the legislation calls for a second occupant protection 
incentive grant program to reduce the number of Americans riding 
unrestrained in motor vehicles. In fiscal year 1999, 43 states and 
territories received $9.5 million to increase belt use.
    To assist the states in implementing their new program efforts and 
to insure that national goals are met, the agency has outlined a two-
pronged approach to achieve a significant increase in seat belt use. 
This two-pronged approach requires NHTSA to: (1) expand the scope of 
the Buckle Up America Campaign in all 50 states; and (2) focus on 
several opportunities including: states with high seat belt use rates, 
states with new primary laws, states with potential to increase belt 
use, and states likely to pass primary seat belt laws.
                                 ______
                                 

         Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

      ROLE OF THE NTSB IN THE AIR BAG TEST DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

    Question. Could you please tell me what role the NTSB plays in your 
decision-making process? Aside from the statistics and recommendations 
provided from the NTSB, on what other input do you rely?
    Answer. The NTSB interacts with NHTSA both informally and formally 
on scientific and policy levels. Informally, respective staff members 
coordinate activities on technical issues, exchange ideas, and share 
crash investigation results. The automotive safety information exchange 
benefits all participants in the decision making process. On a more 
formal basis, NHTSA attends numerous NTSB hearings and briefings to 
learn more about NTSB's investigations of automotive safety. NHTSA also 
carefully considers any comments submitted by the NTSB to our formal 
rulemaking dockets. Periodically (usually annually), the NTSB issues a 
series of recommendations designed to shape NHTSA's rulemaking 
strategies. NHTSA replies to the NTSB's recommendations in writing, 
either providing reasons for implementing the recommendation, or 
informing the NTSB that an alternative approach may more effectively 
attain the stated objective. The NTSB's recommendations, together with 
NHTSA's responses, represent an iterative process that concludes only 
when the NTSB determines that a specific recommendation is ``Closed--
Acceptable Response.'' More often, NHTSA's actions in meeting the 
NTSB's recommendations are rated as ``Open-Acceptable Response,'' or 
``Open--Acceptable Alternative Action,'' simply because most regulatory 
actions are of long duration. In summary, NHTSA benefits from NTSB 
inputs to NHTSA's automotive engineering knowledge and in mutual 
efforts to improve Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards by:
  --attending NTSB conferences, symposia and safety hearings;
  --responding to NTSB recommendations for improving automotive safety;
  --reviewing NTSB formal comments submitted to our rulemaking dockets;
  --participating informally with NTSB staff to advance safety 
        performance standards.
    Question. Since the NTSB cannot make any regulations, and can only 
provide recommendations for safety improvements, what recourse is there 
if their data and recommendations are in dispute with your new rule?
    Answer. NHTSA and the NTSB both believe transportation safety is 
the number one goal of our efforts. On those occasions when there are 
reasonable differences, NHTSA and the NTSB openly share technical 
reports and supporting data so that both entities are well aware of the 
other's position. NHTSA respects and always weighs the NTSB's opinions 
as extremely significant.
    If the NTSB continues to disagree with an NHTSA decision, the NTSB 
can and does re-address its opinions and concerns to NHTSA and the 
Secretary of Transportation. NHTSA has found that the inputs of the 
NTSB are informative and add value to the deliberations. For example, 
in a recent significant rulemaking, NHTSA specifically solicited the 
NTSB's comments and delayed deliberations when agency staff noted the 
NTSB's comments were absent at the end of the open comment period. The 
NTSB did provide comments shortly after the deadline, and the comments 
were considered. In general, when there is a substantive disagreement, 
NHTSA frequently conducts scientific tests and analyses to 
reinvestigate the NTSB's assumptions and conclusions.
    However, in making decisions that concern ongoing rulemaking 
actions, NHTSA relies on its knowledge of advanced automotive 
engineering and test results acquired at NHTSA's test facilities. 
Moreover, NHTSA is required by law and executive orders to consider 
additional factors in decision making that are not required of the 
NTSB.
    Question. Has NHTSA looked into the recommendations of the NTSB? Do 
you plan on issuing a rule such as the one proposed?
    Answer. NHTSA requirements regulate new vehicles that carry 11 or 
more persons that are sold for transporting students to or from school 
or school related events. Those vehicles are required to meet all 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for school buses. The 
FMVSSs applicable to school buses require that school buses have safety 
features over and above those of other passenger vehicles. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30101, et seq., a vehicle is regarded as being sold for use as a 
school bus if, at the time of sale, it is evident that the vehicle is 
likely to be significantly used to transport students to or from school 
or school related events. This statute applies to school buses sold to 
public as well as parochial schools. Thus, a dealer selling a new 15-
passenger van to be used for school transportation must ensure that the 
van is certified as meeting our school bus FMVSSs. Again, NHTSA 
regulations can only apply to the manufacture and sale/lease of new 
vehicles. Each State prescribes its own regulations that apply to the 
use of any vehicle that is used to transport students. It has been a 
long standing agency policy that school buses be used to transport 
school children to and from school or an event related to school.
    NTSB did not make any safety recommendation on this subject to 
NHTSA. The safety recommendation from NTSB went to the governors of all 
50 states and the District of Columbia. The safety recommendation asked 
that the jurisdictions that have the authority to regulate the type of 
vehicles that are used for school transportation, require that those 
vehicles carrying more than ten passengers (buses) and transporting 
children to and from school and school related activities (including 
but not limited to, Head Start programs and day care centers) meet the 
Federal school bus safety standards.

             REGULATIONS ON HOW FAR/LONG VANS MAY BE DRIVEN

    Question. I also understand that unlike those rules governing 
commercial bus drivers, no regulations exist covering how far or how 
long vans may be driven. Is this an area of concern for NHTSA? Does 
NHTSA have any plans to address this issue?
    Answer. Safe transportation is always a concern of NHTSA. The 
agency has advocated through our traffic safety program the effects of 
fatigue and other conditions that impair a person's ability to drive a 
motor vehicle safely. However, NHTSA does not have the authority to 
issue regulations regarding how far or how long vans can be driven. 
Currently, the States have authority to issue regulations regarding how 
vehicles are used. Federal requirements pertaining to this type of 
regulation come under the jurisdiction of the new Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration.

                        ROLLOVER COUNTERMEASURES

    Question. With the increasing popularity of SUV's, rollover crashes 
are becoming more frequent and a more significant injury/fatality 
statistic. Some domestic auto manufacturers have already gone on record 
with plans to install rollover countermeasures in the near future. How 
does DOT/NHTSA propose to address this issue? For example, does the 
government plan to require these types of systems for rollover 
protection.
    Answer. NHTSA has been conducting tests and studying the issue of 
rollover for several years. Both static stability tests and dynamic 
rollover tests have been conducted since 1997. In July 1999, the agency 
published a report on the results of the rollover research program. The 
agency has developed, and plans to issue within a short time, a Request 
for Comments on a Consumer Information Program giving rollover risk 
ratings for passenger cars and light trucks, in lieu of rulemaking at 
this time. NHTSA also intends to continue its dynamic rollover research 
program, and to evaluate any rollover countermeasures that might be 
developed.

               AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY FOR AN AGING POPULATION

    Question. The aging of the baby-boomer generation raises 
significant(ly the) population of imminent elders. Older people are 
more susceptible to injuries and fatalities. As the baby-boom 
generation ages, (the) sheer number of this population segment (will) 
heighten the importance of this issue. At present, occupant protection 
strategies are focused on younger adults. What do the government 
regulatory bodies intend to do to address automotive safety for an 
aging population?
    Answer. Secretary Rodney Slater has indicated the high priority he 
places on this issue, and his desire that the Department undertake 
additional initiatives to assure continuing safe transportation for 
older adults. NHTSA, the Federal Transit Administration, and the 
Federal Highway Administration have numerous projects underway that 
will contribute to meeting the challenge of preparing the 
transportation system to accommodate this rapidly growing segment of 
society.
    NHTSA is pursuing several approaches in its efforts to protect 
older drivers and passengers of motor vehicles. NHTSA is looking at a 
range of safety issues involving older occupants of vehicles, from ways 
to help them avoid crashes (e.g. regulatory changes to reduce 
headlighting glare) to ways to protect them from injury when crashes do 
occur. The current state of crash dummy development already provides a 
level of instrument calibration that allows us to address the 
particular susceptibilities of older individuals. NHTSA expects older 
occupants to benefit from air bag improvements, including dual stage 
systems, resulting from the current agency rulemaking on advanced air 
bags.
    Other agency activities include collaboration with the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute on Aging to 
update the transportation research and development requirements for the 
elderly for the next 25 years. This research plan will be published by 
the Transportation Research Board this year. NHTSA also is working with 
the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and the Eno Transportation 
Foundation to initiate a national dialogue on the transportation needs 
of older adults and to devise solutions where problems are found.
    In addition, NHTSA is examining several new technologies as part of 
the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Intelligent Vehicle 
Initiative (IVI), to help older drivers avoid crashes. These 
technologies have the potential to help meet the special needs of older 
individuals--needs such as slowed reactions, sensitivity to glare, and 
a narrowed field of view. Among the in-vehicle technologies the agency 
is examining are collision warning and near-object detection systems 
for backing and lane changing, night vision enhancement, forward 
collision avoidance systems, and intelligent cruise control.

                 MODIFICATION OF THE DEFORMABLE BARRIER

    Question. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 214 
moving deformable barrier test is configured to represent a typical 
passenger vehicle. Significant increases in SUV purchases, however, 
indicate a potential need to modify the deformable barrier to better 
represent real-world vehicle crash scenarios. Are there plans to do so 
to more accurately reflect this shift in the automotive population?
    Answer. On July 2, 1998, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 
(Advocates) submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that FMVSS 
214,''Side Impact Protection,'' be upgraded. In its petition, Advocates 
indicated that the requirements of FMVSS 214 are insufficient to 
provide adequate protection to occupants of passenger cars and small 
LTVs when their vehicles are struck on the side by larger, heavier and 
more aggressive vehicles. Advocates argued that the moving deformable 
barrier (MDB) of FMVSS 214 is not high/heavy enough because the MDB was 
originally designed in 1988 for a vehicle fleet that was projected to 
be lighter and smaller than the current vehicle fleet population. 
Advocates also argued that the test dummy of FMVSS 214 should be 
replaced with the EuroSID-1 dummy which has more measurement 
capability. The petitioner recommended that FMVSS 214 be amended to a 
higher safety performance level so that superior side impact air bags 
would be developed and installed in vehicles as standard equipment. The 
agency granted the Advocates' petition because the current NHTSA's 
research plan on side impact protection will fully address the issues 
in the petition.
    The agency delivered a second Report to Congress in June 1999 on 
the rulemaking status of FMVSS 214. This Report to Congress contained 
current results and the agency's research plan. With respect to the 
impact barrier (MDB) upgrade, the agency initiated a crash data 
analysis using 1988-1997 NASS/CDS data to characterize the current and 
future side impact crash environment in the United States. The study 
addresses issues concerning vehicle involvement, occupant exposure, and 
incidence of casualties with special emphasis on determining the 
mechanisms of injury. Recognizing the growing population of light 
trucks in recent years, the agency plans to re-examine the current MDB 
weight, geometry, and stiffness.
    The agency started the research needed to make the deformable 
barrier more representative more than a year ago. NHTSA plans to finish 
this research within two years and propose any appropriate changes to 
the barrier then.
                                 ______
                                 

           Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

                           STATE DATA PROGRAM

    Question. Your budget request for the State Data Program is for 
$3.024 million, the amount enacted for fiscal year 1999 and a $600 
thousand increase over the current fiscal year funding.
    Why is the increase needed?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the State Data Program request was cut 
$600 thousand from the requested level to comply with an overall 
limitation in the Research and Analysis budget. Consequently, the 
amount of funding available for implementing new Crash Outcome Data 
Evaluation System (CODES) grants and the new CODES Data Network grants 
was reduced. The additional funding requested for fiscal year 2001 will 
permit 4 grants to new CODES states to be awarded, new CODES Data 
Network grants to be awarded to the remaining qualified CODES states, 
and second year funding to the states that were awarded Data Network 
Grants in fiscal year 2000.

                        USE OF STATE DATA FUNDS

    Question. Since there are only 2 NHTSA employees assigned to this 
program, provide a breakdown of the uses of the funds expended in 
fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000 to date and the anticipated uses of 
the fiscal year 2001 funds?
    Answer. The following table shows the breakdown of spending in the 
State Data Program area for fiscal year 1999 and anticipated spending 
for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.


                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal years--
                Spending area                 --------------------------
                                                 1999     2000     2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 State Data System Operation and Analysis..     $177     $195     $260
State Data Electronic Collection Project.....      308      n/a      n/a
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MUCC)         89      120       85
 Support Development/Implementaion...........
New CODES/Other CODES Grants.................    2,245      950    1,350
CODES Data Network...........................      n/a      795    1,015
CODES Contractual Support....................      205      284      314
                                              --------------------------
      TOTAL..................................    3,024    2,344    3,024
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         STATE ELECTRONIC FILES

    Question. Your justification states that state electronic data 
files containing data on crashes are used by NHTSA and that during 
fiscal year 2000 you are obtaining data from 17 states. Has NHTSA 
experienced any resistance to obtaining state electronic files and, if 
so, what is being done about it?
    Answer. Most of the 17 states in NHTSA State Data System have 
willingly provided NHTSA with copies of their electronic crash data 
files. NHTSA is an extensive user of state crash data and often 
provides feedback to the states that results in improving crash data or 
crash systems. Some states, however, have been concerned that NHTSA may 
have to provide their data to groups outside of the agency and that the 
data may be misused. Consequently, NHTSA treats state crash data as 
belonging to the originating state and will not release any of the 17 
state crash data files in the State Data System to outside groups 
without the outside group first obtaining permission from the state. 
This policy has alleviated state concerns.

                    STATE DATA COLLECTION UNIFORMITY

    Question. Is it essential that states participating in the crash 
data collection and analyses program collect data in a uniform manner 
and use a standard means of recording and accessing the data? If so, do 
the 17 states targeted for the program meet those requirements and, if 
they do not, what is NHTSA doing to assure uniformity?
    Answer. It is not essential that the 17 states in the State Data 
System be uniform in the collection and processing of state crash data. 
NHTSA has made use of the crash data from these states in numerous 
analyses and evaluations. Specific data elements collected by only some 
states are valuable for particular issues. However, non-uniformity in 
the elements collected, and in their definition, does complicate NHTSA 
analyses and prevents combining of state databases into larger sets for 
analytical purposes. Caution must be exercised when performing analyses 
and interpreting results.
    Uniformity in the collection and recording of crash data, if 
adopted by states, would assist all levels of users. The advantages of 
uniformity include: improved interstate comparisons and analyses; 
enhanced decision making for targeting resources, implementing 
performance measures, and evaluating program effectiveness; the ability 
for states to learn from each other by sharing their information, 
identifying their common problems and working together on joint program 
priorities; and development of common software for crash data entry.
    At the national level, uniform state data would ease the potential 
analytical issues NHTSA experiences when dealing with non-uniform 
databases. Also, the collection and coding of information in NHTSA data 
systems, including the 17 State Data System would improve, possibly 
leading to further revisions and economies in how the data are 
collected.
    In 1998 NHTSA, in cooperation with the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA), the National Association of Governors Highway 
Safety Representatives (NAGHSR), and the highway safety community in 
general, developed a standardized list of data elements to be collected 
on motor vehicle crash reports, the Model Minimum Uniform Crash 
Criteria (MMUCC). Currently NHTSA, also in cooperation with FHWA and 
NAGHSR, is encouraging the adoption of MMUCC by the states.
    Question. Is the State of Maryland collecting and formatting data 
in a manner that could be used as a model by the other states? If so, 
what is NHTSA doing to encourage the use of the Maryland system?
    Answer. The Maryland crash report was most recently revised in the 
early 1990's and, therefore, does not include all of the data elements 
recommended in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). 
Consequently, it cannot be recommended as a model for other states.
    NHTSA is cooperating with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
and the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) to develop the 
National Model, a suite of software which includes electronic versions 
of the Iowa police crash report, the electronic form that started the 
effort, as well as commercial vehicle inspection reports, drunk driving 
reports, and incident reports. The forms all share data among the 
applications, eliminating the need to enter data more than once. Full 
use is made of pen computers, portable printers, bar code readers, 
digital cameras, global positioning (GPS), and Geographical Information 
Systems (GIS) to streamline data entry and reduce data collection 
burden on police officers. Data can be electronically uploaded to a 
central repository in the IDOT. Iowa is currently revising its crash 
report and will be basing the revision on MMUCC. NHTSA is funding the 
IDOT to incorporate MMUCC into the electronic crash form of the 
National Model and, when completed, will encourage the adoption of the 
National Model by other states.

                 COLLECTION AND ANALYSES OF CRASH DATA

    Question. How will NHTSA coordinate with the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration regarding the collection and analyses of crash 
data involving motor carriers?
    Answer. Two separate activities requiring NHTSA/FMCSA coordination 
were mandated by Section 225 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1999. The 
first is the development and implementation of a truck crash causation 
study. The second is the planning, development, and implementation of a 
continuous crash data collection activity that will be used to support 
the FMCSA's enforcement and analyses efforts.
    Working groups, consisting of representatives of both agencies, 
have been established to identify the needs and requirements of these 
efforts. We recognize that the continuous involvement of both agencies 
is critical to the success of this activity.
                                 ______
                                 

           Question Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                           AGGRESSIVE DRIVING

    Question. What is the status of the $1 million earmarked for fiscal 
year 2000 for Maryland's aggressive driving program? What do you think 
about states implementing laws that make aggressive driving a crime?
    Answer. NHTSA has been working with the Maryland Motor Vehicle 
Administration (MD MVA) to award the $1 million earmarked for the 
Maryland Aggressive Driving program. MD MVA submitted its program 
proposal on February 28, 2000 to use these funds for a Public 
Information and Education (PI&E) program to pay for radio spots, 
newspaper advertisements, print and public service announcements 
(billboards, road signs, brochures), hold a symposium to announce the 
PI&E campaign and the other components of the program, and send out 
letters and leaflets. NHTSA expects soon to award the grant to the MD 
MVA.
    The need for new laws to address the aggressive driving problem 
varies from state-to-state. The Department of Transportation sponsored 
a legal symposium in January, 1999, that brought together 
representatives from the judiciary, prosecution, defense bar and law 
enforcement communities to discuss the legal issues associated with 
aggressive driving and the need for new aggressive driving laws. While 
no consensus was reached, the participants felt that each state should 
examine its current statutes to determine their adequacy in dealing 
with the aggressive driving problem. Some states may have no need for 
new laws, while others, particularly those with weak reckless driving 
statutes, may have a need for new statutory approaches.
    An Aggressive Driving Implementation Team was formed following the 
Symposium to work towards more fully developing and implementing the 
ideas brought forth at the symposium. The team is made up of judges, 
prosecutors, a defense attorney, and law enforcement executives and is 
charged with developing a National Action Plan to reduce aggressive 
driving by the end of 2000. They are also addressing the need for new 
laws.
    NHTSA is concerned that some aggressive drivers may not be 
adequately identified and sanctioned in some states under current laws. 
For example, in situations where drivers commit multiple moving 
violations, in some states law enforcement officers can only write a 
single violation on a ticket, some judges may convict on only one 
violation when multiple charges are filed, and, in many states, 
offenders can pay a fine by mail that will not result in any notation 
on their record that they were guilty of aggressive driving. Thus, 
there may be a need for some means of identifying drivers who engage in 
aggressive driving so that judges can deal with them appropriately, 
particularly for subsequent similar offenses. All states should have 
laws that provide for enhanced sanctions for aggressive driving (rather 
than the current penalties for simple moving violations). Statutes must 
be tough enough to allow conviction on each and every traffic violation 
observed. Sanctions should include points for repeat offenders.
                                 ______
                                 

       Questions Submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration

            Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

              ACTIONS IN PREVENTING TRESPASSER FATALITIES

    Question. The story you tell on grade crossing accidents is a good 
one--the number of grade crossing accidents on the general railway 
system has been reduced by 28 percent from 1993 through 1998. However, 
trespassing accidents and fatalities involving pedestrians in crossings 
and elsewhere on railroads' properties have not been reduced, and are 
now the leading cause of railroad fatalities. Trespassing is a 
complicated problem and is difficult to address. Over the last six 
years, the number of railroad trespassing fatalities has averaged 514 a 
year. A specific difficulty is that some of these pedestrian 
fatalities--perhaps as much as 40 percent, according to some government 
and railroad authorities--are suicides. What actions do you think the 
FRA can take to address prevention? Are taxpayers likely to get as good 
a ``bang for the buck'' on these efforts as they would on grade 
crossing safety efforts?
    Answer. Trespassing is a complicated problem and one that is much 
more difficult to address than grade crossing safety since trespassing 
acts occur on private property. FRA believes some of the same 
strategies that work for grade crossing safety can also work for 
trespass prevention. Education is key and FRA will not only continue 
but increase its education programs. FRA is working with Operation 
Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI), to develop PSA's that will address grade 
crossing safety and trespass prevention. Focus groups will be convened 
in Los Angeles, New Orleans and Chicago to help determine how the PSA's 
resonate with the public and they will be revised to be responsive to 
the public.
    FRA has also worked with law enforcement agencies and local 
communities to develop and implement strategies and technologies for 
trespass detection on railroad right-of-ways and a system of immediate 
reporting to law enforcement officials to effect apprehension and/or 
removal of a trespasser. FRA, OLI and the railroad industry have, in 
partnership, developed a Trespass Abatement Guide that will help 
communities identify strategies to prevent trespassing on railroad 
right-of-ways.
    Implementation strategies become much more effective if either 
locations where trespassing occurs are targeted or demographic targets 
can be established. To help focus on trespass abatement initiatives, 
FRA and OLI have scheduled a working group meeting of professionals to 
determine how demographic data can be collected to assist with 
targeting those groups most likely to be involved in trespassing and 
identifying their reasons for doing so. By collecting this data FRA can 
tailor existing strategies to be more effective in reaching targeted 
audiences.
                                 ______
                                 

            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

     FISCAL YEAR 1998-2000 GRADE CROSSINGS FUNDS UNDER SECTION 130

    Question. Administrator Molitoris, TEA-21 increased amounts for 
existing safety related programs and included new safety-related 
programs. TEA-21 continues to set-aside funding from FHWA's surface 
transportation program for railway-highway crossings, which has 
resulted in a funding increase for this program. How much funding 
(obligational authority) was available for the railway-highway crossing 
program under section 130 of title 23, U.S.C for fiscal years 1998, 
1999 and 2000?
    Answer. The obligational authority available for the highway-rail 
grade crossing program under section 130 of title 23, U.S.C., for 
fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000 is as follows:

Fiscal Year
    1998................................................    $154,362,968
    1999................................................     154,767,190
    2000................................................     154,929,630

    To put these figures in context, these amounts would pay for gates 
and lights at approximately 1,000 highway-rail crossings each year 
($150,000 per crossing).

                  NEW MEXICO 130 GRADE CROSSING FUNDS

    Question. How much obligational authority was available for New 
Mexico for section 130 of title 23, U.S.C for fiscal years 1998, 1999 
and 2000?
    Answer. The obligational authority available for the State of New 
Mexico for the highway-rail grade crossing program, under section 130 
of title 23, U.S.C. for fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000 is $1,205,846 
per year.

                     130 OBLIGATIONS FOR NEW MEXICO

    Question. How much did New Mexico obligate in 1998 and 1999 for 
section 130 projects?
    Answer. The State of New Mexico obligated $1,004,951 in fiscal year 
1998 and $967,190 in fiscal year 1999 for section 130 projects.
            efforts used to reduce grade crossing accidents
    Question. Administrator Molitoris, I understand that incidents at 
the 259,000 highway-rail grade crossings have decreased by 37 percent 
from 1993 levels. I am encouraged by these results. I agree with you, 
however, that more work needs to be done to reduce the fatalities level 
well below the current level of about 400. In your view, what is the 
most significant program or effort that has contributed to the 37 
percent reduction in fatalities?
    Answer. No single program, initiative or effort can lay claim to 
being the most responsible for the recent successes in this area. 
Rather, it has been the partnership of the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA), Federal Highway Administration, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National 
Transportation Safety Board, Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI), railroad 
labor, railroad management, the railroad supply industry, Amtrak, the 
American Trucking Association, the school transportation industry (bus 
drivers), and law enforcement agencies that have contributed to that 
success.
    One program initiative warrants special mention, but not to the 
exclusion of the significant partnership efforts previously mentioned. 
In 1994, the FRA filled eight positions in order to concentrate efforts 
on highway-rail grade crossing safety and trespass prevention. These 
eight Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Trespass Programs Regional 
Managers have been able to leverage Federal participation in grade 
crossing safety and significantly increase the number of safety 
initiatives within the Department to reduce fatalities. They have also 
been catalysts for increasing the number and focus of national grade 
crossing safety initiatives at the community level. They have done so 
by facilitating existing and creating new partnerships, and initiating 
special safety programs at the state and community level. In the five-
year period since the establishment of the Grade Crossing and Trespass 
Programs Managers's positions, the rate of crossing safety improvements 
accelerated by 33 percent when compared to the five-year period 
preceding the establishment of those positions. Their efforts have been 
so successful that eight Assistant Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and 
Trespass Programs Regional Managers were hired in 1999 to further 
develop this program.
                                 ______
                                 

         Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

          PURPOSE OF FULL-SCALE PASSENGER RAIL CAR CRASH TESTS

    Question. I am aware that the Federal Railroad Administration 
(FRA), in conjunction with a number of other entities, has recently 
conducted a full-scale passenger rail car crash test at the 
Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo. Can you tell me the purpose 
of this test, and whether or not it was a success?
    Answer. The test conducted on November 16, 1999, was the first in a 
series of full-scale passenger rail car crash tests. The purpose of the 
test program is to collect engineering data to validate analytical 
tools and procedures used in the safety assessment of passenger rail 
equipment. The test was very successful. In addition to the large 
amount of data on the structural deformation of the rail vehicle as the 
car crushes, FRA was also able to measure the vertical and lateral 
motions of the car during the test, and the influence of these car 
motions on the responses of the Anthropomorphic Test Devices (test 
dummies) in three different interior seating configurations. The 
information from this test is being used to modify the passenger seats 
for the next test.

            PURPOSE OF SECOND PASSENGER RAIL CAR CRASH TESTS

    Question. I understand another full-scale crash test is scheduled 
for April 4. What do you hope to learn from that test?
    Answer. In this test, two coupled passenger cars of the same design 
will be crashed into a rigid barrier. In addition to measuring the 
crush response of the cars and the influence of these car motions on 
the test dummies, the interactions between the coupled cars will be 
measured. These interactions could lead to lateral buckling of the 
train during a collision, and/or the override of one car onto another. 
The cars are expected to start buckling out laterally during the test, 
with approximately two feet of misalignment at the coupled ends of the 
cars. Modifications have been made to the mountings to be used in the 
commuter seat interior arrangement. These modifications are relatively 
minor, but should increase the strength sufficiently to prevent failure 
of the seat mountings in this test. With the seats performing as 
intended, the influence of the vertical and lateral carbody motions on 
the test dummies can be observed.

                  NEED FOR FUTURE RAIL CAR CRASH TESTS

    Question. How many additional tests will be required to obtain the 
data necessary to enhance passenger rail safety? It is my understanding 
that the initial tests are designed to establish a simple baseline and 
that subsequent tests will need to be of a more complex nature to 
adequately represent real accidents. Is this an accurate 
characterization of the program objectives?
    Answer. That is an accurate characterization of the program. Beyond 
the test scheduled for April 4, 2000, 10 additional tests are currently 
planned for a total of 12 tests. The first four tests characterize 
current typical passenger rail equipment in a head-on collision:
  --Single-car test into a rigid barrier (the November 16, 1999 test)
  --Two-car test into a rigid barrier (planned for April 4, 2000)
  --A cab car-led train colliding head-on with a locomotive led train 
        (planned for November, 2000)
  --A cab car-led train colliding with a cab car-led train (planned for 
        March, 2001)
    The next four tests are to evaluate the effectiveness of improved 
equipment in a head-on collision. The improved equipment includes 
crushable end structures, a crashworthiness strategy known as crash 
energy management. These ``crush-zones'' act to distribute the crush 
among all the cars in the train and to limit the decelerations of the 
cars during a collision. For the current strength-designed cars, nearly 
all the damage occurs to the cars closest to the impact, often with 
significant loss of occupied space, while there is little damage at all 
to the cars away from the impact. These tests are intended to measure 
the increase in occupant protection afforded by passenger rail cars 
with crash energy management.
    Two additional tests are intended to characterize the current 
equipment in oblique collisions, such as the accident in Secaucus, New 
Jersey in February, 1996. They include a cab car-led train colliding at 
a switch with a locomotive-led train and a cab car-led train colliding 
at a switch with a cab car-led train.
    Finally, two tests are planned to characterize the effectiveness of 
improved equipment in an oblique collision. The leading cab cars will 
incorporate integrated end structures. All the elements of the end 
structure of the cab car will be integrated such that when one portion 
of the structure is impacted, the entire structure will help support 
the load. This integration significantly increases the strength of the 
end structure, and helps control the crushing of the end structure.

         FUNDING FOR FULL-SCALE PASSENGER RAIL CAR CRASH TESTS

    Question. What has the FRA requested for the crash test of 
passenger rail cars in fiscal year 2001? What will be accomplished with 
this level of funding? What portion will be devoted to occupant 
protection issues? Is additional funding required to adequately cover 
the necessary occupant protection tests, in addition to the tests on 
the rail cars themselves? Shouldn't the top priority of the FRA be 
passenger safety and occupant protection?
    Answer. A total of $2.2 million is requested for the crash test of 
passenger rail cars in fiscal year 2001. With this level of funding, 
FRA plans to conduct two crash tests of passenger rail cars with 
improved crash energy management design. These single-car and two-car 
tests will be conducted with the fixed barrier at the TTC facility in a 
similar manner like the first test last November.
    Depending on the cost of structural modification to the rail 
vehicles to incorporate the crash energy management design, less than 
half the funds are planned to support the occupant protection portions 
of the tests. The remaining funds are required to implement the 
structural portion of the tests. Additional funds may be required to 
analyze the test data for both the occupant protection as well as the 
structural portion of the tests. As more test data becomes available, 
plans may be modified to investigate the most effective means to 
protect the passengers.
    It is important to note that all aspects of the testing are 
designed to improve our understanding of how best to protect occupants. 
The term ``occupant protection'' is also used above in the narrower 
sense in reference to issues of compartmentalization and occupant 
restraint.

                              TESTS AT TTC

    Question. Will these tests continue to be conducted at TTC in 
Pueblo?
    Answer. Yes, TTC is the ideal facility for conducting these tests. 
It has the rigid barrier with sufficient size and appropriate track for 
the single-car and two-car test, as well as the appropriate space and 
track for the train collision tests.

                       OTHER RAIL CAR CRASH TESTS

    Question. What other rail crash tests could be undertaken? 
Specifically, what is the relationship between the current series of 
passenger rail tests and commuter rail travel? Did the recent commuter 
rail crash in England shed any light on the types of systems that might 
be employed to protect occupants?
    Answer. Other full-scale rail crash tests could be undertaken to 
evaluate the effectiveness of occupant protection strategies during 
derailment and during grade crossing collisions.
    The FRA will use the results of the current series of passenger 
rail tests in its second phase of rulemaking to enhance the safety 
standards for commuter passenger safety. Currently, the FRA requires 
commuter and intercity rail passenger seats to support the load 
associated with an impact from an unrestrained occupant. Based on the 
test results and other information, the addition of occupant injury 
criteria to this requirement may be considered along with a 
reevaluation of the impact conditions prescribed in the rule. The test 
results are also expected to be useful in considering the application 
of seatbelts, crash energy management systems and other improved 
structures for better passenger safety.
    The recent commuter rail crash in Ladbroke, England showed that the 
issue of structural damage of aluminum-bodied rail cars as well as fire 
safety and emergency responses should continue to be examined in safety 
research.
                                 ______
                                 

    Questions Submitted to the National Transportation Safety Board

             Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                       AVIATION RUNWAY INCURSIONS

    Question. Chairman Hall, as you mentioned in your testimony, 
aviation runway incursions have been increasing. In fact, the 1998 
level of 325 incursions represents an increase of 11 percent over the 
1997 level. The National Transportation Safety Board as well as the 
Inspector General and the General Accounting Office have consistently 
identified runway incursions as a problem for many years.
    Although the FAA has made some progress in addressing runway 
incursions, the Inspector General recently stated that FAA may not meet 
its goal to decrease these incidents.
    Why has the FAA had problems addressing runway incursions?
    Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has not managed 
this program as effectively as anticipated. The FAA's managers of the 
runway incursion program changed often, and the program did not appear 
to receive adequate support from top management. In response to Safety 
Board recommendations dating back to 1991, the FAA indicated that its 
solution to the runway incursion problem was the Airport Movement Area 
Safety System (AMASS).
    AMASS, designed to operate in conjunction with Airport Surface 
Detection Equipment-3 (ASDE-3) surface radar systems, is behind 
schedule. Although it is currently being installed, it is still not 
operational nine years after the FAA began working on the project. In 
addition, some tower facilities, such as Ronald Reagan Washington 
National Airport, will experience further delay in the operational use 
of AMASS because ASDE-3, which is designed to provide tower air traffic 
controllers with position information on all aircraft and vehicles 
operating on airport runways and taxiways, has not yet been 
commissioned. In addition, AMASS is scheduled to be installed at only 
34 of the busiest airports nationwide, leaving other airports with 
substantial air carrier traffic without any automated assistance in 
preventing surface incidents. Further, the FAA recently stated that 
AMASS will not do all it was originally intended to do, and can only be 
considered a start on addressing the problem.
    Question. What is the major barrier facing FAA in achieving its 
goal of reducing runway incursions to 248 or less in 2000?
    Answer. On August 12, 1991, the FAA stated that its solution to 
reducing runway incursions was the development of the AMASS designed to 
alert controllers to pending runway incursions at all terminal 
facilities scheduled to receive the ASDE-3. However, discussions with 
the FAA reveal that the AMASS will not detect runway incursions but may 
possibly prevent runway collisions in certain circumstances.
    Because it is not providing any new technological means that will 
help to reduce runway incursions, the FAA is now focusing on pilot 
education and increased awareness of the runway incursion problem. In 
October 1999, the FAA created the Runway Safety Program, which has 
instituted several education and awareness programs to do that. The 
number of incursions has not reduced significantly--from 325 in 1998 to 
322 in 1999--and more must be done to ensure the number of incursions 
does not increase, let alone reduce the number to 248--the FAA's stated 
goal.
    Question. In your opinion, is the problem related to funding?
    Answer. Congress has provided more than $380 million over the years 
in funding for runway incursion projects. Although this figure seems 
generous, the Board has not studied the funding issue. We are aware, 
however, that the Department of Transportation Inspector General's 
office has twice reviewed FAA's runway incursion program.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Shelby. This hearing of the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee is now recessed. We are scheduled 
to meet next week, Thursday, March 2, in Dirksen 192 at 10:00 
a.m. to hear about States' experiences in implementing the 
Drivers Privacy Protection Act.
    [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Thursday, February 24, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, 
March 2.]


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2001

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2000

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby, (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Shelby, Gorton, Bennett, Lautenberg, and 
Kohl.

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS--FISCAL YEAR 
                                  2001

            NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

STATEMENT OF HON. TOMMY THOMPSON, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF 
            DIRECTORS
ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE WARRINGTON, PRESIDENT, AMTRAK

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                      Office of Inspector General

STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STATEMENT OF PETER J. BASSO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 
            BUDGET AND PROGRAMS AND CHIEF FINANCIAL 
            OFFICIAL

             opening statement of senator richard c. Shelby

    Senator Shelby. The hearing is called to order.
    Senator Lautenberg will join us soon.
    First of all, I would like to thank Ken Mead, the 
Department of Transportation Inspector General; Jack Basso, the 
Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Budget and Programs; 
and Governor Thompson, the Governor of Wisconsin, Chairman of 
the Amtrak Board of Directors for being here today to discuss 
the Department's most pressing management and oversight 
challenges.
    Many of the issues we discuss today will be familiar to the 
three of you and probably everybody in the room. Many are 
issues that we discussed last year and, unfortunately, many 
will probably be the subject of at least one hearing next year.
    We were going to break this hearing into two panels and 
talk about Amtrak finance and management issues separately, but 
both Senator Lautenberg and I are very pressed for time this 
morning and agreed that we would have all three of you at the 
witness table, as you have seen, in the interest of saving 
time.
    Thank you again, all of you, for coming, and I am pretty 
sure we are going to keep this as short as we can.

                                 AMTRAK

    Now, I would like to step through the looking glass and 
talk about Amtrak a minute. Since 1971, the American taxpayers 
have spent more than $23 billion on Amtrak. Yet, in 1999, the 
railroad's operating losses were $916 million, the largest in 
history. Cash losses, which do not include depreciation, were 
$579 million, which is $54 million higher than the 1998 cash 
losses and $19 million worse than Amtrak's own projections for 
1999.
    Amtrak's premier new Northeast Corridor high-speed rail 
service is delayed by at least 6 months with a negative impact 
of over $142 million on the Amtrak bottom line.
    In addition to high cash losses and unrealized revenue 
proposals, Amtrak's capital wish list is growing, and there is 
still no realistic plan for addressing even modest, by Amtrak 
standards, reinvestment in the capital plan. According to the 
Inspector General, the railroad's projected Federal funding 
through 2002--that is, the administration's and Amtrak's 
execution of the elusive glide path to operational self-
sufficiency funding plan--will fall short of the railroad's 
minimum capital needs during this period by $244 million.
    Also waiting in the wings are $12 billion in capital 
projects on the Northeast Corridor between New York City and 
Washington, DC, of which $654 million are unaddressed fire and 
safety projects in the Penn Station, Hudson River, and East 
River tunnels.
    So, what exactly are we on a glide path to?
    In the fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the glide path funding 
plan provides a constraint on both Amtrak and the 
administration. The budget request is $521 million for each of 
these 2 years. But once Amtrak reaches or does not reach 
operational self-sufficiency in October 2002--and I say reach 
or does not reach in the firm belief that the whole self-
sufficiency issue is basically a question of semantics. Once 
that milestone date is reached, then it is ``Katie bar the 
door.'' That is when the real money requests for Federal 
taxpayer subsidies for Amtrak are going to begin.
    Ken, I feel I might have gotten carried away there. Check 
my facts for me, if you would. I know you would. Do you believe 
it is true that Amtrak will request substantially increased 
Federal capital funding after the fiscal year 2002 and that 
this increased capital funding need will extend over the long 
term? You do.
    So, can anyone tell me what is meaningful about the phrase 
``operational self-sufficiency''? I have here a copy of Public 
Law 106-69, the fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations 
Act, and I see capital grants to the national passenger 
railroad corporation. Those are capital grants with a 
flexibility provision which allows the railroad to use their 
Federal funds for some operating purposes. We gave Amtrak this 
expanded capital definition at the administration's request.
    So, it looks to me like the smartest thing we might do 
would be to declare victory and go home. Amtrak is not 
receiving an operating grant from the Federal Government now, 
but this does not mean that the railroad is self-sufficient, 
not by a long shot. Unless we dramatically change the 
railroad's structure and direction, real Amtrak self-
sufficiency is and always will be an oxymoron.
    I feel like I have been talking until I am blue in the face 
about the hole Amtrak has dug for itself. But when do we begin 
damage control? When do we back away from this cliff and start 
to show some responsibility for the taxpayers' money?
    A friend and ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator 
Lautenberg, has championed Amtrak and Federal funding for the 
railroad since he came to the Senate. You could not ask for a 
more passionate or effective advocate.
    Unfortunately, Amtrak has not lived up to his vision for 
passenger rail in this country. I sincerely believe that a 
train or major Amtrak facility should be named after Frank. He 
is the leading benefactor and has worked tirelessly on the 
railroad's behalf his entire Senate career. But part of me also 
wonders whether that would be the sort of tribute that my 
colleague would want to be remembered by 10 years from now.
    Senator Lautenberg, it is always a pleasure to work with 
you on all the transportation programs and issues that we share 
in this bill. I know that Amtrak is close to your heart and I 
welcome you to make any opening comments you might have.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

    Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    One of the difficulties I have with our situation here is 
that we are good friends, but we disagree on a few things. And 
it is hard when good friends disagree. Mr. Chairman, we could 
dispense with our disagreements if you would just let me manage 
this according to my judgment.
    Senator Shelby. As much as I love you, I would have to hold 
on to you there.
    Senator Lautenberg. I must say this, that Senator Shelby's 
attitude is one that, while I do not agree, I can certainly 
understand in terms of what Amtrak's role is because he does 
not see it as much in his area as we do in ours.
    But one of the things that I think we have to be wary of is 
looking at Amtrak without looking at other modes of 
transportation and see what we do in those cases. And I am 
going to be discussing that in just a moment in my remarks 
because yesterday we passed what I would consider kind of a 
landmark bill, and that does not mean I like it, but it is a 
change from not only the procedures here but the attitude that 
we see in the capital.
    So, I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to have Governor Thompson, 
who is the Chairman of the Amtrak Board, with us today, and I 
thank you for doing that.
    This is a special hearing for me because it is likely to be 
my last hearing regarding Amtrak.
    Now, when I look at Amtrak, I look at it in terms of not 
only the Northeast quadrant of the United States, but the value 
throughout the country as an essential, critical mode of 
transportation affixed to the other modes, aviation, highways, 
sea of course, and with the understanding that these other 
modes--we were so generous with aviation yesterday--will not be 
able to carry the load we have to carry for passengers in 
shorter distances.
    As a matter of fact, there is a considerable debate about 
where rail is the best use of the transportation facilities and 
aviation. And I use my experience, having been in France last 
year and Belgium, when I went to NATO headquarters. I was in 
Paris, went to NATO headquarters, and it took me an hour and 
roughly 20-25 minutes to go 200 miles. People there do not even 
think of getting on an airplane. It saves so much congestion in 
the air. And no matter what we put into the system, if we think 
that we can carry unlimited numbers of passengers in aviation 
without having things get more congested, less comfortable, 
less effective, we are kind of kidding ourselves.
    So, we are now looking at what we do about Amtrak. With the 
initiation of truly high-speed rail service in the next several 
months, it is going to be a real boon to travel and to 
reductions in congestion and polluted air.
    When we said yes to aviation yesterday, we added to the 
volume of investment in the aviation system substantially, $2 
billion this coming year, 2001, as I see it happening. I had my 
staff people check to see what it is that we spent on aviation 
in the last years, last decade, regardless of the source 
whether it was trust fund or otherwise. It was some $85 
billion--$85 billion--in airports and FAA operations and things 
of that nature. That was besides the revenues derived from the 
PFC's, the passenger facility charge. So, we are looking at an 
investment in one sector of our transportation network while 
we, frankly, diminish the other.
    Well, when I came to the Senate almost 18 years ago, Ronald 
Reagan was President. The administration's budget request was 
zero for Amtrak each year. We know one thing, that if you stay 
around Washington long enough, you start to see some things 
change.
    Some of my earliest legislative actions in the Senate took 
the form of amendments to the budget resolution that sought 
adequate funding for Amtrak. We have always faced an uphill 
battle, and back then it was even more pronounced, despite the 
fact that we had some very good friends of Amtrak in John Heinz 
and Bob Stafford of Vermont and Mark Andrews of North Dakota, 
and of course, our friend John Chafee, who passed away a few 
months ago.
    In more recent years, I have seen an interest in Amtrak on 
the part of Senators from other regions of the country. I see 
more States wanting better, higher speed rail service. In many 
instances, we see those States putting up the money to meet 
these needs.
    Just last week, the National Governors Association 
unanimously adopted a resolution calling on this subcommittee 
to fully fund Amtrak's request of $989 million for fiscal year 
2001. This is the first time that I can remember the Nation's 
Governors speaking so clearly and forcefully on behalf of 
Amtrak's funding. I particularly want to commend my friend, 
Governor Thompson of Wisconsin, and his colleague, Governor 
Carper of Delaware for this initiative. Mr. Chairman, the 
Governors of the United States want more Amtrak funding because 
they know that, even in this period of growing investment in 
our Nation's highways, we cannot build our way out of 
congestion.
    Just yesterday, when we passed that aviation authorization 
bill, I led the fight against it. I guess I was not persuasive 
because we only got 17 votes. But the fact of the matter is 
that there is a lot of illusion about what that bill is. I 
opposed the bill because it was unbalanced from the perspective 
of the needs of the FAA, and it was unbalanced from the 
perspective of the needs of the entire national transportation 
system. That bill seeks to force this subcommittee, Mr. 
Chairman, to provide dramatically increased amounts for FAA's 
capital accounts. If this subcommittee does not get a very 
sizeable allocation, these attempts could undermine our ability 
to fund the FAA's operating account because the $2 billion that 
was requested this year and is now a new entitlement, which is 
strange for this body to be considering--an entitlement--it 
says that these funds have to be met from general revenues over 
and above that which is produced in the trust fund.
    Well, if we do that and let us say that transportation 
allocation is limited to approximately last year's and we have 
a $2 billion increase request for FAA, I ask you where is it 
going to come from. Is it going to come from the Coast Guard?
    I heard the argument made yesterday--and I listened very 
carefully to what my colleagues were saying. There are a lot of 
supporters for this FAA reauthorization. Talk about the 
possibility of air crashes once every 10 days when you get to 
the year 2015. And I assume that, therefore, means that if we 
want to avoid that, that all the other nations around the globe 
will also upgrade their systems. But is it any more tragic when 
people go down in an airplane than when they go down in a ship? 
And we do not welcome that immigration, but we cannot ignore, 
being the society that we are, people who are out there on 
those rafts and have to be stopped from coming. But we do want 
them to drown as a result.
    The Coast Guard's incredible agenda of the things that they 
have to take care of--I noticed in the paper yesterday, the day 
before, that the Coast Guard is unable to monitor waste being 
discharged from cruise ships and it is polluting the waters. 
They just do not have enough people. Now we are going to man 
the helicopters with the machine guns so they can stop illegal 
immigration--I am sorry--whether they can stop drugs from 
coming in. They do not want to shoot them--but to stop drugs 
from coming into the country.
    Well, then we have got the illegal immigration flow that we 
see, and we have got the general pollution control. And we see 
that the Coast Guard is having a tough time keeping up with 
examining its fishing licenses and requirements for commercial 
boats. And then they have got the whole navigational structure.
    Well, are we going to say to the Coast Guard, too bad, we 
are just not going to be able to give you the funding? We are 
going to say the same thing to Amtrak and we will say the same 
thing to NTSB and other safety agencies. If we have to give it 
to FAA, it is going to come out of someplace.
    Now, if the amount given to transportation is increased by 
the roughly $2 billion, it is going to come out of someplace 
like Veteran's Administration or education or something else. 
Are we so committed to aviation that we are going to ignore 
other needs in our transportation system? I hope not.
    Besides all of that, these funds are earmarked for capital 
investment facilities and equipment. But we are not 
guaranteeing any improvement in the account for operations. We 
are guaranteeing any improvement for training full 
performance--no, strike that. We are not training controllers 
to fill in the gap of retirement, which is contemplated in the 
not too distant future. As a matter of fact, we have just shut 
down a training facility for controllers. We are walking around 
as if our heads are in the sand.
    I must say it is going to take a great deal more than just 
increased airport grants to handle the boost in traffic and 
intra-city traffic in particular. In today's aviation system, 
we have already too much air space and too many airport gates 
being absorbed by short-haul flights between cities that would 
be better served with high-speed rail. Perhaps we are going to 
be able to call it ``winglock'' at our airports, just like 
gridlock on our highways. It is going to get worse if we do not 
take an aggressive approach to expanding the use of high-speed 
rail across the country.
    That is why I have introduced S. 1900, the High-Speed Rail 
Investment Act. This legislation uses innovative financing to 
allow Amtrak to sell $10 billion in bonds over the next 10 
years to fund the development of high-speed rail corridors 
across the country. These corridors represent the future of 
transportation in America. Congestion on our roads continues to 
worsen. There is only so much we can do to increase road 
capacity. The same goes for our airports. New airports are 
expensive to build and people just do not want them in their 
back yards.
    On the other hand, our rail infrastructure is already 
there, an untapped resource waiting for its full potential to 
be realized. Improving our rail infrastructure is a cost 
effective and environmentally sound way to go. That is why 
support for developing these high-speed rail corridors is so 
strong. We do have 35 Senators signed on as cosponsors of S. 
1900, and last week Congressmen Amo Houghton and James Oberstar 
introduced House companion legislation.
    I look forward to working with Governor Thompson and my 
colleagues and the chairman of this subcommittee. I say this to 
Senator Shelby. We have worked together on a lot of things. I 
have found him to be willing to listen, and even if we do not 
agree, we reason it out between us and it works better that 
way.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the indulgence.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
    We have before us, as you know, the honorable Tommy 
Thompson, Governor of Wisconsin, Chairman of the Amtrak Reform 
Board, and we have the honorable Kenneth Mead, Inspector 
General, U.S. Department of Transportation. We also have Peter 
Basso, Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and Chief 
Financial Officer of the Department of Transportation. 
Gentlemen, welcome. Governor Thompson, you proceed as you wish.

                    STATEMENT OF GOV. TOMMY THOMPSON

    Governor Thompson. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby. I 
am sort of in a quandary. I have a prepared speech here, Mr. 
Chairman and Senator Lautenberg, and I decided, after listening 
to you, Senator Shelby, I wanted to answer your questions.
    Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
    Governor Thompson. So, I am going to not give my prepared--
--
    Senator Shelby. Your statement will be made part of the 
record.
    Governor Thompson. I wanted to because I have the greatest 
respect for you, Senator Shelby, always have. I think you are 
an outstanding individual and I do not say that because I want 
anything out of you. I just come here because I am passionate 
about Amtrak. I am passionate about rail passenger service.
    I do like your suggestion about naming something after 
Senator Lautenberg, but I do not know if it should be a train. 
Maybe a railroad station that we are working on. That would be 
a nice, fitting tribute to.
    Senator Shelby. We want it to be appropriate, do we not?
    Governor Thompson. It is going to be appropriate. It will 
be very nice and I think that that is what we should do.
    But I want to thank Senator Lautenberg for his support for 
Amtrak and, above all, for his tremendous service to the United 
States. Both of you gentlemen.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.

                         RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE

    Governor Thompson. Senators, I come from a rural State, 
Wisconsin. And I listened to what you said, Senator Shelby, and 
I know you are conservative and so am I. And I look at what can 
we do to invest in the future, to save the taxpayers money and 
do what is right for America. And I know that is what is in the 
bottom of your heart, and what you really want to do.
    Then I look around the world and I see all the countries in 
the world that have high-speed trains. I see Spain. I see 
France. I see Japan. I see all of those countries investing in 
high-speed trains, much more so than America. And every one of 
them use that as an integral part of their transportation 
system. I look at that and I say, if they can do it, why not 
the United States of America?
    Then I take a look at the transportation budget over the 
last years. You mentioned $23 billion that has been given to 
Amtrak. You know, that is a big figure until you put it in 
comparison to the other modes of transportation. Last year 
alone you spent $32 billion, $10 billion more than the total 25 
years that Amtrak has been in existence, for highways. And has 
highway congestion gone down? Absolutely not. Airports, $12 
billion last year. You are going up to $13 billion. We get $521 
million, not billion, compared to $30 billion for highways, $12 
billion for airports, $5 billion for mass transit. We are the 
poor stepchild. We are like Cinderella.
    But we are something nice to behold. Once you see us, you 
like us. You are fascinated by us. You want to ride us. And 
that is what is happening in America. All across America there 
is a newfound fascination, Senator Shelby, for rail passenger 
service.
    Granted, we have had some mistakes, but George Warrington, 
who is our President, and this board are dedicated to making 
the corporation operationally self-sufficient.

                      OPERATIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY

    Now, you asked what is operational self-sufficiency. It 
means that by the year 2003, under the dictates and under the 
definition of the congressional law, we are going to be able to 
operate our trains without asking Congress to give us money for 
operation of passenger services or operation of the trains. But 
we are coming to you--and we never said we would not--for 
capital. We are coming to you for capital because we need 
capital. Every other country subsidizes trains. Even when rail 
passenger service was at its heyday in the 1920's and the 
1930's and the 1940's, it still required the passenger train 
services to haul mail and express in order to pay their bills. 
So, you are going to have to subsidize the system with capital.
    And let us take a look at this. Now, this is not a Democrat 
thing or a Republican thing. This is something for America. In 
California, by the year 2020, there are going to be 19 million 
more people--19 million more people. That is 55 million people 
by the year 2020 in California. You have been there, Senator 
Shelby. You have been there, Senator Lautenberg. Do you think 
there is any way this country can build enough highways to 
accommodate another 20 million people in California? Do you 
think there is a way to site enough airports to handle and 
accommodate that kind of population growth in California? 
Absolutely not.

                          HIGH SPEED CORRIDORS

    The only salvation for California is rail passenger 
service, and that is why the high-speed corridors, that is why 
the Senator Lautenberg bill, is important. It is an investment. 
We have to move populations from one center to another for the 
economy, for safety, and for the overall good of America.
    And where is this increased mobility going to come from? I 
think the future is rail passenger service. We are going to be 
able to start running high-speed trains.
    Granted, George and I are just as upset as you are that 
they have been delayed for 7 months. You know, we fight with 
the consortium. I wish you could be in our board rooms when we 
bring in----
    Senator Shelby. Well, I believe you. I know you, Governor.
    Governor Thompson. Bombardier hates to hear from Tommy 
Thompson and George Warrington. We call them every week and 
say, how is it going? But these trainsets are going to be 
something of beauty. They were supposed to be delivered in 
December. They are not going to be here until at least July.
    And we want you to ride on one. I want you and Senator 
Lautenberg to be up in the locomotive with me, and we will even 
let you drive it, just to show you how fast it goes.
    Senator Shelby. How about letting Lautenberg drive it. He 
has had more experience.
    Governor Thompson. Well, that is fine.
    Senator Shelby. But I will go with you.
    Governor Thompson. But we are going to be able to go from 
New York City to Washington, DC, in 2\1/2\ hours. We are going 
to be able to go from New York City to Boston in 3 hours. Now, 
if we can do that, why would you want to get on a commuter 
airline? Why would you? You are going to be able to get on the 
train in downtown New York. You are going to be able to get to 
Washington, DC, in less than 3 hours. You will not have to go 
out to the airports in that congestion, where it takes you 
about an hour to get out there. You will be able to get 
downtown to downtown in about 2\1/2\ hours. Your luggage is 
going to be with you, and we are going to do it with a smile. 
You are going to be able to get off here at Union Station and 
be able to come over to the Capitol. People are going to be 
riding those rail passenger cars, and they are going to be 
increasing----
    Senator Shelby. When is that day going to be we are going 
to ride it together?
    Governor Thompson. Sometime in July, I hope. You are 
invited and I am going to make darned sure you come. I will 
come down and pick both of you up and fly you up there.
    Senator Lautenberg. Order me an engineer's hat.
    Governor Thompson. All right. We are going to have an 
engineer's hat.
    That is the excitement.

                GOVERNOR CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RAIL SERVICE

    I realize that I am running out of time, but let us take a 
quick look at what is happening all over the United States.
    Governor Ryan from Illinois has just put in $125 million in 
capital funding for rail service--$125 million. Governor Ridge, 
another Republican, Pennsylvania. Governor Hunt, Democrat, 
North Carolina. Governor Gilmore, Republican from Virginia. 
Governor Gray Davis, Democrat from California, hundreds of 
millions of dollars for rail passenger service. Governor Locke 
from Washington, Democrat. The Democratic and Republican 
Governors are ponying up money and saying, Washington, Federal 
Government, meet us half way. Give us the opportunity to 
develop a rail passenger service in America that you can be 
proud of, that I can be proud of as Board Chairman, that George 
Warrington can be proud of as President.

                     OPERATIONALLY SELF-SUFFICIENT

    And that is what we are asking. All we are saying is give 
us a chance. Give us a little money for capital. We will become 
operationally self-sufficient under the law by 2003. We are 
already on the glide path. Ken Mead has indicated we have got 
some trouble, but we can make it and we are going to make it. I 
guarantee you we will, and then, with the infusion of capital, 
we will make a rail passenger service, a national system that 
will go through Alabama, you know, the Crescent, the Sunset 
Limited----
    Senator Shelby. Right through my hometown.
    Governor Thompson [continuing]. And 52,000 people from 
Alabama rode it last year. We want 152,000 next year, and we 
want you to be an avid passenger, and we want you also to be a 
supporter of Amtrak.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    That is my testimony, and I thank you very much for your 
giving me this opportunity.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Governor.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Gov. Tommy Thompson

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I deeply appreciate 
the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about one of my 
favorite subjects: Amtrak.
    I want to make three major points today--the first is the positive 
results Amtrak is delivering that put us on a glidepath to operational 
self-sufficiency. The second is the strategic steps we are taking to 
operate more like a business and improve Amtrak's financial 
performance, including the recent announcement of our Network Growth 
Strategy. And the third is the very exciting future of high-speed rail, 
especially the growing partnerships with states. Taken together, these 
results, commercial actions, and high-speed rail initiatives tell a 
story of a new Amtrak--an Amtrak committed to growth and performance, 
an Amtrak that is delivering on the promise made to Congress to become 
operationally self-sufficient by fiscal year 2003.
    Let's start with results.
    The last time I appeared before you as Chair of the Amtrak Reform 
Board was on March 10, 1999--almost a year ago to the day. At that 
time, I was able to report that our new, commercially focused business 
plan was already showing positive results. For the first time in 
Amtrak's history, corporate revenue topped the $1 billion mark for 
fiscal year 1998, and ridership was up 4.5 percent.
    Today, I am happy to say that these positive trends are continuing. 
Fiscal year 1999 was a record-breaking year for Amtrak. The 
corporation's revenue reached an all-time high of $1.84 billion, a 7 
percent increase from the previous year. Revenue growth helped Amtrak 
exceed the bottom-line target set in the corporation's business plan 
for the second straight year--this year by $8 million--keeping us not 
only on track, but ahead of plan, to achieve operational self-
sufficiency by 2003. And total ridership exceeded 21 million in 1999, 
up 2 percent from last year and 10 percent since it began rebounding 
three years ago.
    As a new millenium dawns, Amtrak is maintaining and gaining 
momentum. For the first quarter of fiscal year 2000, Amtrak beat its 
business plan by more than $2 million, with total revenue up 8 percent 
to $476 million. In Amtrak's national system, many trains saw increased 
ridership in the first quarter. For the corporation as a whole, 
ridership increased for a record 12th consecutive quarter.
    Second, let me turn now to our commercial initiatives and 
partnerships.
    Mr. Chairman, the last time I testified before this Subcommittee, I 
pledged to you that Amtrak would become a more market-driven, 
commercially-oriented company using proven business techniques to 
maximize our marketplace potential. Let me tell you how Amtrak has kept 
that promise:
  --To improve its bottom line, Amtrak entered into business 
        partnerships with Dobbs International Services, Burlington 
        Northern Santa Fe, United Parcel Service, the United States 
        Postal Service, ExpressTrak, and Dynamex. These partnerships 
        are expected to generate more than $20 million in additional 
        annual revenue and $28 million in long-term savings.
  --The mail and express business, which involves the transportation of 
        time-sensitive shipments, produced $98 million in revenue for 
        fiscal year 1999, up 18 percent from fiscal year 1998.
  --In fiscal year 1999, capital investment partnerships with states 
        garnered a record $300 million.
  --The corporation's real estate and telecommunications ventures 
        returned profits of $106 million, a record high.
  --Based on its ``expectation that operational self-sufficiency will 
        be achieved,'' Moody's Investor Service improved Amtrak's 
        credit rating to A3, reflecting a stable outlook. Standard and 
        Poor's publicly assigned Amtrak a triple ``B'' issuer rating.
  --In the area of customer service, Amtrak trained 16,500 employees to 
        begin implementation of the American travel industry's first-
        ever service guarantee.
  --And just ten days ago, Amtrak announced plans to expand passenger 
        service in 21 states and strengthen our competitive edge in the 
        mail and express business--steps that will increase our reach 
        and connectivity and generate $65 million in improvements to 
        our bottom line beginning in 2003. Based on unprecedented, 
        comprehensive economic analysis of our national rail system, 
        our Network Growth Strategy is a market-driven plan to expand 
        our existing network, increase our profitability, and better 
        serve our passengers and partners.
  --Let me give you one example of this initiative that demonstrates 
        clearly how our market analysis can improve the performance of 
        under-performing trains and Amtrak as a whole. Our 
        transcontinental train, the Sunset Limited, goes from Orlando 
        to Los Angeles. By rerouting the service from San Antonio 
        directly north to Dallas/Ft. Worth, and then west through 
        Abilene, we immediately improve the financial performance of 
        the train by $2.9 million. We are also bringing it from a 
        regional market of 30,000 people to a much more densely 
        populated market of more than 300,000 people, we are reducing 
        the Ft. Worth to Los Angeles segment of the trip by ten hours, 
        improving the connectivity with other national routes, and 
        increasing both our mail and express and our passenger revenue.
      This raises the question--if it is still losing money, why are we 
        operating it? If we took the same train and eliminated it, we 
        would lose $3.2 million of direct savings plus $4.8 million of 
        other variable costs, for a total route savings of $8 million. 
        However, eliminating the train also reduces passenger revenues 
        by $3.5 million and connecting mail and express revenues by $6 
        million, for a total revenue loss of $9.5.
      Simply, we would lose more money by eliminating the train then 
        keeping it. So instead we take the right kinds of action and 
        improve the train's performance by $2.9 million.
    Let me turn now to our third major point--developing new, high-
speed rail corridors across the nation. On January 31, 2000, Amtrak 
took the first step in our high-speed rail program--the launch of Acela 
Regional train service between Boston and New York. The new, all 
electric Acela Regional service dramatically reduces travel times 
within New England, making rail an attractive alternative for both 
leisure and business travelers. So far, Acela Regional is doing 25 to 
30 percent better than our initial projections, and outperforming the 
trains they replaced by 55 to 65 percent.
    With this success with the Regional service, it is no wonder that 
we are anxious to debut Acela Express. When we are confident about 
announcing a start date, we will do so. The consortium manufacturing 
the trainsets tell us it will be in July, and we are continuing to have 
discussions with them. But I would remind everyone that high-speed 
trainsets in the Northeast are a new technology, and we owe it to the 
American people to see to it that this technology meets our high 
standards. Only when it has done so, will we announce a starting date 
for Acela Express. That is our responsibility, and we intend to live up 
to it.
    Of course, high-speed rail isn't just something that the Northeast 
wants. The development of high-speed rail corridors is a key component 
of Amtrak's business plan, but it is even more critical to a balanced 
and integrated intermodal transportation system. A grassroots movement 
to expand passenger rail is sweeping across the nation and, as is so 
often the case in American history, the states are leading the way. 
State investment in passenger rail is on the rise, with high-speed rail 
programs now actively underway in 29 states, led by Chief Executives 
from across the political spectrum, proving that states are willing to 
partner with the federal government to develop these high-speed rail 
corridors. Look at the state budgets proposed by my colleagues--
governors are serious about developing rail corridors because it 
represents jobs, clean air, mobility, accessibility, reduced congestion 
and smart growth--all of which fuel economic competitiveness.
    But the federal government has to play a role here, too. Just two 
weeks ago, at the Winter Meeting of the National Governors' 
Association, the nation's governors unanimously adopted a resolution 
calling on Congress to fully fund Amtrak at the authorized level of 
$989 million for fiscal year 2001.
    Of that amount, $521 million--or $48 million less than our request 
for fiscal year 2000--would enable Amtrak to continue to achieve its 
goal of operational self-sufficiency by 2003. The balance, $468 
million, would be used to develop high-speed rail corridors in states 
nationwide.
    And the collective voice of the nation's governors strengthens a 
long list of organizations supporting this request. The President has 
requested it. I am here today to urge you to fulfill this request and 
thus take the first step in creating a desperately needed federal high-
speed rail program. The states have invested their dollars in rail. We 
now ask Congress to do the same.
    It can be successful, Mr. Chairman. As Inspector General Mead said 
in his testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee only two weeks 
ago, ``If the Administration's proposed budget for 2001 is adopted, 
Amtrak would have sufficient funds to address minimum needs and invest 
in projects with long-term growth opportunities like new high-speed 
corridors.'' He is absolutely right.
    Mr. Chairman, when I appeared before this Subcommittee a year ago, 
I stressed Amtrak's determination to achieve operational self-
sufficiency by 2003. Today, I'd like to reiterate that pledge, but I'd 
also like to go a step further. Our goal is not merely to survive. It 
is nothing less than to become a world-class national passenger 
railroad system--a growing, thriving commercial enterprise that is 
poised to take advantage of market opportunities and meet the demands 
of todays travelers. And I believe that our results, our commercial 
initiatives, our network growth strategy and our high-speed rail plans, 
demonstrate clearly that this is more than a promise. We are on track 
to meet these goals, and I urge you to support this effort.

                      STATEMENT OF KENNETH M. MEAD

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead.
    Mr. Mead. The Governor is good, is he not?
    Senator Shelby. He is good. I am ready to vote for him, 
whatever he runs for. That is why the people of Wisconsin like 
him.
    Senator Lautenberg. Amen.
    Mr. Mead. I want to switch gears off of Amtrak just for a 
moment and preface my brief remarks by saying I have a lot of 
respect--and the Department does too--for this committee taking 
pause once a year to focus on what the top issues are facing 
the Department. I think that is important, to say what the top 
issues are and how they have changed from the year before.
    I am glad Senator Bennett is here, having been such a 
champion of getting the challenges of Y2K in hand. We dropped 
Y2K off the list, happily. I think a lot of people thought we 
were not going to make it at the Department, but with a big 
effort, we did.
    Senator Shelby. You would not have made it if there had not 
been the emphasis that was put on it, and we all owe a lot to 
Senator Bennett for his leadership in the Senate on this issue.
    Mr. Mead. Oh, his leadership was incredible, and we started 
late too.

                     COAST GUARD DEEPWATER PROJECT

    We added something called the Coast Guard Deepwater 
Project, which is where the industry is developing a plan for 
modernizing Coast Guard assets used 50 miles or more off the 
coast. That is going to be very similar, in terms of dollars, 
to FAA's National Air Space System plan--about $9 billion to 
$15 billion. The issue is really not whether the Coast Guard 
needs to replace these assets. The question is going to be 
when, how and at what cost.

                     MARAD'S SHIP-SCRAPPING PROGRAM

    We also added MARAD's ship-scrapping program, which is not 
even within the jurisdiction of this committee, but is an 
environmental time bomb. The Department of Transportation has 
fleets of old ships--some dating back to before World War II--
and the hulls are corroding. They are sitting there in such 
waters as the James River. Currently the Coast Guard asks 
people to pay it--pardon me, not the Coast Guard. MARAD wants 
to ask people to pay it to scrap these vessels. Well, that is 
not going to work. The U.S. Navy is doing the opposite, paying 
people to scrap obsolete Navy vessels.

                           COMPUTER SECURITY

    We split out transportation security and computer security, 
and we did that because we think the issues are distinct. We 
think computer security is going to be a major issue, just like 
Y2K. A big difference, though, is that there is no ending date. 
Many of the vendors that were around to help you out with the 
Y2K now are standing in line to help you assess your computer 
security problems.

                                  FAA

    On FAA, we testified a couple of weeks ago on air traffic 
control modernization and FAA financing. Not to be redundant 
about our message at that hearing, but I should say that if 
people believe that FAA's problems with these big modernization 
initiatives have been a lack of money, they are incorrect. I 
think everybody wants to invest appropriately in FAA, but more 
money is not going to solve some of the big problems that have 
haunted these modernization programs.
    Senator Shelby. Are you going to speak to what will solve 
some of the problems other than money?
    Mr. Mead. Yes, I certainly can. I was going to save that 
for questions and answers.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.

                            AVIATION SAFETY

    Mr. Mead. In aviation safety, I wanted to mention three 
points. One is runway incursions. We absolutely have to get a 
handle on runway incursions. They were about 160-170 a year in 
1993. They are now up to 327 a year. This is an accident 
waiting to happen.
    I have a chart I would like to put in the record, if I 
might, that shows the trend line.
    Senator Shelby. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

    
    
    Senator Shelby. Are you going to talk about the chart?
    Mr. Mead. Yes. You can see that, between 1994 and 1999, it 
has gone from about 200 to 322. Runway incursions, Mr. 
Chairman, are similar to a near mid-air collision. It is just 
that planes come too close together on the ground. In fact, the 
worst aviation tragedy in history occurred on the ground in the 
Canary Islands.
    Operational errors. These are errors made by controllers. 
They have been going up too. They went from 185 in 1998 to 940 
in 1999. I want to commend FAA and the Secretary for taking the 
initiative on code-share safety. This is where you have 
different airlines taking separate legs of a trip. If you are 
flying on a foreign carrier, what assurances do you have that 
that foreign carrier is safe? FAA has initiated a program 
there.
    In surface transportation safety, Congress enacted the 
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act. There are 10,000 carriers 
on the road today that have an unsatisfactory safety fitness 
rating. We need to get serious here and not only establish a 
vision of leadership in the new administration, but also shut 
down some of these carriers. If they are not going to be safe, 
we need to get them off the road.
    Transportation infrastructure. This represents a major 
infusion of dollars into transportation. I think the experience 
of the last 2 months with the Central Artery--this is a project 
that went from about $3 billion to, recently announced, about 
$12.2 billion. I do not believe the Artery management was 
forthright with the Department or anybody, at least publicly. I 
think the Department and the Federal Highway Administration had 
gotten too close to the project management in that case. I am 
pleased to see Secretary Slater has moved out to, I think, take 
firm, corrective action in that area.

                          FINANCIAL STATEMENT

    We signed off yesterday on a clean opinion on FAA and the 
Department's financial statements. They have been trying for 9 
years to get an unqualified or ``clean'' financial opinion, the 
kind most corporations have to have. We were very pleased to do 
that. The Department deserves a lot of credit. Mr. Basso, on my 
right, was a chief architect behind the Department's success 
there.
    On Amtrak, sir, if Amtrak makes it, they are not going to 
make it by much on operational self-sufficiency. In the capital 
area, they are, by our projections, going to fall short by over 
$200 million through 2002. And Governor Thompson is right, 
after that glide path is over, they are going to require 
capital assistance. There are no two ways about it.
    I think a key issue here is getting the Acela high-speed 
train in operation and deployed. We really will not know about 
the future of Amtrak until we get that high-speed rail line 
running.
    Senator Shelby. Are you going to be on that train with us?
    Mr. Mead. I will be on it. I will not be driving it. I will 
sit next to you.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
    Senator Lautenberg. I am driving it.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Mr. Mead. I also want to make a passing reference to work 
that we are doing in the aviation area. We have some 
obligations to review how well the airlines are treating their 
passengers through airline service commitments. We are also 
doing a lot of work on aviation delays, which I think is quite 
interesting. Actually, we are doing that work for this 
committee. If you have any questions and answers about that, we 
would be glad to answer them too.
    I will conclude with that, sir.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Kenneth M. Mead

                      MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT ISSUES

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the 
opportunity to appear today to discuss the major management issues 
facing the Department of Transportation (DOT).
    Last year, we testified before this Subcommittee on what we then 
saw as the top 10 management issues facing DOT. At the request of 
Congressional leadership, we updated our list and prepared a new report 
outlining the top 12 significant issues facing DOT. This report, issued 
in December, includes the Department's progress in the last year. 
Copies of the report have been provided to the Subcommittee as part of 
my written statement.
    The 12 items on this year's list are:
  --Aviation Safety.--The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must 
        proactively address aviation safety issues such as growth in 
        the number of runway incursions and operational errors.
  --Surface Transportation Safety.--The Department must effectively 
        implement new enforcement tools and other improvements to the 
        commercial driver's license program resulting from the Motor 
        Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, better coordinate the 
        hazardous materials programs of the various Operating 
        Administrations, and target its efforts to reduce rail-highway 
        grade crossing accidents with proven, cost-effective 
        strategies.
  --Air Traffic Control Modernization.--Problems persist with 
        technologically challenging systems, such as the Wide Area 
        Augmentation System (WAAS) and Standard Terminal Automation 
        Replacement System (STARS). These two systems alone have 
        cumulative estimated program costs of over $4 billion, and are 
        experiencing cost and schedule difficulties. For example, WAAS 
        is experiencing software and hardware problems that will have 
        significant cost and schedule implications that have yet to be 
        determined. Consequently, WAAS will not meet the September 2000 
        milestone for initial operating capability. The STARS schedule 
        has been impacted by the software development needed to resolve 
        computer-human interface issues and other new requirements. The 
        last full service STARS is now planned to be deployed by 
        September 2008, over 3\1/2\ years behind schedule.
  --FAA Financing.--Congress is getting closer to finalizing a new 
        authorization bill for FAA. The proposed package includes $40 
        billion over 3 years with large increases for airport 
        improvements and air traffic modernization. While the increases 
        represent a significant investment opportunity for aviation 
        infrastructure, additional funding alone is not the only 
        solution. FAA will need to contain the growth in operations 
        costs, provide for greater risk sharing with contractors, and 
        expedite an accurate cost accounting system.
  --Surface, Marine, and Airport Infrastructure Needs.--It is 
        imperative that the historic levels of expenditure on 
        transportation infrastructure, amounting to $50 billion in 
        fiscal year 2000 alone, be effectively monitored. We recently 
        reported that trends in construction cost on the Central Artery 
        could raise the cost of that project by up to $942 million. 
        Last October, both FHWA and project officials rejected our 
        projections. Then, on February 1, 2000, FHWA accepted the 
        project's latest Finance Plan. Later that same day, the project 
        announced a $1.4 billion cost increase that was not reported in 
        the Finance Plan. If the FHWA's oversight had been effective, 
        they would have known about cost increases as they were 
        occurring, and certainly before they accepted the project's 
        Finance Plan.
  --Transportation Security.--FAA must continue to improve its 
        oversight of aviation security, particularly in areas such as 
        airport access controls and the effective use of baggage 
        screening equipment. In surface transportation security, DOT 
        must begin to develop a comprehensive research strategy and the 
        ability to perform meaningful risk assessments.
  --Computer Security.--DOT needs to perform risk/vulnerability 
        assessments on its critical computer systems and use these 
        assessments to prioritize its work in addressing computer 
        system vulnerabilities.
  --Financial Accounting as Related to the CFO Act.--After 9 years of 
        work and because of extraordinary efforts in the last 2 years, 
        DOT was able to support all material line items in its fiscal 
        year 1999 Consolidated Financial Statements, thereby earning 
        DOT its first ``clean'' audit opinion. These Consolidated 
        Financial Statements show DOT and its Operating Administrations 
        had assets of $76 billion, liabilities of $30 billion, 
        operating costs of $42 billion, and total budget authority of 
        $57 billion. While significant progress has been made in 
        improving the financial records, DOT still needs to make major 
        improvements in its financial management systems.
  --Amtrak Financial Viability/Modernization.--Amtrak still faces major 
        challenges to its goal of operating self-sufficiency: 1999 cash 
        losses were higher than expected, implementation of high-speed 
        train service has been delayed; and there are significant 
        capital investments which must be made to protect Amtrak's 
        future safety and potential profitability.
  --The United States Coast Guard's (USCG's) Deepwater Asset 
        Replacement Project.--The Coast Guard faces a challenge in 
        developing an acquisition and budgeting strategy for replacing 
        its Deepwater aircraft, vessels and related equipment. These 
        assets will reach the end of their useful lives over the next 
        30 years. It is expected to cost $9.8 to $15 billion to replace 
        this capability. The question is not whether Deepwater assets 
        have to be replaced or modernized, but how, when, and at what 
        cost.
  --The Maritime Administration's (MARAD's) Ship Scrapping Program.--
        MARAD, the Administration, and Congress need to consider how 
        MARAD can best dispose of the 110 vessels it currently has 
        slated for disposal (many of which pose significant 
        environmental dangers). Overseas sales have been halted, there 
        is limited capacity in the domestic ship scrapping industry, 
        and MARAD is required by law to dispose of these ships in a 
        manner that brings the greatest financial return to the Federal 
        Government. The approach of selling vessels for scrapping will 
        not work in today's marketplace. MARAD will need relief from 
        the requirement to maximize financial returns and will need 
        authorization and funding for a program similar to a Navy pilot 
        project that is paying to have vessels scrapped.
  --DOT Implementation of GPRA--For DOT to continue its success in 
        implementing GPRA, it must improve the timeliness and 
        reliability of its performance data.
    In addition to the 12 management issues presented above, the state 
of service delivery in the aviation industry has developed into a major 
customer service policy matter. In order to apprise the Congress and 
the Secretary about the progress of airline efforts, we will be engaged 
this year in several important audits of the state of service delivery 
in the aviation industry. In my testimony today, I would also like to 
summarize for you the status of our work on airline flight delays and 
on airline pricing and customer service issues.
    i. changes from the oig's 1998 list of top priority management 
                               challenges
    Our 1998 and 1999 lists are very similar. We deleted only one item 
from the 1998 list: Year 2000 Computer Issues. From mid-1997 to 
December 1999, DOT repaired, tested, implemented, and independently 
verified fixes to over 300 mission-critical systems. Contingency plans 
and command centers were established in case of any Year 2000 problems. 
These were not needed, as all mission-critical DOT systems successfully 
transitioned to the year 2000.
    We added two issues to this year's list: the United States Coast 
Guard's Deepwater Capability Replacement Project and the Maritime 
Administration's Ship Scrapping Project.
    Coast Guard's Deepwater Capability Replacement Project.--In its 
Deepwater Project, the Coast Guard proposes spending $9.8 to $15 
billion over the next 20 years to replace or modernize all of the 
vessels and aircraft it uses 50 miles or more offshore. Current 
deepwater assets include 206 aircraft, 93 vessels, and related sensor, 
communications, and navigation systems. This represents 99 percent of 
the Coast Guard's aircraft and 100 percent of its vessels 110 feet and 
longer, excluding buoy tenders and icebreakers. Primary deepwater 
missions include search and rescue, drug interdiction, alien migrant 
interdiction, and fisheries law enforcement.
    In 1996, the Coast Guard received Departmental approval to proceed 
with the design of the Deepwater Project. Through fiscal year 2000, a 
total of $75 million has been appropriated for project planning and 
preliminary design. For fiscal year 2001, $42.3 million has been 
requested to allow the Coast Guard to finish the planning phase and 
prepare its acquisition strategy. For fiscal year 2002, the Coast Guard 
anticipates requesting $350 million to begin the Deepwater acquisition.
    The Coast Guard's Deepwater assets will reach the end of their 
useful lives over the next 30 years. The question is not whether they 
have to be replaced or modernized but how and when. However, the 
planning phase for the project will not be completed in time to support 
the fiscal year 2002 budget request. Coast Guard will have to reconcile 
how it can proceed with a budget request in advance of completing the 
planning process. An important subsidiary issue is how priorities will 
be established within annual fiscal limitations. Three options are to: 
defer the anticipated $350 million fiscal year 2002 Deepwater budget 
request until the results of the planning process are known; expedite 
the planning process to identify the most critical deepwater needs and 
justify the fiscal year 2002 budget request on that basis; or use 
information available to develop a current cost and schedule estimate 
for the project that identifies anticipated acquisitions and use that 
to justify the fiscal year 2002 request.
    MARAD's Ship Scrapping Project.--The Department, the 
Administration, and the Congress also face a challenge in determining 
how to dispose of MARAD's fleet of environmentally dangerous vessels in 
a timely manner. MARAD currently has 110 vessels in its fleet awaiting 
disposal, with 88 of these vessels slated specifically for scrapping. 
The average age of these vessels is 46 years, and they have been 
awaiting disposal for an average of 13 years. Forty of these vessels 
are considered ``worst condition.'' These vessels are literally 
disintegrating.
    Environmental dangers associated with MARAD's deteriorating vessels 
increase daily. These ships contain hazardous substances such as 
asbestos and solid and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls. These vessels 
also contain oil that, if leaked into the water, would require 
immediate Federal and State action. MARAD has applied over 20 patches 
to leaks, removed hazardous materials, and pumped oil out of one vessel 
in the James River Reserve Fleet that is over 30 years old. That vessel 
is disintegrating to a point where it will not be seaworthy much 
longer.
    Given the small size of the domestic ship scrapping industry and 
the Administration's policy against using foreign ship scrapping 
facilities (which have poor environmental records), MARAD will likely 
need relief from the legislative requirement that it dispose of all 
obsolete vessels by 2001 in a way that maximizes financial return to 
the Government. MARAD would also benefit from authorization and funding 
for a program similar to a Navy pilot project, which pays for ship 
scrapping.
    This year's list has one other change. Last year our list cited 
Transportation and Computer Security as one issue. In view of the 
significance of both of these issues, we identified them separately in 
this year's report.
    Transportation Security.--The U.S. transportation system includes 
3.9 million miles of public roads, 1.5 million miles of oil and natural 
gas pipelines, 123,000 miles of major railroads, over 24,000 miles of 
commercially navigable waterways, over 5,000 public-use airports, 508 
transit operators in 316 urbanized areas, and 145 major ports on the 
coasts and inland waterways. Over the last several years, the changing 
threat of terrorist and other criminal activities has heightened the 
need to improve domestic transportation security over these vital 
transportation assets.
    The need to protect aviation security has long been recognized. 
Over 450 airports and 290 air carriers are subject to Federal Aviation 
Regulation security requirements and have FAA-approved security 
programs. More than 500 FAA security field agents monitor industry's 
compliance with these programs. Since 1997, FAA has also deployed more 
than 600 machines, at a cost exceeding $250 million, for screening 
passenger checked and carry-on baggage. To improve its aviation 
security program, FAA should develop an integrated strategic security 
plan, work with the industry to improve airport access controls, and 
develop new requirements for issuing and accounting for airport 
identification media.
    Surface transportation security issues, on the other hand, have not 
been a high priority. Also, the size and openness of surface 
transportation systems makes it much harder to develop appropriate, 
cost-effective security requirements. Precisely because of their size 
and openness, however, surface transportation locations can become 
terrorist targets. For example, in March 1995, a cult released nerve 
agents in a Tokyo subway, and over 5,500 subway travelers required 
medical treatment. As a first step toward addressing these 
vulnerabilities, the National Research Council recommended that the 
Department work toward a surface transportation security strategy and 
develop the ability to perform meaningful risk assessments on surface 
transportation security threats.
    Computer Security.--The Department needs adequate computer security 
to ensure the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of its 
automated operations. The recent network attacks on major e-retailers 
demonstrate the need to re-examine this area in light of today's 
technology. While interconnected computer networks have made our 
operations more efficient, they also created new challenges for us. For 
example, we can no longer rely on physical isolation as our key safety 
net, which has been an important part of security for the Air Traffic 
Control Systems.
    DOT, with $2.7 billion in planned expenditures for fiscal year 
2000, is responsible for the largest information technology investment 
among all civilian agencies. There are over 600 mission-critical 
systems in DOT, including safety-sensitive Air Traffic Control Systems, 
Coast Guard search and rescue systems, and financial management systems 
supporting the distribution of billions of dollars in grants.
    Computer security comprises a wide range of work, from implementing 
sophisticated network tools to increasing employees' security awareness 
to performing proper background checks on people occupying key 
positions. To meet its responsibilities for secure computer operations, 
DOT should: perform risk assessments of its computer systems in order 
to prioritize use of limited resources, implement cost-effective 
protections for its critical systems, secure entry points to its 
interconnected network systems, and emphasize basics such as security 
training and background checks.
             ii. items continuing from the oig's 1998 list
    Eight items on last year's list are also on this year's list. They 
are: Air Traffic Control Modernization; FAA Financing; Aviation Safety; 
Surface Transportation Safety; Surface, Marine, and Airport 
Infrastructure Needs; Financial Accounting as Related to the Chief 
Financial Officers Act (CFO Act); Amtrak Financial Viability/
Modernization; and DOT Implementation of the Government Performance and 
Results Act (GPRA).
    Last month, at a joint hearing of this Subcommittee and the Senate 
Budget Committee, we testified on Air Traffic Control Modernization and 
FAA Financing. That testimony included detailed and updated discussions 
of our concerns in these areas, so we have not addressed them in this 
statement.
    I would like to give you a short summary of the other six items 
continuing from last year.
    Aviation Safety.--The aviation industry expects continued growth in 
air traffic and closer spacing between airplanes due to increased 
demand and the implementation of new technologies. The key safety 
issues facing FAA include: ensuring that U.S. air carriers perform 
meaningful safety assessments on their foreign code share partners; 
using training and new technology to reverse the upward trend of runway 
incursions; reducing the number of air traffic operational errors and 
deviations; and working with the Congress to ensure passage of the FAA 
Reauthorization Act.
    Surface Transportation Safety.--Motor vehicle, railroad, and rail 
transit accidents account for over 42,000 deaths annually--more than 90 
percent of all transportation-related fatalities. The Department's 
first priority in this area is effective implementation of the Motor 
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. DOT must move quickly to 
establish the needed leadership in the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA) and publish the 30 rulemakings FMCSA believes 
necessary to implement the new Act. These rulemakings would strengthen 
the commercial driver's license program by enhancing the number and 
type of disqualifying violations, the enforcement of civil penalties, 
and reviews of new motor carrier operators.
    In terms of railroad safety, DOT has made significant progress in 
reducing rail-highway grade crossing accidents and fatalities, which 
were once the leading cause of railway deaths. To continue this trend, 
DOT should target its limited resources to proven, cost-effective 
strategies, such as installation of median barriers preventing drivers 
from crossing tracks when a train is approaching.
    The Department must also make adequate provisions for the safe 
transport of hazardous materials. While the probability of a serious 
hazardous materials incident is low, the consequences of such an 
incident can be catastrophic, as evidenced by the 1996 ValuJet crash in 
Florida. The Department is about to issue a Hazardous Materials Program 
Evaluation (HMPE), which will recommend establishing a central focal 
point to administer and deliver a DOT-wide hazardous materials program. 
This DOT-wide program would focus more outreach and inspection 
resources on shippers who introduce hazardous materials into the 
transportation stream and strengthen standards to ensure that all 
employees handling hazardous materials are adequately trained.
    On the issue of pipeline safety, there is a critical need to ensure 
that DOT continues to enforce pipeline safety laws and implements 
recommendations that could further strengthen pipeline safety programs. 
Issues to be considered during reauthorization include: requiring 
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to comply with 
outstanding Congressional mandates to revise the inspection process; 
expanding the focus of RSPA research to include ``smart pigs'' that can 
detect seam weld defects and alternative pipeline inspection 
technologies for pipelines that cannot accommodate smart pigs; training 
RSPA safety inspectors on the capabilities and use of pipeline 
inspection technologies; and implementing revisions in the collection 
of pipeline accident data to expand accident causal categories for more 
detailed trend analysis.
    Surface, Marine, and Airport Infrastructure Needs.--The 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) guarantees a 
minimum of $198 billion in Federal funds for surface transportation 
infrastructure in fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
    Since the oversight of TEA-21 projects has shifted to grantees, 
resulting in less direct Federal Government control over infrastructure 
projects, there is a need to identify and apply best practices to major 
projects and find systemic solutions to problems. For example, DOT 
needs to: require and closely examine finance plans for all large 
infrastructure projects; establish criteria for finance plans to ensure 
complete and consistent reporting of basic standardized financial data 
in the plans; monitor project performance and mitigate funding risks 
for infrastructure projects to protect the Government's financial 
interests as soon as problems are identified; and continue to promote 
owner-controlled insurance programs that can reduce program costs, 
while ensuring that Federal reimbursement for these programs is limited 
to the amounts actually needed to purchase insurance coverage or pay 
claims.
    Also, as the results of OIG investigations demonstrate, vigilance 
must be improved across the Federal, state and grantee levels, in order 
to thwart fraud against TEA-21 funds.
    In terms of airport infrastructure, FAA must exercise adequate 
oversight to ensure that airport revenues are reasonably established 
and that funds are used for eligible purposes. FAA must also ensure 
that airport sponsors require that their annual audits cover airport 
revenue use. The most important priority to support this and other 
aviation issues, is passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act.
    Financial Accounting as Related to the Chief Financial Officers 
(CFO) Act.--During fiscal year 1999, DOT made extraordinary and labor-
intensive efforts to overcome its accounting and financial system 
weaknesses. With these efforts, DOT was able to support the material 
items on its financial statements, thus earning an unqualified, or 
clean, audit opinion on the fiscal year 1999 Highway Trust Fund, FAA, 
and DOT Consolidated Financial Statements. Although getting a clean 
audit opinion was a major achievement, it is not the ultimate goal.
    DOT still has to make long-term improvements in its financial 
management and accounting systems. If such improvements are not made, 
DOT will have to continue the same type of extraordinary, expensive, 
and labor-intensive efforts in the future. Such efforts are not 
sustainable for the long term and unnecessarily expend significant 
amounts of resources to maintain accurate records, which should be 
routinely produced by the accounting systems.
    To its credit, DOT recognized several years ago that its financial 
systems do not meet today's needs. DOT is currently designing a new 
system, and plans to have a state-of-the-art, off-the-shelf commercial 
financial management system, with a cost accounting module, fully 
operational by June 30, 2001. FAA also is developing a separate cost 
accounting system for its management needs and to support user fee 
calculations. FAA's system is scheduled to be fully operational by 
fiscal year 2002.
    Amtrak Financial Viability/Modernization.--Amtrak's 1999 financial 
results show some progress, but still indicate the need for major 
improvement. Amtrak's cash loss last year was $579 million, $54 million 
higher than the 1998 cash loss and $19 million worse than Amtrak had 
projected. Over half of the $692 million in projections we considered 
to be ``at risk'' in the 1999 Business Plan represented investments and 
revenue placeholders for actions including the Market Based Network 
Analysis. This year, it is imperative that Amtrak begin to realize the 
payoffs of such investments--the small steps made the past 2 years must 
now be replaced with large strides. First quarter 2000 performance 
indicates these strides are slow in coming. Passenger revenues continue 
to lag, led by Intercity, which finished nearly $11 million behind 
plan, $2 million worse than the same period last year. Acela high-speed 
rail is critical to Amtrak's ability to reach operating self-
sufficiency. The impact of delays in 2000 will be mitigated by 
offsetting expense savings and other means, but this should not 
understate how important it is for Amtrak to bring high-speed rail on 
line as soon as possible.
    The criteria used to measure whether Amtrak has made its self-
sufficiency goal needs to be defined: Amtrak will require capital 
funding after 2002 to continue operations of the railroad, and will not 
be able to fund depreciation, the costs of capital replacement, without 
Federal assistance. Allowing Amtrak to use capital funds for 
progressive overhauls will encourage Amtrak to make overhaul decisions 
based on good business practices, rather than what can be federally 
funded after 2002.
    Amtrak's capital program should first address minimum needs before 
investing in high rate-of-return projects like new high-speed 
corridors. Although these investments are likely to result in revenues 
that will help Amtrak reach and sustain financial viability, Amtrak 
must first make the investments necessary to ensure the safe, reliable 
operations of the existing system. It will not have enough capital 
funds available to do both. One of Amtrak's most pressing needs is the 
$654 million unfunded fire and life-safety needs in Penn Station-New 
York and the associated river tunnels. Unless additional funding can be 
identified, the schedule for meeting these needs will extend to 2014. 
To ensure that these life-safety-requirements are completed in a timely 
manner, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Administrator should 
work with Amtrak, New Jersey Transit, and the Long Island Rail Road to 
identify the necessary funding.
    DOT Implementation of GPRA.--DOT's first strategic and performance 
plans were rated by Congress as the best in the Federal Government. 
Further, in 1999, DOT had the foresight to do a dry run of preparing a 
performance report for the Congress by March 31, which will be the 
annual statutory due date starting in 2000. In the dry run, DOT was 
able to report prior year data for only 63 percent of its measures. 
Agency staff expect to be able to provide 1999 data for over 90 percent 
of the measures in the performance report they will submit to Congress 
this March 31.
    To continue its GPRA success, the Department needs to continue to 
improve the reliability and timeliness of its performance data; face 
the challenge of having to accomplish some significant goals through 
States and other third parties; and ensure that the Operating 
Administrations set baselines, develop performance measures, and set 
performance goals for all important initiatives.
iii. oig flight delays and airline pricing and customer service reviews
    In addition to the 12 management issues presented, the state of 
customer service delivery in the aviation industry has developed into a 
major policy matter. At the request of the Congress, we have initiated 
three reviews in this area.
  --Airline Flight Delays.--Last summer, the increasing number of 
        delayed and cancelled flights sparked sharp debate over the 
        cause or causes of these delays and cancellations. FAA cited 
        unusually bad weather as the primary culprit. In contrast, the 
        airline industry held FAA responsible, citing several problems 
        with air traffic control procedures and equipment outages. To 
        gain a better insight into this important service delivery 
        issue, this Subcommittee asked us to examine the sources of 
        delays and cancellations and the factors that contribute to 
        them. We are currently preparing our report and expect to issue 
        it this Spring.
  --Airline Pricing and Customer Service.--The Transportation 
        Appropriations Act of 1999 required the OIG to report on 
        consumer access to lowest airfares and airline overbooking 
        disclosure practices. We recently initiated a review to: 
        identify the extent to which actual or potential barriers exist 
        to consumer access to comparative price and service 
        information; and determine the extent to which airlines fail to 
        disclose to passengers or ticket agents whether flights are 
        overbooked. In addition to airlines and travel agents, we will 
        be exploring these issues with Internet and other ticket 
        distribution providers, consumer organizations, and aviation 
        industry experts.
    We have established an Internet web site and a toll free telephone 
number where consumers can submit descriptions of their travel 
experiences directly to us, and we will include an analysis of these 
experiences in our report. We expect to issue our findings later this 
year.
    In December 1999, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation asked the OIG to review the domestic air 
carriers' customer service commitment plans. These plans describe what 
the airline will do in areas such as notifying passengers of known 
flight delays and cancellations; meeting customers' essential needs 
during long on-aircraft delays; improving on-time baggage delivery; 
providing prompt ticket refunds; and accommodating disabled and special 
needs passengers.
    By mid-June, we will provide the Commerce Committee with an interim 
report on the completion, publication, and implementation of the 
airlines' Customer Service Commitment Plans and the individual air 
carriers' procedures to carry out their commitments. Our final report, 
due on December 31st of this year, will provide our evaluation on the 
quality of each air carrier's plan compared to the commitments. To 
date, we have visited the corporate headquarters of each of the 14 air 
carriers included in our review. We are developing procedures for 
testing and evaluating the air carriers' implementation of the 
commitments.
    This concludes my formal remarks. Thank you for inviting me to 
testify this morning. I would be happy to answer any questions the 
Subcommittee may have.

                      STATEMENT OF PETER J. BASSO

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary?
    Mr. Basso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, and 
Senator Bennett. Good morning. I will be very brief.
    Senator Shelby. Your written statement will be made part of 
the record.
    Mr. Basso. Thank you, sir.

                             SAFETY AND Y2K

    Let me just, in the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, touch 
on two things that are very important in the management areas 
of the Department.
    They are, first of all, our management and expansion of our 
safety programs. The budget that we put before this 
subcommittee this year for fiscal year 2001 requests 
substantial increases in all areas of safety, and I want to 
particularly emphasize the importance of us working with the 
Congress to assure that those funds are made available. I would 
hope that the subcommittee can accommodate those changes.
    The other area that I want to touch on is the Y2K issue 
that Mr. Mead has touched on. Senator Bennett certainly 
deserves great credit for the prod that helped this Department 
go from what I would consider basically nowhere to completing 
the job on time. I particularly appreciate that, and Deputy 
Secretary Downey, Jane Garvey, and others deserve great credit 
for delivering on that point.

                              CLEAN AUDIT

    The other point I wanted to touch on--there are many I 
could in these management challenge areas--is the Department 
receiving a clean audit opinion, something that we pursued 
somewhat like the holy grail since 1991. As one of the people 
who actually worked on writing the Chief Financial Officers 
Act, I know what it means. It is not important to get an A on 
the report card, although I have to give great credit to the 
Inspector General who worked very closely with us to get this 
done, as well as others. What is important is that it 
represents an integrity that we can represent to the American 
public and the Congress as to what we have done with assets and 
how we have accounted for them.
    But if it stops at that point--and I probably will not have 
the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee again on 
this issue--it would be a total failure. To simply get an A on 
the report card is a failure.
    What has to be done, and what I committed to assuring gets 
done as the CFO of the Department, is that the systems and 
procedures are in place that are necessary to make this a 
routine matter so that this committee does not have to ask the 
question about this challenge in future years. What really is 
at the heart of what we are going to complete this next year 
with our new DELPHI accounting system, a state-of-the-art 
system, our cost accounting system at FAA, and the audits I 
think are essential to keep us all on our toes and focused on 
the issues in that regard. So, we should give the IG a little 
more money for that, but that is another issue. We will deal 
with that.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I really do appreciate the 
opportunity to appear this morning, but I would prefer I think, 
in deference to the committee, to offer the opportunity for you 
to ask questions of myself and others here rather than carry on 
at great length.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Peter J. Basso

    Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on management issues, challenges and related 
accomplishments of the Department of Transportation.

                                OVERVIEW

    Last year, when I testified before this Subcommittee on management 
challenges facing the Department of Transportation (DOT), I stated that 
Americans demand mobility and that we have an obligation to provide a 
transportation system that meets both our economic and mobility 
requirements in a safe and environmentally friendly way. This 
obligation is a long-term one and must be part of our vision for the 
transportation system of the 21st century. The management challenges 
that face our transportation system and the Department today are 
critical to our long-term success in meeting this obligation.
    These challenges include:
  --Rapidly growing travel demand, which affects the condition and 
        performance of our transportation system. We face this 
        challenge on the water, on the land, and in the air.
  --Population changes, including increasing number of elderly 
        individuals and drivers, which presents new mobility and safety 
        challenges.
  --Transportation behavior that is not acceptable, such as aggressive 
        driving. The Department continually strives to find new ways to 
        convince people to drive safely on our roads. Even though our 
        transportation system's performance reflects the strength of 
        our safety commitment, with 4,300 fewer people dying on our 
        roads than in 1993, an unacceptably high number of people 
        continue to die on our roads each year.
  --Using technology in a cost-effective manner to improve our 
        performance.

                    OVERALL DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT

    The Clinton-Gore Administration has made management of the Federal 
Government a top priority and a reality. The Secretary and Deputy 
Secretary have put in place an overall Departmental management 
structure that stresses leadership, coordination, innovation and 
results.
    We in DOT strive to be excellent managers of DOT's resources, 
ensuring that we deliver programs that customers want with maximum 
efficiency, and that we manage for results. To determine how best to 
deliver programs we emphasize goal setting, customer involvement, and 
measurement of progress against these goals to determine our 
effectiveness and efficiency.
    The Department has been aggressively implementing the National 
Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR) and Government Performance 
and Results Act (GPRA) mandates as well as the Chief Financial Officers 
(CFO) Act. In reinventing our procurement practices, we now use the 
purchase card for over ninety percent of our small purchases. We are 
now utilizing e-commerce solutions, so that those who need to pay us 
for services, fines and fees can do so quickly and efficiently. Our 
strategic and performance goals focus on outcomes--what we are 
attempting to achieve--not outputs (how much we do of one activity or 
another). In addition in fiscal year 1999, DOT established a 
procurement performance management system that uses a set of balanced 
performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of 
our procurement system in helping achieve our missions. The public 
deserves a Department of Transportation that is outcome oriented and 
our best-in-government strategic and performance plans show that we 
know what the public expects of us.
    We have one transportation system, and making it work better 
requires a ONE DOT approach. The Department is improving its internal 
management activities by bringing intermodal energy and expertise to 
bear on all transportation problems. Our ONE DOT corporate management 
strategy is of special note. This strategy encourages and rewards 
collaboration across modes and agencies at all levels. It promotes 
efficiency and creativity, and instills in our employees the sense that 
they represent not just their operating administration but the whole 
Department in its response to the public. This innovative team thinking 
has led to the completion of our hazardous materials program evaluation 
whereby the Department's programs regarding both shippers and carriers 
of hazardous materials were evaluated, and our success in achieving an 
unqualified audit opinion on our financial statements this year for the 
first time.
    My testimony today addresses our progress on the management 
challenges identified by the Inspector General: Surface Transportation 
Safety; Aviation Safety; Air Traffic Control Modernization; FAA 
Financing and Reauthorization; Surface, Marine, and Airport 
Infrastructure; Transportation Security; Computer Security; Financial 
Accounting/Chief Financial Officers Act; Amtrak Financial Viability and 
Modernization; Coast Guard Deepwater Capability Replacement Project; 
Ship Disposal Program; and Government Performance and Results Act 
Implementation.

                     SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY

    Transportation safety is the Department's top priority. Safe and 
efficient transportation systems are critical to our economic security 
and our quality of life. Although our transportation system is already 
the safest in the world, much of what we do is aimed at making it 
safer, as travel continues to grow. In managing a myriad of safety 
programs in conjunction with the states, other public authorities, and 
the private sector, as well as directly through enforcement, we must 
constantly focus on outcomes. The fiscal year 2001 budget directs a 
record $4 billion to transportation safety programs, 13 percent above 
this year's level.
    A major focus of the management of our safety efforts is reducing 
highway crashes, which account for more than nine out of every ten 
transportation fatalities. Highway crashes are the leading cause of 
death for children, teenagers, and young adults. In addition to the 
tragic toll on our families, crashes cost our economy an estimated $150 
billion annually. Unless we continue to lower the fatality rate, the 
growth in travel created by our expanding economy will result in an 
increase in the number of deaths. To reduce the fatality rate, we must 
focus on all three components of the safety equation: safer roads, 
safer vehicles and safer drivers.
    The top priority to improve safety is simple--seat belts and child 
safety seats work! A person is almost twice as likely to die or sustain 
a serious injury in a crash if unbelted. Today, seat belts save about 
11,000 lives annually. In 1997, the President set a national goal of 
achieving an 85 percent seat belt use rate by 2000 and a 90 percent 
seat belt use rate by 2005. These goals will be difficult to achieve, 
as our progress in increasing seat belt use has been incremental. 
Information, education and outreach are critical efforts if we are to 
reach that goal and the fiscal year 2001 budget proposes substantial 
funding increases for NHTSA in these areas.
    The President has also set a goal of making .08 the national 
standard for maximum blood-alcohol levels while driving. Although 
alcohol-related fatalities have declined over the past ten years, 
impaired driving remains a leading cause of traffic fatalities. These 
are irresponsible actions on the part of the driving public and should 
not be condoned. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes additional NHTSA 
funding to implement aggressive programs aimed at reducing drinking and 
driving.
    Ensuring safe motor carrier transportation is a critical part of 
our overall efforts to improve highway safety. Historic levels of 
economic growth and logistical innovation have resulted in significant 
increases in truck travel. While the motor carrier fatality rate 
(relative to vehicle miles traveled) has decreased, the actual number 
of fatalities has increased. That is not acceptable and the Secretary 
has set a goal of reducing motor carrier fatalities by 50 percent by 
2009. With truck transportation a backbone of our economy, the 
management challenge facing DOT is to implement a risk based, systems 
approach that gets unsafe trucks and operators off our highways.
    The new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has already 
significantly stepped up its enforcement efforts. The number of Federal 
compliance reviews conducted has doubled since the beginning of 1999. 
The backlog of enforcement cases has been nearly eliminated. And, 
senior management of the Department is reviewing progress quarterly. We 
will be accountable for assuring that this effort succeeds.
    To judge its progress in meeting this challenge, the new Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration has set specific near term goals, 
including:
  --deploying Commercial Vehicle Information System technology in 26 
        states by September of 2003;
  --limiting the instances of negotiated settlement costs, so that 
        violators of safety regulations will not view penalties as 
        merely a cost of doing business; and
  --pilot testing a new brake testing device by January 2001, in order 
        to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of roadside 
        inspections.
    FMCSA also just launched a safety website to share detailed safety 
information with the public. Now each citizen can determine how safe 
his area is in comparison to the rest of the country. In addition, the 
Office of the Inspector General is continuing its criminal 
investigative emphasis on targeting parties which egregiously violate 
motor carrier safety standards.
    Improving the safety of highway-rail grade crossings and pipelines 
also presents management challenges for the Department. Our ONE DOT 
management and our partnerships with states and local entities are the 
key to achieving results. FRA and FHWA work with state and community 
officials to raise awareness that the safest and most efficient way to 
reduce crossing collisions is by eliminating or consolidating highway-
rail crossings. Since 1991, 12 percent of all public and private 
highway-rail grade crossings have been closed by states and localities, 
but our goal is to close a total of 25 percent by 2004 as trespasser 
fatalities represent over 90 percent of all railroad-related 
fatalities.
    The accident last year in Bellingham, Washington revealed the need 
to comprehensively evaluate and improve pipeline safety. RSPA is 
committed to working with states to strengthen the pipeline safety 
partnership and to provide adequate resources to support pipeline 
safety activities. The fiscal year 2001 budget provides record 
resources to increase states' capabilities and builds on the 
cooperative actions RSPA has taken with the State of Washington. The 
$23.5 million we request in fiscal year 2001 includes funding for the 
base pipeline safety program, as well as damage prevention and risk 
assessment initiatives.
    While recreational boating fatalities have fallen steadily for 
three decades, commercial fishing and passenger vessel safety provide 
formidable challenges in the maritime environment. The Coast Guard 
recently concluded a task force report and is pursuing initiatives in 
2001 to bring fishing vessel safety in line with the rest of the 
commercial fleet. They are also partnering with the maritime response 
community and cruise industry stakeholders on numerous initiatives 
designed to minimize risk and maximize safety in the burgeoning 
passenger vessel arena.

                            AVIATION SAFETY

    With growing congestion in the air and at airports, and with 
growing numbers of Americans traveling on foreign carriers, FAA faces 
challenges in maintaining the safety of aviation passengers and 
employees. We must be vigilant on all aviation safety issues, including 
runway incursions. The tragic Alaska Airlines Flight 261 crash reminds 
us of the importance of our commitment to making our skies--the safest 
in the world--ever safer. We are putting programs in place that provide 
countermeasures for known accident causes and will remain vigilant 
enforcing safety regulations.
    The funding we request in fiscal year 2001 will help us move 
towards our ``stretch goal'' of an 80 percent reduction in the rate of 
fatal commercial aviation crashes by 2007. FAA's Safer Skies agenda 
focuses on the most critical safety problems in commercial and general 
aviation including loss of control, pilot decision making, runway 
incursions, passenger seat belt use, uncontained engine failures and 
survivability. In order to prevent runway incursions, FAA has set goals 
for heightened situational awareness for both pilots and controllers, 
and is providing training for controllers, developing procedural 
initiatives to prevent incursions, using more sophisticated statistical 
and trend analysis and fully implementing new technologies to better 
identify and prevent such incidents. In addition, FAA will be focusing 
on runway incursion prevention around the country and will bring 
together all of those involved to identify airport-specific 
improvements.
    FAA is also targeting safety resources to commercial air carriers 
based on performance information such as operator experience, safety 
trends and company growth. A total of $1.1 billion is requested in 
fiscal year 2001 for our aviation safety programs, six percent above 
this year's level.
    Additionally, the Office of the Inspector General will continue its 
focus on investigating and prosecuting suspected unapproved parts 
(SUPs) where appropriate. The Department supports legislation to 
increase criminal penalties in the area of SUPs.

                   AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL MODERNIZATION

    Modernization of our air traffic control system is important for 
both safety and efficiency reasons. Modernization is necessary to keep 
pace with improvements in technology and to accommodate air traffic 
growth. As aviation grows, FAA needs ever more sophisticated equipment 
and procedures to prevent additional delays. The economic impact of 
delays is substantial and must be controlled. Given this demand, we 
also have to recognize that modernization of complex systems presents 
challenges in maintaining schedule and cost discipline.
    FAA has been faced with both successes and failures in its 
modernization efforts. Some programs such as the Display System 
Replacement and Free Flight Phase I are being accomplished within cost 
and schedule baselines. However, FAA has an unacceptably high rate of 
schedule slips and cost growth for its major modernization programs. 
FAA has faced problems with both the STARS and WAAS developments 
largely because these are technically complex programs that require 
more software development, and must be able to support the high 
standards of performance FAA demands from its workforce and equipment. 
To minimize problems with future projects, FAA is more intensively 
monitoring programs to stay within baselines, requiring more up front 
human factors analysis, and developing new projects in smaller 
increments.
    A total of $2.5 billion, 22 percent more than this year, is 
proposed for FAA's capital modernization program in fiscal year 2001. 
You need to be assured that these dollars will be spent wisely. FAA has 
a number of initiatives underway to help it meet this assurance. The 
FAA has baselined most major projects, so that progress against planned 
performance can be quickly measured. FAA is also using Earned Value 
Management for all new large acquisition projects and is awarding 
contracts more quickly, through its new acquisition management system.
    In addition, FAA has set two important modernization goals. One, is 
to keep at least 80 percent of contracts within 3 months of their 
schedule baseline. The other is to keep costs within 5 percent of 
baseline for the 20 largest acquisition projects.

                   FAA FINANCING AND REAUTHORIZATION

    Given the recent action on FAA reauthorization, it appears that the 
Administration's goal for FAA financing, which was to move FAA to a 
user fee financing system within a performance-based organization, will 
not be met at this time.
    Nevertheless, FAA is on target to implement a cost accounting 
system throughout the agency in fiscal year 2002 and received an 
unqualified audit for fiscal year 1999. The cost accounting system will 
allow FAA to comply with the court order on overflight fees and develop 
fees in line with FAA costs. The cost accounting system also will help 
FAA have the information it needs to evaluate its financial goals and 
maintain fiscal prudence.

               SURFACE, MARINE AND AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

    One of the major goals of the Department is to improve the overall 
conditions and performance of our transportation system. Much of the 
progress toward this goal relies on improvements in the infrastructure 
itself and the way it is integrated throughout the transportation 
system. The Inspector General has identified a need for the Department 
to identify and apply best practices of major infrastructure projects 
and to enhance the monitoring of project performance and finance plans.
    The Department is comprehensively dealing with the need to 
substantially increase our monitoring of major projects. We saw the 
need to do this recently with the Central Artery project, where the 
FHWA approved a finance plan for this project on the very same day that 
the state of Massachusetts announced increased costs for the project. 
This is not acceptable and the Department has laid out an action plan 
for a complete review of this situation. The Federal Transit 
Administration will increase its oversight of transit projects by five 
percent in fiscal year 2001. In addition, the Office of the Inspector 
General has implemented a program to heighten vigilance for fraud at 
the state and federal levels.
    The Department believes the integrity of our nation's Maritime 
Transportation System (MTS) is important to the Nation's economy. 
Trans-ocean shipping supports the majority of the United States' global 
commerce, and secure ports and harbor facilities are essential to 
ensuring the safe, efficient transfer of goods between waterborne 
vessels and highway and rail routes. Our recent MTS report, developed 
with significant collaboration from private and community stakeholders, 
provided recommendations to ensure the MTS meets the future needs of 
the American economy.
    Regarding airport revenue diversion, the FAA has implemented all of 
the revenue use enforcement provisions in the Reauthorization Acts of 
1994 and 1996. The FAA issued a comprehensive final policy on the use 
of airport revenues after extensive public and industry comment. FAA 
compliance staff review the annual financial reports filed by 
commercial airports and follow up on potential compliance issues. Local 
government airport sponsors are also required to review airport revenue 
use as part of their annual audit of Federal programs under the Single 
Audit Act. FAA, in coordination with the Office of Management and 
Budget and the General Accounting Office, has issued detailed guidance 
to auditors on the conduct of those reviews. These actions, in addition 
to the FAA's continuing education and outreach to the airport 
community, serve to continue the dedication of airport revenue to 
airport purposes.

                        TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

    It is critical that our transportation system be safe and secure. 
Even though the most visible security issues occur with the FAA and 
Coast Guard, several administrations within DOT are increasing their 
efforts on transportation security issues throughout the transportation 
system.
    This year, the OST Intelligence and Security Office is working with 
the transportation industry to develop a mechanism for quick 
dissemination of security threats. In addition, the fiscal year 2001 
budget contains funding for transportation risk assessments, which the 
IG has recommended that the Department conduct.
    The security of our aviation facilities, specifically our airports, 
is a top priority of the Department. FAA has implemented all of the 
recommendations of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and 
Security. However, we still face the management challenge of developing 
comprehensive procedures, technologies and measures of effectiveness to 
minimize the possibility that unauthorized persons gain access to 
restricted areas at airports. FAA research in fiscal year 2001 will be 
aimed at improving the speed and effectiveness of weapons and explosive 
detection devices to protect travelers from potential terrorist 
actions. FAA is also developing a regulation to stiffen the security 
procedures that prevent unauthorized access.

                           COMPUTER SECURITY

    Not surprisingly, DOT's critical information technology assets 
reside within FAA and the Coast Guard, with no other DOT systems 
meeting the criteria of Presidential Decision Directive 63. Plans to 
evaluate, remediate, test and certify these systems in accordance with 
existing Federal IT security policy and guidance are now under 
development. Risk assessments will be conducted for these systems, with 
our goal of completing all risk assessments by November 2002. We also 
plan to have all remediation and testing of these critical systems 
completed by May of 2003. Steps are being taken now and efforts will be 
accelerated to improve detection of potential intruders in our computer 
systems and prevent them from damaging our systems. In addition, 
physical security is being improved to deny access to critical 
facilities.
    In addition to our actions on our critical systems, DOT has worked 
vigorously to ensure the security of other systems. For example, my 
office completed a recertification last year of all accounting system 
users to ensure they were current and authorized personnel. The CIO's 
office established an IT security policy that requires all DOT IT 
systems be assessed to identify vulnerability, evaluate and mitigate 
these where justified, and then test and certify that adequate 
protection has been implemented. The CIO's offices will provide IT 
security awareness training to all of our workforce this fiscal year. 
And, we have set goals to develop an overall strategy/plan for ensuring 
that our IT assets are in compliance with OMB Circular A-130 by March 
2001 and to assess, test, and certify no less than 25 percent of our 
non-critical IT assets by September 2001.
    We have requested $100 million in 2001 to allow us to proceed 
vigorously to address critical infrastructure concerns Department-wide.

           FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS ACT

    I am most pleased to report that all DOT's fiscal year 1999 
financial statements (the Consolidated Statements, the Highway Trust 
Fund statements, and the FAA Statements) received unqualified opinions 
from the Office of Inspector General. An unqualified opinion means that 
the financial statements meet accounting standards and all major dollar 
amounts are supported. This marks the first time that ALL DOT financial 
statements received unqualified opinions. This happened because 
numerous people in various financial, program, systems, and audit 
organizations worked together. It epitomizes the ONE DOT philosophy.
    Financial statements, in general, are an important tool to promote 
and improve accountability and stewardship over the public resources 
entrusted to the Department. With the results of this year's 
statements, the Secretary now knows that:
  --DOT's financial statement fairly represents its financial position 
        and results of operation;
  --DOT has a serviceable internal accounting and administrative 
        control structure;
  --DOT has complied with laws and regulations;
  --DOT's Management Discussion and Analysis, which addresses goals and 
        program results, is consistent with the financial statement 
        information; and
  --DOT's performance measures are supported and properly reported.
    Following the fiscal year 1998 audit, DOT needed to resolve several 
major issues to receive an unqualified opinion on its fiscal year 1999 
financial statement. But the major outstanding departmental issue was 
valuation and supporting documentation for property, plant, and 
equipment. FAA and USCG own most of DOT's property and equipment.
    When the President announced in May 1999 the goal to have an 
unqualified audit opinion on the Federal Government's fiscal year 1999 
financial statements, both FAA and USCG responded by developing plans 
to address the fiscal year 1998 property, plant, and equipment 
deficiencies. The plans covered three fronts: Real Property, Personal 
Property, and Work In Process (WIP). The OIG was instrumental in the 
success of the effort. Throughout the planning and execution, the OIG 
identified the types of accounts to be covered and the types of 
documentation that were acceptable; examined documentation supporting 
acquisition cost and accumulated depreciation; and, used a combination 
of statistical sampling, nonstatistical sampling of high-dollar items, 
and extensive testing to examine each major account of the property, 
plant, and equipment line item. The OIG reviews were conducted 
throughout all nine FAA regions. From the OIG perspective, the 
$10.8billion reported by FAA for its property, plant, and equipment is 
fair and reasonable as of September 30, 1999. This could not have been 
accomplished without the excellent partnership we have with the 
Inspector General.
    DOT is moving aggressively to update its aging financial system 
with Delphi, a commercially available, off-the-shelf financial 
application. It is scheduled for full implementation in fiscal year 
2001. All DOT entities are cooperating in its implementation. It will 
provide DOT with a solid financial system for sound financial 
management reporting. Delphi will have built-in capability to produce 
all the financial and budgetary information for preparing our financial 
statements.
    Although FAA was able to support the cost of its property, plant, 
and equipment accounts by using alternative procedures and labor-
intensive methods, we recognize that the deficiencies in its existing 
property systems still represent a material internal control weakness. 
Although FAA is making changes to its existing systems, FAA recognizes 
that it needs a better property management systems environment and has 
taken the following steps:
  --In fiscal year 2000, FAA has initiated action to implement the 
        Oracle Fixed Asset Module to consolidate all its property 
        assets, to compute depreciation, and to maintain a record of 
        changes to the financial information on its assets.
  --In fiscal year 2001 and beyond, FAA will initiate actions to 
        provide an integrated solution to its financial and property 
        management accountability through an Asset Supply Chain 
        Management (ASCM) program that will be compatible and fully 
        integrated with the Department's Delphi system.
    It is not sufficient to simply get an unqualified opinion. We must 
also assure that the systems are in place to make this the norm in the 
long run.

              AMTRAK FINANCIAL VIABILITY AND MODERNIZATION

    The 1997 Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act mandated that Amtrak 
develop a plan to eliminate its need for Federal operating support by 
2003. Amtrak is making progress toward its goal of operating self-
sufficiency by 2003, but it still faces significant management 
challenges toward reaching this goal, and the next two years are 
critical.
    Amtrak has increased ridership for three consecutive years--ten 
percent since 1997 demonstrating that many Americans continue to want 
intercity passenger rail transportation. In 1999, Amtrak increased its 
commercial revenues by 16 percent. Meeting the operational self-
sufficiency goal can be achieved by continuing this ridership growth 
and increasing revenues, a significant management challenge.
    DOT is committed to supporting Amtrak as it progresses toward 
operating self-sufficiency. High-speed rail service in the Northeast 
Corridor and improvement to intercity passenger rail service nationwide 
are key investment strategies that we will pursue to help Amtrak meet 
this goal. We expect Amtrak's financial performance to continue to 
improve as a result of the introduction of the Acela Regional service 
on January of this year and Acela Express service on the Northeast 
Corridor later this year.
    The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes a substantial investment in 
passenger rail service, building on the growth in ridership and ability 
to cover operating costs that our Northeast Corridor investment has 
supported. Many state governments have invested in passenger rail 
service, including high speed rail, and Federal funding will provide 
the foundation for it to be a significant transportation solution for 
the future. We propose $468 million for this new program, in addition 
to continued Amtrak capital funding to expand Amtrak's intercity 
passenger rail service, including improvements necessary for high-speed 
rail service and other increases in average speeds through rail 
infrastructure improvement.
    The Department will use funds under this new program to fund such 
improvements made by Amtrak and/or a State or consortium of States. 
Project funds would go towards the acquisition of right-of-way, and 
planning and design. Expanded intercity passenger rail service can and 
should play an important role in improving mobility.

          COAST GUARD DEEPWATER CAPABILITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT

    The Coast Guard has embarked on a long-term project to 
systematically replace or modernize the assets it uses for its 
Deepwater missions--generally speaking, those that occur more than 50 
miles offshore. This past month, the President's Interagency Task Force 
on Coast Guard Roles and Missions issued their report, concluding that 
the Coast Guard is a national asset and that the nation needs a viable, 
well-equipped Coast Guard to carry out its 14 statutorily mandated 
missions performed in the Deepwater environment. These missions include 
drug interdiction, illegal immigrant interdiction, and fisheries law 
enforcement. The assets the Coast Guard needs to replace include 
cutters, aircraft, and sensors a system of equipment that gives the 
Coast Guard its ability to protect our borders and ensure the security 
and sovereignty of our nation.
    The Coast Guard is planning for the replacement of its Deepwater 
capability as an integrated system rather than a series of distinct 
procurements. Using a unique mission-based performance acquisition 
strategy, this largest acquisition in the Service's history is setting 
a new standard for project management and was designated a Reinvention 
Lab this past year. While there will be many management challenges 
facing the Coast Guard with this effort, the Service has shown 
throughout the early stages of this project its ability to effectively 
plan and manage this acquisition, which could take up to 20 years to 
complete.
    The Coast Guard has aggressively worked to minimize project risk 
and achieve the efficiencies of a systems approach. First and foremost, 
during the design phase, the Coast Guard is engaging in collaborative 
communications with all three contractors, to ensure that the final 
design submissions answer all major issues. The project has also 
developed an extensive and flexible Risk Management Plan that strives 
to identify specific risks then develop mitigation strategies to deal 
with them far in advance of any adverse impact.
    The three industry teams currently under contract will submit their 
final proposals by July 2001. At that time, the functional designs will 
be approximately eighty percent complete and will provide the Coast 
Guard with a level of design and cost detail necessary to help mitigate 
acquisition risk. We believe that the Coast Guard's deepwater approach 
will produce a system of tools that will maximize the operational 
effectiveness of the Coast Guard while also minimizing the total 
ownership cost of the system.

                         SHIP DISPOSAL PROGRAM

    Even though not within the specific jurisdiction of this 
Subcommittee, the Maritime Administration must dispose of government-
owned, obsolete merchant and non-combatant vessels in the National 
Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF). Since 1994, MARAD has refrained from 
exporting these vessels because of concerns about the environment, 
worker health and safety. As a result, DOD has incurred additional 
costs to maintain the ships prior to their sale and disposal in the 
U.S., where there is only a small domestic ship scrapping industry.
    The Federal Government faces challenge in disposing of its obsolete 
vessels in a timely manner. In fiscal year 1999, the NDRF contained 112 
vessels designated for priority disposal. MARAD's goal is to reduce the 
inventory of obsolete vessels and is working to determine a viable, 
legal way to do so.

         GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT IMPLEMENTATION

    The Department is now preparing its performance report for 1999, 
the first to be submitted under GPRA. The IG expressed concern that the 
Department would not have all of the data available to report on its 
performance results. The Department will have over 90 percent of the 
data elements available either in final or preliminary form. Therefore, 
the Department will be able to honestly report on its 1999 performance 
by the March 31 deadline.

                               CONCLUSION

    Working in close cooperation with the Inspector General and the 
Congress, last year the Department was able to make progress on many 
challenging issues. These include the Department's first unqualified 
financial audit, a ONE DOT program evaluation of our hazardous 
materials safety efforts, and our successful Y2K conversion efforts.

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

    Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett, do you have any comments, 
opening statements?
    Senator Bennett. No, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity to be here, and I thank everyone for the kind words 
that they are giving me with respect to Y2K.
    Senator Shelby. You earned them.
    Senator Bennett. I am reminded of the comment Bob Hope 
made. He used to travel around the world at Christmas time, and 
he said, you know, the Army really must hate me because every 
time I go out, they give me all these shots. And it is 
completely worthless because I have never gotten sick at all. I 
kind of have that feeling with respect to Y2K. A lot of people 
say, gee, you got us all excited, and look, there was not any 
problem.
    So, the real tribute goes to people like those at the table 
who did the actual work. All we did was hold a few hearings.
    Governor Thompson, I cannot pass up the opportunity to 
reminisce a little. Members of the subcommittee know that at 
one point I sat at the same table as an employee of the 
Department of Transportation in the Nixon administration. I 
have in my file a letter from Secretary Volpe congratulating me 
for lobbying through the Congress--my job was the head of 
congressional liaison, congressional relations within the 
Department--the bill that created Amtrak in the first place. 
And I, in mea culpa, full confession, here acknowledged that I 
promised the Congress that Amtrak would be financially self-
sufficient within 3 or 4 years. That was in 1970.
    As I sit here and listen to you say you are going to be 
financially self-sufficient in 2003, I say to you thank you for 
finally validating a promise that I made 30 years ago that has 
not come true in that 30 years.
    I think there is no question but that we need high-speed 
rail service in certain parts of this country. I am a little 
less convinced that we need it in a national network. We have 
an awful lot of space out in the West that is best covered by 
air. We have got Amtrak service in Utah but the trains arrive 
at about 2 o'clock in the morning and they come three times a 
week and they have maybe 15 people on them. I am not sure that 
is the very best way to proceed.
    But certainly seeing what can be done in the more heavily 
populated corridors of the Nation and how this becomes a very 
intelligent alternative to air certainly in the Boston-
Washington corridor and so on--I have taken Amtrak there. I am 
delighted it will get better and faster, and I would be 
delighted to be on that train with you that you described.
    Governor Thompson. You are invited, but I promised the 
engineering duties to Senator Lautenberg and Senator Shelby, so 
you will have to be a passenger with me.
    Senator Bennett. You are very wise to keep me out of the 
train driving business.
    I appreciate your enthusiasm, and on behalf of the country, 
I thank you for the zest that you bring to this particular 
challenge.
    That is all I have.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Gorton, do you have any comments, 
opening statement?

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON

    Senator Gorton. Well, I am late here. And I am not going to 
repeat anything else, except perhaps what I have heard from 
Senator Bennett. I must say I have about the same faith in 
Governor Thompson's promise of black ink as I would have, I 
trust, in 1970. I do not think it is going to happen in spite 
of all of his greatest efforts.
    I also share Senator Bennett's views that we have to look 
at this whole problem quite differently in different parts of 
the country. The Boston-Washington corridor, a corridor in 
which obviously Senator Lautenberg has the greatest interest, 
from my perspective is an area in which rail passenger service 
is absolutely vital and has a very real promise to be self-
supporting.
    About 3 years ago, one weekend in going home, I flew to 
Chicago and took the Empire Builder to Seattle. It was 
absolutely full and I am sure it was losing $50 a passenger. 
Absolutely full. It was very difficult for me to see those 
long-haul routes being any part of a major, necessary 
transportation system in the United States.
    I was encouraged, however, by reading recently that at 
least on one of the more southern routes, what Amtrak is going 
to do is to try to--I guess the best way to describe it would 
be land cruise ships. If Amtrak can create a luxury experience 
for tourists to enjoy the United States and stop pretending 
that it is really a competitor to airlines or something of that 
sort, there may be some promise. Many of those routes are 
interesting to travel, but the kind of equipment that Amtrak is 
using--it was a very frustrating ride for me. It was not a good 
tourist experience. And obviously, it was not a particularly 
efficient way to get from here to Seattle. But imagination 
seems to be gaining a little bit of ground at least in Amtrak, 
and I hope that its managers go ahead with it. But I am not 
holding my breath until it is operating in the black.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Senator Kohl, do you have any comments?

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL

    Senator Kohl. Yes, I have a brief statement.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for providing this opportunity to 
discuss Department of Transportation management issues here 
today. Although I am not able to stay this morning, I do want 
to offer brief comments on Amtrak and welcome Governor Thompson 
and Messrs. Basso, Mead, and Warrington. It is heartening to 
have the interests of my State and the Midwest well represented 
here with Governor Thompson.
    Half a million Wisconsinites ride Amtrak. We also have 
ambitious plans to develop high-speed rail in the Midwest and 
commuter rail in southeastern Wisconsin. Clearly, we are 
counting on both reliable and efficient service, and smart, 
sound management at Amtrak as we work to reach these goals.
    It is good to be addressing today the question of how 
Amtrak will grow rather than mourning lost services as we have 
in the past. It was not so long ago that the Governor and I had 
a fight to save Wisconsin's Hiawatha service between Chicago 
and Milwaukee.
    Now we are learning of Amtrak's plans to expand routes to 
Fond du Lac and Janesville, Wisconsin. Times and the nature of 
these hearings have certainly changed, but we must temper our 
high hopes for Amtrak's future with sound business sense. The 
burden is on you to prove that the new routes in Amtrak's 
bottom line do not compromise reliable service on all routes 
and are part of a balanced national transportation strategy 
that also includes road and air travel.
    This year we have an administration request for a new high-
speed corridor account in the amount of $468 million. This too 
holds potential for the Midwest, but it also demonstrates the 
significant budget challenge that we face. The funding for the 
high-speed rail proposal comes from the so-called RABA funds 
that are promised for highways and bridges. And yesterday we 
approved an aviation bill that increases airport capital funds 
by roughly 60 percent, an increase that will compete directly 
with the high-speed rail money.
    So, simply put, the challenges are greater for all of us. 
We need to stay the course on the road to self-sufficiency, and 
we need to work even harder to make sure that our 
transportation investment remains in balance.
    Thank you again for coming to speak with us today. We look 
forward to working with you as the appropriations process 
continues.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Mr. Mead, over the years, we have spent a great deal of 
time talking about aging and inadequate infrastructure. I was 
informed recently, today, of a self-proclaimed critical piece 
of aging transportation infrastructure that has been poorly, 
some would even say negligently, maintained. Of course, I am 
talking about the minority clerk of the Transportation 
Subcommittee, Peter Rogoff. I am told it is his 40th birthday 
today and that there is no better place he would rather be than 
at this hearing. That by itself warrants an investigation, Mr. 
Inspector General, by your office. Do you not agree?
    Mr. Mead. Knowing Peter, yes, sir.
    Senator Shelby. Peter, happy birthday.
    Senator Bennett. Happy birthday.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg, I know you have got a 
Budget hearing.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thanks for taking care of Peter for me.
    Senator Shelby. Well, he has got to take care of that 
infrastructure.

                      OPERATIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY

    Senator Lautenberg. He has got to be the continuity on 
this, so we wish him well.
    I just want to respond to the comments of my colleagues 
here. We are talking about self-sufficiency. We are talking 
about a rather ambitious quest because we are discussing, A, 
operational self-sufficiency. We are kind of embarrassed that 
we have to defend the fact that this railroad will be the only 
one in the world that does not require subsidy from Government. 
In West Germany, they are going to spend $70 billion on high-
speed rail service in 10 years--$70 billion. So, in our country 
we have spent over $85 billion on aviation plus the PFC's which 
bring that sum up substantially. So, that is our mission.
    And while Senator Gorton noted that my interest is 
primarily in the Northeast, I must say I genuinely believe that 
high-speed rail service, maybe not of the type and the length 
of journey that Senator Gorton described, is an essential 
factor around the country. All of us have had the opportunity 
to travel this great Nation and whether it is high-speed rail 
service out of Chicago, Milwaukee, et cetera, or whether it is 
on the West Coast--and I know that work is going on in some of 
the States on the West Coast to try to bring high-speed rail 
service--or the Southeast or the South, all of these have 
piqued the interest. Seattle to Portland, et cetera. So, this 
is not just give it to the East.
    But I will say this, that when the Northeast has air jam-
ups and we are behind schedule, it affects every major airport 
in the country whether it is Seattle or Los Angeles or San 
Francisco. You name it. And we just cannot squeeze more. These 
airport incursions that Ken Mead mentioned are happening and 
they are frightening. The result there of an accident can be 
quite substantial.
    But we are bent on this not because I--like I said when we 
initiated the Boston to New York service, that as a child I 
came from a hardworking but very modest income family, and I 
had always wanted electric trains and I never got them. And now 
I am really getting a big set, and I am excited about it.
    But there is more to it than that. I genuinely believe that 
unless we pay attention to the development of rail service that 
is efficient, high-speed, that we will be dooming ourselves to 
congestion and delays and pollution all over this country. We 
all agree we cannot do more on highways. But people fail to 
understand that as big as that sky is, there are limitations. 
We cannot get the airports. How many of us have experienced--
and I can tell you between Washington and New York, it has 
happened frequently--where the wait to get a gate is longer 
than the amount of time it took to fly from place to place?
    So, we are deluding ourselves if we think that we can just 
continuously expand this aviation system. People do not want 
them in their neighborhoods. They do not want to listen to the 
noise. They do not want to listen to the clutter. People are 
tired about missing appointments and missing connections and 
things of that nature.
    So, we are working on something that I think really 
deserves the support and full attention of our Government. I 
hope that we will continue to give Amtrak a chance to develop.

                           RIDERSHIP INTEREST

    In the next couple of years, we will see what happens in 
terms of ridership interest. One of the questions I was going 
to ask Governor Thompson was the ridership increase, Mr. 
Chairman, between Boston and New York that has exceeded all of 
the projections, as a matter of fact, is up over 60 percent in 
just a couple of months.
    Governor Thompson. 64 percent.
    Senator Lautenberg. 64 percent.
    So, there is a hankering out there for high-speed rail and 
I hope we will be able to satisfy it.
    I thank all of you. I have worked with Ken Mead and Peter 
Basso and George Warrington and the Governor for some time now.
    This likely being my last hearing for Amtrak, Mr. Chairman, 
I thank you for your consideration and patience as we discuss 
Amtrak. I know maybe it may be an overly discussed subject 
sometimes, but you have been very good about it.
    Senator Shelby. Well, I am waiting for those hourly trains 
to come through from Atlanta and New Orleans through my part of 
Alabama where I can ride it. Right, Governor?
    Governor Thompson. That is right, Senator. We are coming.
    Senator Shelby. I know, I know.
    Governor Thompson. We just need your help.

                             AMTRAK FUNDING

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, you and the Inspector 
General have questions. It may be more of a statement first.
    Last year the administration's 2000 budget proposed to 
divert funding from the highway firewall into the transit 
account, the rail account, and the highway safety account. 
There was an immediate and strong negative reaction from 
Congress to this proposal. These funds were guaranteed for 
highway construction under TEA-21 and there was absolutely no 
interest in undoing that agreement.
    Yet, the administration's 2001 budget proposes to do 
exactly the same thing again; that is, divert $600 million from 
this fund, revenue aligned budget authority, to non-highway 
purposes. The administration has identified $468 million of 
this proposed transfer for passenger rail.
    Perhaps that is more than a statement, but it is clear to 
the Secretary that this proposal to divert highway funds for 
non-highway purposes is dead here in the Congress, dead on 
arrival, the same proposal as last year.
    Mr. Mead, as a follow-up to that question, your staff has 
worked closely with Amtrak on an independent assessment of the 
railroad's financial outlook. In this oversight work, what 
Federal funding level does Amtrak assume in fiscal years 2001 
and 2002?
    Mr. Mead. We have consistently used $521 million.
    Senator Shelby. It is a lot of money, is it not?
    Mr. Mead. Yes. It seems like it to me anyway.
    Senator Shelby. Governor Thompson, I think it is fair to 
say that a lot of people were surprised by last week's 
announcement of Amtrak's market-based network analysis and 
associated network restructuring plans. This was a widely 
expected result and recommendations for route restructuring and 
elimination. It is well-known that all but one of Amtrak's 40 
routes lose more than they make in revenues. Some lines lose 
more than three times as much as they generate in revenues in a 
year. But what was announced last week was a service expansion 
plan with no route eliminations or decrease in labor costs.
    Amtrak believes it can increase its revenue through adding 
routes and trains and increasing its mail and express business. 
Maybe so. I hope so. This approach is not responsive to the 
intent of the Senate Appropriations Committee which directed, 
in the fiscal year 2000 report language, that Amtrak's MBNA 
will analyze different service alternatives, including route 
restructuring and modifications, frequency changes, route 
expansions, and route eliminations. Nor is this approach 
responsive to the letter that Chairman Wolf and I sent to 
George Warrington, President of Amtrak, last April 28 in which 
we directed that MBNA analysis must consider a full range of 
options including route elimination and rationalization.
    What is going on, Governor?
    Governor Thompson. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby. You 
are absolutely correct. Now let me tell you what we did. Until 
now, Amtrak had never gone through a detailed analysis of every 
route and every piece of equipment. So we spent the last 15 
months going through every route and every piece of equipment 
and every service and found out how we can make it more 
profitable. How could we make it more passenger friendly? How 
could we do a better job?
    We determined that for several years Amtrak has tried to 
shrink itself into self-sufficiency or profitability, and it 
did not work. Just because you reduced the number of services 
and restricted the amount of passenger services, you still had 
the fixed costs. So, we asked, how can we grow this railroad 
and increase the revenue and increase the number of passengers. 
We did this by looking at each route, and we found ways that we 
could improve it.
    For instance, at Meridian, Mississippi, we are going to 
split the train. We are going to use part of the train to 
continue on south, but part of the train will go east and west, 
and increase the passenger service, as well as the opportunity 
for mail and express.
    The Texas Eagle. We found ways that we could go 7 days 
there, pick up more passengers, as well as mail and express 
contracts that would allow us to earn more money.
    Overall our MBNA is going to bring in $65 million to the 
bottom line by fiscal year 2003.
    We also did something else. We went and reached agreements 
with the freight railroads, as well, on mail and express. We 
said, you know, we have been fighting you for a long time. How 
can we cooperate? Is there a way that we can carry some of your 
load, and make it more profitable for you, and also bring some 
money into Amtrak? We are sitting down and negotiating and we 
have reached agreement with many of the freight railroads. So, 
they are giving us some express to haul. You know, 5 years ago, 
they would have fought us. Now, they are contacting us and 
giving us some of their business. As a result, we are both 
making money.
    There is more than $8 billion of refrigerated produce that 
is being transported across the country. We have looked into it 
and found that we can have rail passenger cars bringing 
refrigerated produce from California to New York. So, we are 
going to develop a new route from California to New York on 
produce and passengers. We think we can cut into that $8 
billion business. We have got commissions set up----
    Senator Shelby. Can you do it faster?
    Governor Thompson. We can do it faster and more reliably. 
We think we are going to have a really nice little cash 
infusion from this business.
    Overall, the MBNA is going to bring us $65 million more 
than what we have right now.
    Senator Shelby. But will you also have a stand alone route 
elimination analysis prepared?
    Governor Thompson. We already did that.
    Senator Shelby. You have.
    Governor Thompson. We have.
    Senator Shelby. Do you not think as you look at the whole 
picture, you have to, as you want to grow things--and that 
makes sense--grow revenue and promote routes----
    Governor Thompson. I think George wants to answer that one.
    Senator Shelby. George, do you want to get in on that?
    Mr. Warrington. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The MBNA work really was 
an examination of every single route that the company operates 
today and every single segment and every city that is out there 
today.

                         REACH AND CONNECTIVITY

    You may recall in 1995 Amtrak went through a very difficult 
series of truncations and terminations of all or portions of 
routes. In the end, because of the fixed cost and overhead cost 
nature of the business, what you find is that unless you 
eliminate the entire system, as a practical matter, the costs 
you are able to eliminate in connection with incremental 
service reductions do not come close to the amount of 
incremental revenue you lose associated with the termination of 
the service. The freight lines figured this out a long time 
ago, which is why reach and connectivity are critical elements 
underpinning the kind of planning work that we have done.
    We did the take-out analysis on every segment----
    Senator Shelby. Elaborate just a minute on the phrase you 
just used, ``reach and connectivity.'' I think that is 
important.
    Mr. Warrington. Yes, and this is underpinned with a lot of 
market research, Mr. Chairman. What our research tells us and 
what our models confirm is that the more you reach more 
markets, the more connectivity the system provides--and Dallas-
Fort Worth is a good example of where we are creating that kind 
of opportunity. Running a 7-day a week Texas Eagle to Dallas-
Fort Worth, extending a Crescent from Atlanta-Meridian-New 
Orleans to Dallas-Fort Worth. The synergy that provides, along 
with our new Oklahoma service from Oklahoma to Dallas-Fort 
Worth, the potential opportunity to also run an extension of 
that Eagle to Monterrey, Mexico, in part driven by passenger 
demand in Laredo and in part, frankly, by express markets like 
auto parts moving from Delaware and Detroit and Chicago to 
assembly plants in Monterrey, Mexico--the combination of the 
synergy that you create and, in addition, rerouting our Sunset 
Limited, which runs from Jacksonville to Los Angeles, rerouting 
that north of Houston, bypassing actually several smaller 
markets that are currently being served in south Texas and 
tapping into the Dallas-Fort Worth market and the Abilene 
market in west Texas. Where the size of our reach is about 
300,000 customers, compared to 30,000 customers in south Texas, 
when you put it all together, you have a much more attractive 
system not only for passenger business, but for mail and 
express business.
    And the Postal Service will tell you that as well, that we 
are a much more attractive carrier of not only periodicals, but 
also second class and conceivably first class mail, if we have 
better reach and better frequency to markets that they need to 
have served.
    All of that enables us to secure more revenue that we can 
contribute to the bottom line, although we are not necessarily 
profitable on every train across the entire system. I use as an 
example Continental Airlines. Continental is Newark Airport's, 
New Jersey's, dominant carrier. I will guarantee you that every 
plane feeding Newark airport is not making money for 
Continental, but it is feeding a network and feeding a system. 
It is the same basic concept, Senator.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett?
    Governor Thompson. Senator Shelby, if I could just quickly 
add.
    Senator Shelby. Yes.
    Governor Thompson. But at the same time that we are doing 
this, we are also asking the States to step up.
    Senator Shelby. Absolutely. Well, they have to step up.
    Governor Thompson. They have to. And the States are coming 
in and back-filling some of these routes to the tune of about 
$300 million a year.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
    Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am delighted with this conversation. You are actually 
starting to run it like a business.
    Governor Thompson. Yes, we are.
    Senator Bennett. Again, from the historic perspective, a 
lot of the original support for Amtrak came from people that I 
would describe, not in a pejorative sense, as hobbyists, people 
who just had a great love for the romance of train travel, and 
they wanted to make sure that passenger train travel did not 
disappear. So, the whole focus was on preserving the romance of 
being on a train.
    There was a clear divorce between passenger travel and 
freight. The freight people wanted out of the passenger 
business so badly, if you remember the history, they subsidized 
Amtrak in the very beginning. They paid to get out. A lot of 
the original capital formation of Amtrak, or Railpax, as we 
called it in those days, came from literally ransom payments 
made by the freight lines to say, get us out of this business. 
We want absolutely nothing to do with it. It had been a 
tremendous loser for a long time, and the railroads were in 
real trouble and this was a way that they would get out from 
under the albatross.
    To be talking now about competing for some of their 
business, about competing with trucks for some of their 
business is a very heartening kind of thing. Instead of 
focusing strictly on the romantic and nostalgic view of the 
kind of train ride that Senator Gorton described, which you 
take if you are retired and have the time, to say, okay, we 
will move refrigerated goods, we will move packages that might 
compete with Federal Express--the same kind of problems getting 
in and out of airports apply to Federal Express as apply to a 
passenger--is a very heartening development. I have not heard 
this kind of conversation on this issue before. Maybe I just 
have not attended the right hearings, Mr. Chairman, but to hear 
this kind of dialogue is just really quite exciting to me. I 
want to congratulate you all on your willingness to do this.
    Again, a piece of historic perspective. It was not air 
travel that killed rail passenger in this country. It was the 
interstate highway system. Ninety-eight percent of city-to-city 
trips for passengers are taken in the automobile. So, for you 
to start talking about competing with the interstate highway 
system by taking things that are currently going by truck and 
saying we can put them on our high-speed trains and get them 
there faster and cheaper than the trucks can is, I think, a 
very farsighted point of view. You are going to where the 
competition really is, and that is something any businessman 
needs to do.
    So, just keep it up. More and more of this kind of thing I 
think is terrific.
    Mr. Mead. I would like to offer just a perspective on that 
going back in time a bit. Amtrak for years thought that it was 
supposed to stay away from the freight business except for 
hauling mail. Now, Amtrak is getting into niche markets. So 
far, they have not made the truckers or the freight railroads 
angry in terms of cutting into their business. If they do start 
to get angry, their first broadside will be, this is unfair 
because Amtrak is receiving a Federal subsidy, and whether it 
is called a capital subsidy or an operating subsidy, I am not 
sure that the competitors will appreciate that distinction.
    Governor Thompson. Senator Bennett, just quickly. Thank you 
very much for your comments. I really appreciate it and I 
really appreciate, as Chairman of the Board, to hear your 
historical perspective. I did not know all of these things. I 
learned a lot this morning listening to you, and I thank you 
for that.
    This past year we have picked up $100 million of mail and 
express for Amtrak, and that is just the start. We are 
expecting to expand that.
    Ken Mead said it correctly. We sat down with the freight 
railroads. You know, we used to fight all the time. They could 
not stand us; we could not stand them. And we would come 
running to you to solve it. But George Warrington and this 
board decided why fight. Let us go see how we could cooperate.
    So, we have quarterly meetings. George meets with the 
freight railroads, and I meet with them once a year. And we 
meet with the freight railroads and say we are going to be 
here. Can we work together? How can we help you and how can you 
help us be more on time? And how can we both make some money 
out of the proposition? And you know something? They like us a 
lot better. They still do not completely trust us, but they 
like us a lot better. They are talking to us and we are 
communicating. That is helpful.
    The refrigerated car business--the roads are too congested, 
so we decided to try it. We are going to try it and we are 
going to go from California to New York and transport produce. 
We think it is a niche market that can pick us up a lot of 
money.
    We are also going to make an agreement with UPS and some of 
the other people about express. That is the kind of business 
that we need.
    Quad Graphics is a big printing company. We are hauling all 
their periodicals and distributing their periodicals, and we 
are making good money on it. That is what we have to do.
    We are trying to run this railroad like you would run a 
business. We have completely changed our philosophy and our 
direction, and we are going to keep doing it till we make you 
proud of it.
    Senator Bennett. Well, you may get to your goal by 2003 
with that kind of attitude.
    In the spirit of Senator Gorton, let me just share one 
personal experience with you that I think summarizes where we 
are. My wife and I some years ago went to Great Britain. I had 
lived in Great Britain for 2 years in my early 20's on a church 
assignment. My son was there finishing up his church mission. 
We went back to pick him up. Like all tourists, we rented a 
car. It took me a little while to get used to driving on the 
funny side of the street. But we drove around Great Britain and 
saw all the sites, and I went to all the places that I had 
visited as a young man. And our son took us to places. It was 
wonderful.
    After about 4 days of that and our schedule called for us 
to be back in London to see some shows and do the kinds of 
things you do in London, I was kind of tired of that little 
car. We found a Hertz place and checked the car in and got on 
the train. And we got to London so fast by comparison that my 
wife said, what have we been doing in the car the whole time we 
have been here?
    Well, we had been touring. It was a logical kind of thing 
to do, but when the time came that you wanted to move quickly, 
we moved to the train.
    I think that is a paradigm for where we may go here. In my 
own State of Utah--Mr. Basso, of course, knows Utah's transit 
problems backwards and forwards. He lives with them. I think he 
is probably sick of hearing from people from Utah. From Provo 
to Ogden now, you have got about 80 percent of the State. We 
are thought of as a rural State. We, Mr. Chairman, are probably 
one of the most urbanized States in the country. The highway 
traffic from Provo to Ogden now is a long schlep. If you do not 
do it at exactly the right times of day, it can take you time. 
They are saying, well, if you can get a high-speed connection--
now, this clearly does not belong in any Amtrak national plan, 
but if you can get a high-speed commuter rail from Provo to 
Salt Lake to Ogden, a lot of folks would get out of their cars 
just to have the same kind of experience we had in Great 
Britain, to say if I want to go as a tourist, I will take the 
car. If I want the convenience of being able to get off and do 
the kinds of things we did, I will take the car. If I just have 
to get there to a business appointment, speed is the all 
important thing, amazingly rail will come back because your 
competitor is not the airplane. Your competitor is the highway. 
And as highways get congested, the train becomes more and more 
attractive.
    Governor Thompson. You build it. We will operate it.
    Senator Bennett. Okay, very good.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    I have a number of written questions that we would like to 
submit to you for the record. You have always been courteous 
enough to answer them fully.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                          AMTRAK ACELA DELAYS

    Question. I understand that the Acela Express high-speed service, 
originally scheduled to begin by the end of calendar year 1999, has 
been delayed until July of this year, a delay of at least 6 months.
    What are Amtrak's remaining challenges to meeting the new start-up 
date of July 2000? Are they going to make it?
    Answer. Amtrak currently anticipates beginning Acela-Express high-
speed passenger service in the Northeast Corridor in July 2000, about 7 
months later than originally planned. The delays thus far relate to 
suspension and oscillation problems in the wheel trucks discovered 
during testing on the high-speed trainsets and locomotives. While 
progress has been made on fixing these problems, there are still issues 
that will need to be addressed before the trains can operate at their 
design speed of 150 m.p.h. Time is getting short for Amtrak to meet the 
July deadline and service may either be delayed or start with a maximum 
speed less than 150 m.p.h.
    Question. What is the financial effect of this delay on Amtrak's 
revenue projections for fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. Amtrak estimates that if service begins in July 2000 as 
currently planned, the lost passenger revenues in fiscal year 2000 
associated with the delayed start-up would total $142 million. Amtrak 
projects that this revenue loss will be mostly mitigated by operating 
expense savings, interest savings, and contractor penalties for late 
equipment delivery. Amtrak plans to offset the remaining $44 million 
with new leasing agreements. The revenue loss will be higher if delays 
extend beyond July. The months of July and August are typically heavy 
travel months for Northeast Direct service, and a later start-up will 
mean that Amtrak will not be able to capitalize on this heavy seasonal 
ridership to boost revenues. While Amtrak would be able to partially 
mitigate the revenue impact of further delays through operating and 
interest savings, the net impact to Amtrak's bottom line in fiscal year 
2000 will be negative.
    Question. Will the delay have a domino effect on the implementation 
of high-speed Acela service in fiscal year 2001, as well, because the 
trainset delivery schedule has been set back?
    Answer. Once the issues that are causing the current delays are 
resolved, ``fixes'' to the trainsets could be completed relatively 
quickly, allowing for an accelerated delivery schedule. Amtrak is 
working with the consortium building the trainsets to compress the 
delivery schedule and ramp up to full service in a shorter period of 
time--which it currently plans to do by December 2000. The original 
schedule called for full service by July 2000. However, at this time, 
we do not expect full service with all 20 trainsets before December 
2000.

            OVERSIGHT OF HIGH-DOLLAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

    Question. One of the issues that made the Inspector General's 
oversight report last year and again this year is that DOT needs to 
improve its management of transportation infrastructure projects. It is 
especially important for the management of high-dollar projects to be 
aggressive, because the risks to the government's financial interests 
are increased proportionally.
    The Inspector General Report says that DOT should do the following: 
(1) Strengthen internal controls over project cost estimates; (2) 
Require and closely examine project finance plans; (3) Monitor project 
performance to minimize funding risk.
    Has the Department of Transportation been implementing your 
recommendations? Which agencies are doing the best job reducing 
financial risk with Federal funds? Which agencies are not doing as 
well?
    Answer. The Department of Transportation has been implementing our 
recommendations with varying degrees of success. The majority of high-
dollar infrastructure projects using Federal funds are highway and 
transit projects.
    With respect to reducing financial risk with Federal funds, the 
Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) use of full funding grant 
agreements has effectively limited the Federal government's financial 
risks and promoted accountability in the funding of new starts capital 
projects. These full funding grant agreements set the maximum amount of 
discretionary capital investment funds that can be used for transit 
projects.
    The full funding grant agreements have effectively limited the 
exposure of the Federal government for project cost increases. They 
also provide local accountability and incentives for grant recipients 
to exercise tight control over project costs. Grantees know they must 
find the funds needed to pay any additional costs and that the 
Department will not entertain requests for any more discretionary 
funds.
    Of the current 15 projects with grant agreements, 3 had cost 
increases of approximately $929 million. None received additional 
discretionary capital investment funds. For example, the new starts 
funds committed for the South Boston Piers Transitway remains $331 
million, as established by the 1994 grant agreement, despite an 
increase of $188 million in the project's estimated cost.
    By contrast, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects have no 
comparable limitations. For example, the FHWA share of the Central 
Artery/Ted Williams Tunnel Project has increased by more than $8 
billion as the project's costs have increased from $2.6 billion to over 
$13 billion.
    We have also recommended finance plans as essential tools for 
identifying project costs and funding needs. Finance plans describe how 
projects will be implemented over time. They identify project costs and 
timing, and the financial resources needed to pay for those costs. 
However, better criteria are needed to ensure finance plans are 
complete, reliable, and consistent.
    We found the quality and completeness of finance plans for highway 
and transit capital projects to be highly variable. Some finance plans 
accurately reported costs and identified funding shortfalls. Others 
needed to be more thorough in disclosing problems and presenting 
information in a consistent manner over time. For example, the 1999 
Finance Plan for the Bay Area Rapid Transit District includes 
construction costs and operating costs for both the existing and new 
segments; includes a 10-year forecast that identifies underlying 
revenue and expense assumptions; and demonstrates that Bay Area Rapid 
Transit District has the financial capacity to operate its entire 
transit system, including the airport extension, after it opens in mid-
2002.
    Conversely, our most recent report on the Central Artery/Ted 
Williams Tunnel Project indicated significant, fundamental problems 
with its finance plan. The reporting methodology was changed so that 
the reviewer could only see the cost to complete, not the total project 
cost. The plan did not report specific cost, funding, and schedule 
indicators, such as ``budgeted cost of work performed'' versus ``actual 
cost of work performed,'' ``contract awards versus budget,'' ``total 
projected cost by type of cost,'' and ``annual funding requirements by 
source.'' However, in some specific cases (e.g. I-15 and California 
210) FHWA has agreed with our recommendations to require updated 
finance plans and in the case of I-15, that update is much improved--
i.e., it closed the funding gap, it identified sources for all funds 
necessary to cover all cost estimates. We recommend that FHWA revise 
its guidance on finance plans to ensure more complete and accurate 
reporting of financial performance. On February 17, 2000, after a $1.4 
billion cost increase was announced by the Central Artery, the 
Secretary directed FHWA to accept and implement our recommendation.

                                 AMASS

    Question. There has been a continuing concern about the increasing 
number of runway incursions, collisions or potential accidents on the 
ground. The upward trend in runway incursions continued in 1998, with 
325 incursions, an 11 percent increase from 1997. AMASS is the radar 
and related software/hardware to monitor airport surfaces and warn of 
potential runway incursions. A month or so ago, FAA announced that it 
was going to be two years behind schedule in deploying AMASS.
    Would you please explain the reasons for the delay in the AMASS 
program, and tell us how this will affect FAA's initiatives to reduce 
the number of runway incursions? Should we be looking at other 
solutions?
    Answer. Software development problems caused delays. Unresolved 
human factors issues are now causing additional delays. For example, 
the AMASS alert message on the ASDE-3 display is not readable beyond 10 
feet, which is a concern since controllers are often further than 10 
feet from the display during their normal operations. The delays in 
deploying AMASS will not affect other FAA initiatives such as educating 
and training pilots and controllers on reducing runway incursions. 
However, delaying AMASS increases the potential for an accident on the 
runway.
    FAA should be looking at other solutions especially low cost 
solutions that can be implemented in a short time frame. AMASS will 
only help the 34 large airports designated to receive this system. 
Improving pilot situational awareness with technologies, such as in-
cockpit moving map displays, that would identify what is on the runway 
and provide two set of eyes, the pilots, and the controllers, would 
reduce response time required to alleviate a potentially hazardous 
situation.
    FAA is also looking to award a contract by the end of this fiscal 
year for a low cost Airport Surface Detection Equipment system that 
will provide surface surveillance for the small and mid-size high 
priority airports not designated to receive AMASS. FAA, however, has as 
yet to determine beyond Orlando, Florida, the proposed key site for the 
system, which small to mid-size high priority airports will receive the 
system.

                   GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT

    Question. The Coast Guard has expanded the mission requirements for 
the Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement by proposing to add a buoy 
tender capability to the new icebreaking vessel. I understand that this 
is the first time the Coast Guard has proposed building other 
capabilities into an icebreaking platform.
    Are you aware of any requirements or design specifications in the 
Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement project that would inhibit this 
procurement from being a full and open competition?
    Answer. The Coast Guard's current acquisition strategy does not 
call for completing final design until at least the first quarter of 
fiscal year 2001. Consequently, it is not yet possible to determine if 
these requirements and design specifications will restrict competition. 
Award to the firm submitting the successful proposal for this 
icebreaking vessel with buoy tending capability is scheduled for June 
2001.

                     DEEPWATER REPLACEMENT PROJECT

    Question. It is my understanding that the planning phase for the 
Deepwater project will not be completed before the Department submits 
its fiscal year 2002 budget request and Congress takes action on that 
request. Based on your experience, would you consider this approach to 
be consistent with recognized best practices in government acquisition 
programs?
    Answer. Requesting budget authority without critical cost and 
schedule information carries substantial risk and is inconsistent with 
acquisition program best practices. Although the Coast Guard plans to 
request $350 million for the Deepwater Replacement for fiscal year 
2002, industry teams will not complete their planning effort until 
several months after the budget requests must be submitted to the 
Congress. Experience in other major procurements such as those in the 
Federal Aviation Administration, has shown that factors such as 
uncertain designs and funding increase the likelihood that projects 
will experience problems associated with cost and schedule slippage.
    The Coast Guard's Deepwater assets will reach the end of their 
useful lives over the next 30 years. The question therefore, is not 
whether they have to be replaced or modernized but how and when. To 
achieve success, the Coast Guard must identify and manage the risk 
associated with a project of this magnitude.
    Question. What steps would you recommend that the Coast Guard take 
to ensure that it has adequate management controls in place prior to 
the fiscal year 2002 Budget Request?
    Answer. While this Project employs a sound process to identify 
needs and alternatives, it is too early to determine with any degree of 
precision what the Project will cost or how long it will take to 
complete. The Coast Guard plans to submit a request in February 2001 
for $350 million to begin construction in fiscal year 2002. The 
industry teams' proposals for an integrated system are not due until 
April 2001 and the final decision on what assets the Coast guard will 
replace or modernize will not occur until July 2001. The lack of 
industry teams' cost and schedule information when the budget is being 
prepared could adversely affect the Coast Guard's budget decision. To 
reduce the risk associated with this lack of information, the Coast 
Guard needs to justify to the Department and the Congress, how it can 
proceed without full cost data and a rational acquisition strategy. 
Three options it can consider are to:
  --Defer the anticipated $350 million fiscal year 2002 Deepwater 
        budget request until the results of the planning process are 
        known.
  --Expedite the planning process to identify the most critical 
        Deepwater needs and justify the fiscal year 2002 budget request 
        on that basis.
  --Use information available from the industry teams to develop a 
        current cost and schedule estimate for the Project that 
        identifies anticipated acquisitions and justify the fiscal year 
        2002 budget request on that basis.
    Another area requiring Coast Guard attention is how to ensure 
continuity of staffing in a project that could last 20 or more years. 
The Coast Guard's policy of rotating military officers could adversely 
impact institutional memory that could be critical to successful 
implementation of the project. We have suggested that the Coast Guard 
consider the need for senior level civilian leadership as a solution.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    This hearing of the Subcommittee on Transportation is now 
recessed. The subcommittee will convene on Tuesday, March 28, 
at 2 o'clock in Dirksen 192 for an oversight hearing on the 
implementation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act and the 
positive notification provision that was included in this 
year's transportation appropriations bill.
    I want to thank all of you, Governor Thompson, Mr. Mead, 
and Mr. Basso.
    Governor Thompson. On behalf of Amtrak, I would like to 
thank you, Senator Shelby.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., Thursday, March 9, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2001

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2000

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 1:57 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Shelby (presiding).

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS--FISCAL YEAR 
                            2001--CONTINUING

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STATEMENTS OF:
        PETER J. BASSO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS, 
            AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
        HON. KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL

             OPENING STATEMENT OF senator RICHARD C. SHELBY

    Senator Shelby. The hearing is called to order. First of 
all, I would like to thank Ken Mead, the Department of 
Transportation Inspector General, and Jack Basso, the Assistant 
Secretary of Transportation for Budget and Programs, for being 
here today to reconvene and conclude the subcommittee's hearing 
on the Department of Transportation's most pressing management 
and oversight challenges.
    We began this hearing early this month on March the 9th, 
but due to tight schedules on my part and that of Senator 
Lautenberg we were not able to finish the hearing. Since the 
witnesses have already made their opening statements when we 
first convened the hearing earlier this month, I would like to 
move things right along. So when Senator Lautenberg, if he 
comes here, I will recognize him.

                                 AIR-21

    Mr. Basso, Mr. Mead, we are pleased that you are here. If I 
could, I would just move into some questions. Mr. Basso, I 
understand that the President is expected to sign the FAA 
reauthorization bill that the Senate and the House recently 
passed, which the Secretary described as ``a giant step 
forward.'' After the bloom is off this rose, it will fall to 
people like you and Mr. Mead in his oversight and audit roles 
to manage all the Department's programs, those in both the 
protected and in the nonprotected categories.
    I am increasingly concerned that Congress has not yet found 
the right balance of adequate investment in transportation 
infrastructure and also providing a programmatic and budgetary 
environment that encourages the maximum efficiency of our 
transportation systems, as opposed to simply maximizing our 
commitment of Federal dollars to payment or construction.
    I will ask both of you this: Does this concern resonate 
with either of you? Do you believe that the budgetary 
structures that we are adopting may stifle or inhibit our 
common goals of increased and responsible Federal 
transportation investment? Mr. Secretary, you want to tackle 
that first?
    Mr. Basso. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Let me say on the question of AIR-21, the President has 
clearly expressed his intent to sign the bill. In fact, I was 
advised we received the bill a little earlier in the day, so 
the clock has begun. AIR-21 I think clearly has some mixed 
blessings and challenges for all of us. On the infrastructure 
and modernization side, the additional funding, particularly 
for facilities and equipment, which is above the President's 
budget, will help us to move forward on the modernization 
issues. I think we all recognize, in the growth in the 
industry, that this is crucial.
    On the other hand, as the President expressed, there are 
concerns as to how we will assure that the appropriate level of 
operational funding is maintained. I think that is a challenge 
that clearly is going to face the administration and the 
Congress as to how we work that out in the appropriations 
process, and I am very mindful of that challenge. We have 
talked about it, and I think we have an awful lot to do.
    To complete the answer to your question, we have to do that 
within a balance in the Department, particularly where it 
relates to the United States Coast Guard and other critical 
national security and lifesaving functions of the Department.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, do you have any comments on that?
    Mr. Mead. Yes. I am glad you picked on him first. I get to 
reflect on the answer.
    Senator Shelby. Well, we like you both. We just happened to 
do this.
    Mr. Mead. There are a couple of implications that flow from 
AIR-21. One of them that I have difficulty sorting through is 
the effect on the budgets of agencies other than highways, mass 
transit, and aviation. In other words, there may well be 
implications for Amtrak, the Coast Guard and pipelines.
    The other implication is for aviation itself. For example, 
the essential design of AIR-21 is that airports are funded 
first. Second, capital facilities and equipment modernization 
are funded. The third thing you fund--with what's left over--is 
salaries and operations expenses, which include safety 
inspectors and things of that nature. Yet, as we speak the 
Congress is being asked to sign off on a supplemental that is 
predominantly operations in nature.
    There is not going to be enough money----
    Senator Shelby. That is right.
    Mr. Mead [continuing]. In the trust fund to pay operations, 
airports, and facilities and equipment. And since AIR-21 sets 
the order for funding as I described it, there will be a need 
to dip into the general fund to take care of operations.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Basso, for this fiscal year the FAA's 
operations budget grew by 6 percent. I would think that the FAA 
Administrator would be able to find somewhere within the 
several hundred million of dollars of growth in the 2000 
appropriation one-tenth of one percent to maintain the safety 
inspection work force. Are my expectations there unrealistic, 
considering the size of that budget? You know, you can always 
find something. The bigger the budget, you can squeeze a 
little. The smaller the budget, it is harder.
    Mr. Basso. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. I know it is tough and I know you have got 
a tough job.
    Mr. Basso. Let me just say this, I want to assure you, Mr. 
Chairman, we have done that squeeze. In fact, last night the 
White House transmitted to Congress----
    Senator Shelby. Did you find the money?
    Mr. Basso. No, sir. Let me say this: we found part of the 
money.
    I do not mind sharing with you what really came over to us. 
Originally we started with a figure of about $200 million and I 
would say out of the $200 million we found enough to make up 
about $120 million or so of it by making appropriate 
adjustments, making the kind of adjustments we should. We then 
reached the point where we came to the realization that if we 
made up changes in other areas it meant really weakening our 
inspection work force and cutting some of the areas that I 
think we all agree are really crucial to managing safety in the 
FAA.
    So after some, I will tell you, considerable examination, 
about 8 weeks worth of examination, we concluded that the only 
alternative was to come to the Congress. There is no more fat 
that we can find at this point in the short term to deal with 
it.

                            EMERGENCY RELIEF

    Senator Shelby. I want to get into emergency highway 
deficiency as we see it. We noted that the TEA-21 authorization 
provides an emergency highway program of $100 million a year.
    Mr. Basso. Yes, sir.
    Senator Shelby. And the administration has not requested 
additional emergency highway funds, notwithstanding the backlog 
of emergency projects from natural disaster I understand 
currently exceeds $500 million.
    Mr. Basso. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. Do not firewalls or special budgetary 
treatments make it more difficult, Mr. Secretary, to address 
emerging transportation requirements like the emergency highway 
program?
    Mr. Basso. Let me talk just a moment, Mr. Chairman, about 
emergency highway funds. One of the things that has troubled me 
is the fact that the $100 million that we have which is exempt 
from all other restrictions, was enacted in the 1973 Highway 
Act. So we have not really seen a change in that level in 
almost 28 years.
    Senator Shelby. It is not a lot of money, is it?
    Mr. Basso. No, sir, and it just does not make it from here 
to there, there is no question.
    Senator Shelby. In a Nation this size.
    Mr. Basso. Absolutely, and particularly what we have been 
experiencing the last several years, which averages well above 
that amount. In any event, what we did do was send up with the 
budget a proposal which would deal with the emergency relief 
question--which you are absolutely right, as of September 2000 
we had a backlog of $500 million and is probably bigger than 
that now. Our proposal is to create new contract authority, but 
confine it within the obligation ceiling set in TEA-21, so that 
we did not basically end up burdening the committee with the 
additional outlays to be paid for in this program.
    So we took our shot over 3 years of paying off that debt. I 
do think, though, that it is important to recognize that sooner 
or later we are going to have to find a more permanent and a 
better solution to the emergency relief program.
    Senator Shelby. Of course you are aware of the fact that 
the administration's proposed shift of funds from other 
guaranteed highway programs to emergency highways has been 
rejected by both the authorizing and appropriations committees 
in the House and the Senate?
    Mr. Basso. Yes, sir, I am aware of that.

                          CONSULTING CONTRACTS

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, there have been a series of 
recent newspaper articles raising questions about Washington's 
Metro procurement policy regarding consulting contracts. You 
are probably familiar with some of these. Does the publicity 
concerning Washington Metro's lack of procurement control 
suggest to you an issue that the Inspector General's Office 
should look into, or perhaps you are looking into, and are 
standards for noncompetitive consulting contracts for 
organizations receiving substantial Federal funds an area that 
your office should get into, at least look at?
    Mr. Mead. Yes, I think that it's an appropriate area. Right 
now we have our investigation side of the IG's office----
    Senator Shelby. Are you looking into that?
    Mr. Mead. Yes. I think what is troubling there is the 
purposes for which the consulting contracts are let and the 
disparity between what you would pay an ordinary public servant 
for a task and what the consultants would get. Much of this is 
falling into the category of overhead, and when we are done 
with our work we will make a full report to the committee.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.

                                  WAAS

    The Wide Area Augmentation System, WAAS. Mr. Mead, Mr. 
Basso, let us just go back just a little bit to an article that 
appeared in Aviation Daily, I believe in 1996, 4 years ago. It 
said: ``The Federal Aviation Administration abruptly terminated 
its $475 million pact with Wilcox Electric to apply global 
positioning system [GPS] technology to the Nation's air traffic 
control system, charging that the company had mishandled the 
contract. David Henson''--I am just continuing to quote--``the 
FAA's Administrator, used strong language to describe his 
decision to cancel the contract only 8 months after the award, 
saying `The agency no longer has a tolerance for ineptitude.' 
'' Those were his words.
    Now, 4 years later, to the current status of this 
procurement. The WAAS program is hopelessly off track. Its cost 
has escalated to $3.2 billion and it will not provide the 
capability it was advertised to do 4 months ago, much less 4 
years ago. Does this mean that the FAA has rediscovered its 
tolerance for ineptitude, to use those words?
    Mr. Basso, you want to answer that?
    Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, I think I can give you assurances 
that we have little or no tolerance for a continuation of 
ineptness.
    Senator Shelby. You do not have room for it, do you?
    Mr. Basso. No, sir, we sure do not.
    I know the Administrator is spending a lot of personal time 
on this. One of the things that we intend to do with this 
program is to move very slowly and carefully to ensure that as 
we invest any more in this we know that each step of the way 
actually produces a result. We also are doing or planning to do 
a series of independent reviews by independent experts on that 
system to ensure that what we do in fact has an effective 
outcome.
    I think there is no question in the past we have had huge 
problems with this. But I do think the current management has 
the program under control and is taking very judicious small 
steps to move forward cautiously and correctly on it.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead.
    Mr. Mead. I think two essential things need to be done 
here. First, the burn rate of the contract ought to be reduced 
very substantially. Right now FAA is spending between $4 and $5 
million a month on the contract, and the agency does not know 
how it will fix some of the technical problems with WAAS.
    Second, as Mr. Basso indicated, FAA needs an independent 
assessment of WAAS problems by scientists and technical 
experts.
    Senator Shelby. How can you do that?
    Mr. Mead. We made a suggestion before Mr. Wolf's committee 
last week that FAA seek independent advice. The National 
Academy of Sciences has a track record of dealing with complex 
issues, and does not have a vested financial interest in the 
outcome. We did not mean to suggest, though, that it had to be 
the National Academy of Sciences. I just do not know of an 
equivalent group that can bring to bear a wide range of skills. 
I think it is important that the contractor provide information 
to this independent group, but that the contractor should not 
be a member in any way, shape, or form of this group.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, I believe you were quoted last 
week as being concerned ``that neither FAA nor Raytheon has the 
necessary expertise to resolve problems faced by this 
procurement.'' You still believe that?
    Mr. Mead. Yes, and the FAA shares this view.
    Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, I would affirm that they do. In 
fact, I spoke with the Administrator this morning on this very 
subject.
    Senator Shelby. How can we help you resolve that? Is there 
a way?
    Mr. Basso. Yes, sir, I think you actually have. I think 
your----
    Senator Shelby. We have tried.
    Mr. Basso [continuing]. Attention to this has caused us to 
focus very clearly on it. The Administrator I know is 
committed, because I spoke to her this morning, about bringing 
in independent technical expertise to address that question.
    I should also mention, I did not make it clear in my 
previous answer, but we do plan to reduce the burn rate on the 
program. We fully agree with the Inspector General's 
observations on what needs to be done here.
    Mr. Mead. Mr. Chairman, the key technical problem with WAAS 
is quite an interesting one. It focuses on the WAAS signal 
coming down from space. A pilot in an airplane has to know that 
the WAAS signal is exact, particularly when the pilot is 
landing. The signal must be precise. There is precious little 
room for error when you are landing. You have to know exactly 
where you are, and when WAAS cannot be relied upon.
    So one of the problems FAA is having is knowing when the 
signal is unreliable, when it ought not to be used. I would say 
that FAA is 90 or 95 percent of the way there, but in aviation 
you cannot afford to have that extra 5 or 10 percent 
unresolved.
    Senator Shelby. It is not enough, is it?
    Mr. Mead. No. It is a very technical and complicated issue 
that FAA needs to solve.

                       CONTRACTING FAA FUNCTIONS

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Basso, dealing with FAA operations, 
given the pressures that we are likely to face--that are likely 
to face the FAA operations account under the new authorization 
bill, does it make sense--yes, does it make sense to pursue a 
greater level of contracting out of some of the functions that 
FAA has traditionally not done well, such as oceanic services, 
procurement of communications services, expanding the contract 
tower program, or others?
    Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, we have been looking at the 
potential for contracting out some services. That is under way. 
I cannot give you an exhaustive list of exactly which ones we 
would proceed with, but they are clearly under consideration. 
We have been consulting, not only with ourselves, but also with 
our unions and other people who have a role in all of this, and 
I would expect you would see some results of that.
    Senator Shelby. Does the oceanic modernization program 
offer you any opportunities for exploring different ways of 
contracting?
    Mr. Basso. I think the oceanic modernization program 
clearly does. One of the things that we face in the oceanic 
environment is the need to make investment upgrades. There is 
also competition from other international bodies. As you know, 
we are delegated authority to provide air traffic service for 
large areas of Atlantic and Pacific Ocean airspace.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead.
    Mr. Mead. I think the answer to your question is yes. 
Oceanic is different from domestic operators, in that changes 
will not affect general aviation. You do not have as many of 
the different stakeholders in oceanic. You have mostly big 
airlines in that environment. Also you have an environment 
where there has been an inclination, more of a willingness, by 
the carriers to pay user fees, which as you know is very 
controversial for domestic air space.
    Another issue that you have to deal with, quite frankly, is 
the controllers' union and the workforce issue. In both 
contract towers, which FAA says can yield savings of $700,000 a 
tower over time, and oceanic, there are workforce issues where 
the union would be concerned about jobs. But I think that is a 
factor that could be worked out if Congress were to seriously 
pursue an effort in the oceanic air traffic control 
environment.

                            COST ACCOUNTING

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, would it not be helpful to have a 
good cost accounting system in place so that they would be able 
to assess which functions or activities held the greatest 
promise?
    Mr. Mead. Yes, sir. As we discussed in the budget 
appropriation committee hearings several weeks ago, if FAA does 
not have that cost accounting system it cannot get control of 
operations costs. Further, FAA cannot figure out where its 
operations costs are actually going and the agency cannot 
identify opportunities for savings. So FAA has an operations 
account that between this year and next is going to increase by 
about 12 percent. We cannot keep that up in perpetuity.

                               DEEP WATER

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, we are concerned that the 
Coast Guard will have three proposals of deep water assets to 
acquire, but no clear understanding of what capabilities are 
necessary. In other words, we will not know where to go, but 
nevertheless we will have three versions of how to get going, 
maybe not to get there but to get going.
    Would it make sense for the Coast Guard to formally 
establish asset requirements to meet its roles and missions?
    Mr. Basso. It does, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Otherwise you are flying blind in a way, 
are you not?
    Mr. Basso. Yes, sir.
    Senator Shelby. Or sailing blind.
    Mr. Basso. Yes. Let me just add that we actually go through 
a three-level process. One, a roles and missions study was just 
completed for the Coast Guard, the first update since 1980, 
which I think----
    Senator Shelby. Was that done in house?
    Mr. Basso. It was done in house, but it included a wide 
range of expertise, not just limited to the Coast Guard or the 
Department.
    Senator Shelby. Is that the inter-agency task force?
    Mr. Basso. It is, yes.
    Senator Shelby. Do you feel like they are doing a good job 
there?
    Mr. Basso. I do. I really do. I think I can come to you 
with a straight face and say that.
    In addition to that, we have done as we go through these 
projects a mission needs analysis based on those roles and 
missions to take it down to a level of more detail, and then 
finally the capital management plan. So I think we do that 
work.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, what is your thought to that? 
What are your thoughts? Is that a valid concern?
    Mr. Mead. Pardon me?
    Senator Shelby. Is that a valid concern on our part?
    Mr. Mead. Yes. I think roles and missions is an issue. I 
think the Coast Guard has done a good job of planning, but the 
whole Deepwater project to date is just that, a planning 
process. It is not a budgeting process. The Coast Guard can 
plan its needs for the next 20 years. But it just does not 
follow that it can say, here is what the budget is going to be 
for the next 20 years. That is where I see a disconnect.
    Senator Shelby. Basically, you have got to know where they 
want to go, have you not?
    Mr. Mead. Yes. Well, just one quick example. The Coast 
Guard's planning process for its Deepwater needs will not be 
done until 2001, after the date it is going to be making its 
first budget request for Deepwater assets. It has the cart 
before the horse.

                             CENTRAL ARTERY

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, I want to go to Boston just 
briefly, the area. It seems that the Big Dig in Boston seems to 
be a full employment project for your office, unfortunately. A 
recent report on the owner-controlled insurance program for the 
Central Artery Project recommended that the overpayments of 
insurance premiums should be recovered and reallocated.
    Would you provide a brief summary of the problem and give a 
status report on this and the issue of the overpayments? Do you 
want to do it later or do you want to touch on it now?
    Mr. Mead. I can do it quickly.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Mr. Mead. The problem was that the Artery was overpaying 
insurance premiums. After the insurance period was over, the 
insurer would say: Well, you paid too much. And the Artery 
would say in effect: Keep it, put it in an investment account. 
And they would. Our point is, the Federal Government will pay 
you back for insurance, but we are not going to pay you back 
for an investment account. If you are going to have an 
investment account, you will have to spend that Federal money 
on your highway projects.
    The Federal Government is not in the business of funding 
investment accounts and we had an investment account there. The 
current status, I believe, is that the Department is of one 
mind--Mr. Basso can speak to that--that this should be 
discontinued. However, I think we still have some convincing to 
do in the State of Massachusetts.
    Mr. Basso. I might just add, Mr. Chairman, we are in full 
agreement. Mr. Mead and I personally spent a lot of time on 
this the last several months. The $150 million in the fund is 
to be liquidated. We have that agreement.
    Let me just mention quickly that I have asked for and 
intend to get an independent actuarial evaluation of what needs 
to be in that fund, because the concept is good. Actually it 
can be a savings of owner-controlled insurance as long as the 
amount in the fund is right.
    Senator Shelby. How long will that take to do?
    Mr. Basso. I would bet we can get this done within the next 
30, 60 days. This is not rocket science, let me say.
    Mr. Mead. It is a lot of money, though.
    Senator Shelby. It is a lot of money.
    Mr. Mead. It is over $129 million, plus interest. If you 
had that today, FAA could say, well, here is our supplemental.
    Senator Shelby. It would take care of a lot of problems, 
would it not?
    Mr. Basso. Yes, sir, it sure would.

                             FLIGHT DELAYS

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, you are doing some work on the 
cause of flight delays in the aviation industry for the 
Congress. How is that work coming and are there other previews 
that you might share with us before the summer thunderstorms?
    Mr. Mead. Sure. We will be issuing a report later this 
spring to your committee, but here is some preview information 
I find absolutely fascinating. In the past several years, the 
number of flights spending one hour or more on a taxiway 
waiting to take off has increased 130 percent.
    Senator Shelby. Why?
    Mr. Mead. That is a good question. It depends on who you 
ask. An airline executive may say, ``Well, it is FAA.'' An air 
traffic controller may say it is the airlines' fault. Others 
will say it is God, because of poor weather. A whole variety of 
different factors contribute.
    One of our findings is that a huge deficit of information 
exists on the causes of these delays. Another major finding is 
the amount of hidden delays built into the airlines' block 
times. For the airlines to maintain good on-time performance 
statistics, they increase the length of the scheduled flight 
times to build in time for potential delay. The overall time it 
takes to complete a flight on about 77 percent of the routes in 
the United States has increased over the past 10 years.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, is there any value to the 
consumer--to the consumer--of the current delay reporting 
system? Do you see any value in reporting on-time departures? 
Are not consumers basically interested in on-time arrivals?
    Mr. Mead. I think consumers are more interested in on-time 
arrivals. I have a hard time, Mr. Chairman, understanding why 
it is relevant to me that my flight backed away from the gate 
within 15 minutes of the scheduled departure and then proceeded 
to spend 3 hours on the runway. Under this scenario, I do not 
think I took off on time, and I think most Americans would 
agree with that view.
    Our current reporting system, though, says we took off on 
time that our flight was an on-time departure--because it 
backed away from the gate within 15 minutes of the scheduled 
departure time.
    Senator Shelby. That is what they claim it to be, anyway.
    Mr. Mead. Yes, sir.

                               FAA-NATCA

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Basso, the FAA has claimed that the 
FAA-NATCA agreement has significant productivity and offsetting 
cost gains. Have those promised savings or productivity gains 
emerged yet, and what are the actual cost savings and 
productivity gains that have been realized to offset the cost 
of the agreement?
    Mr. Basso. I would say at this point, in fairness, Mr. 
Chairman, that I could not say that those productivity gains 
have offset the cost of the agreement. But we are in the early 
stages of it, within the first year and a half of this 
agreement. The data--I think the jury is still out. The data 
has not been sufficient for me to come up here and give you an 
honest yes to that.
    I would like to supply for you for the record some 
additional information that would help show where the trends 
are likely to take us.
    [The information follows:]

    During the first part of fiscal year 1999, the FAA and NATCA worked 
to finalize the rules associated with the various productivity articles 
of the contract and the rules for the new pay system. A metrics team 
was established to identify and track measurable results of 
implementing the contract. The FAA will continue to refine and analyze 
this data to provide additional information to Congress on the results 
of this contract.
    There are many indirect results of the contract, including an 
improved and more productive working relationship between FAA 
management and NATCA in modernizing the aviation system. An example of 
this partnership is the manner in which DSR has been fielded throughout 
the country, resulting in FAA completing many facilities well ahead of 
schedule. Another example is the STARS program; FAA has fielded the 
first segment at El Paso and Syracuse and is working on the advanced 
configurations of that program.

    Mr. Mead. This committee could help there, Mr. Chairman. 
When FAA signed that agreement, it said there would be 
productivity gains that it would quantify. We have been 
monitoring the situation since FAA signed the agreement. We 
think it is about time that FAA identified what those 
productivity gains are going to be and quantify them. But we 
are getting in the neighborhood of some big money when we are 
talking $6 or $7 billion a year in an operations account.

                           PROCUREMENT REFORM

    Senator Shelby. Do either of you expect anything 
significant to change at the FAA in terms of procurement 
management, FAA culture, employee morale, or financial 
management, or are we likely to see a new list of reasons why 
it is someone else's fault that the FAA is unable to improve in 
those areas? Mr. Mead?
    Mr. Mead. I think the jury is still out.
    Senator Shelby. I am talking about, as you know, the 
procurement personnel reform.
    Mr. Mead. I think the jury is still out. What you have seen 
essentially on procurement reform so far, is that FAA awards 
contracts quicker, but I think the point behind procurement 
reform was not only to award contracts quicker, but also to get 
the results. There is no question, on some acquisitions that 
FAA has brought them home quicker--HOST, and DSR, for example. 
But on big acquisitions like WAAS and STARS, we do not see the 
results yet.
    On personnel reform, I think the jury still is out too. So 
far morale among controllers is a lot higher. Personnel reform 
has measurably improved relations between FAA management and 
the controllers. At the same time, the tangible evidence is in 
higher salaries.

                          ACQUISITION PROGRAMS

    Senator Shelby. In the area of software development, one of 
the difficulties that the FAA has experienced in its effort to 
modernize the air traffic control system has been an inability 
to prevent acquisition programs that are heavily dependent upon 
software development from extensive schedule delays and 
explosive cost growth. Similar problems are appearing elsewhere 
in the Department. The National Advanced Driving Simulator and 
the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law 
Enforcement Project come to mind.
    Mr. Secretary, considering that more and more acquisition 
projects will be software intensive, what steps can you take at 
the Department to better manage these types of development 
programs and share lessons learned from one modal 
administration to another?
    Mr. Basso. I think there are three steps, Mr. Chairman, one 
of which----
    Senator Shelby. This is going to involve big money, is it 
not?
    Mr. Basso. Yes, sir, absolutely it does.
    The first step we took was to get a professional chief 
information officer on board who has real background in these 
areas.
    Senator Shelby. Did you have to go to the marketplace to do 
that?
    Mr. Basso. We did. We did in fact. I think that step one is 
to get someone, to put it bluntly, who knows what they are 
doing in charge of that.
    Second, our monitoring of these projects has stepped up, 
and we have had a lot of assistance from the Inspector 
General's Office in that regard to really monitor closely what 
goes on.
    Then I think, thirdly, what we need to do is to examine 
very carefully and share--you hit the nail right on the head--
share the results of when something has gone wrong, why, so 
that we basically do not, so to speak, draw the cartoon of 
beating ourselves over the head with the same hammer every 
time.

                            FAA PROCUREMENT

    Senator Shelby. Dealing, Mr. Mead, with FAA procurement 
problems, I have been told that it appears to some in the 
industry that when a ready solution is presented to the FAA 
that can be deployed quickly, the FAA does not use its 
procurement reform authority to fast track that solution. 
Instead, the FAA begins a long process that enables competitors 
to catch up and leads all bidders to spend substantial sums of 
money with little or no return.
    It seems to me that it is almost as though the FAA sits 
back and says: But wait, there must be a harder and more 
expensive way to do this. What steps, Mr. Mead, can the FAA and 
others take to remedy this perceived problem and find a 
solution for the aviation community? Is it real?
    Mr. Mead. Yes, there is----
    Senator Shelby. The perception is real, maybe?
    Mr. Mead. The perception is real, and FAA knows that it is 
real. I think Administrator Garvey has taken steps to get a 
grip on this.
    Senator Shelby. What steps? What steps?
    Mr. Mead. In some acquisitions, you will notice that FAA is 
doing what it calls build a little, test a little. It is taking 
smaller steps instead of trying for the big bang. But there are 
other cases, such as with STARS and with WAAS, two big 
acquisitions, where you do not see that in place.
    I think that FAA can take heed to your advice on this, Mr. 
Chairman, still. But you cannot turn the ship around overnight.
    Oceanic is another one. You mentioned this one earlier. 
Right now FAA is paying a total of $1 million, or $1.5 million, 
to some vendors to come out and demonstrate their wares. But 
the United States should already have a very advanced oceanic 
air traffic control system in place. It is woeful that we are 
so many years behind on this. One reason we are behind the 
eightball is because we tried to bite off more than we could 
chew years ago.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, would you provide for the record 
the relative work load of your office for each of the 
individual Department agencies?
    Mr. Mead. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. Would you do that? That would be helpful to 
us.
    [The information follows:]

OIG Resource Utilization by Operating Administration

              [Percent of total staff in fiscal year 1999]

FAA...............................................................  37.0
FHWA..............................................................  20.8
OST \1\...........................................................  18.2
USCG..............................................................   9.0
FTA...............................................................   6.1
FRA...............................................................   3.2
MARAD.............................................................   2.7
RSPA..............................................................   2.0
NHTSA.............................................................   1.0
                                                                  ______
      Total....................................................... 100.0

\1\ A large portion of this work was dedicated to reviewing DOT's 
consolidated financial statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Senator Shelby. You know we have got a couple of votes o 
the floor. We are going to recess the committee. We appreciate 
you both appearing to let us go through this expeditiously.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Agencies for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]

  Questions Submitted to the Office of Budget and Programs Performance

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                OVERSIGHT OF HIGH-DOLLAR INFRASTRUCTURE

    Question. One of the issues that made the Inspector General's 
oversight report last year and again this year is that DOT needs to 
improve its management of transportation infrastructure projects. It is 
especially important for the management of high-dollar projects to be 
aggressive, because the risks to the Government's financial interests 
are increased proportionally.
    The IG's December 1999 Top Twelve Management issues says that the 
DOT should do the following: 1. Strengthen internal controls over 
project cost estimates, 2. Require and closely examine project finance 
plans, and 3. Monitor project performance to minimize funding risks. 
Please describe the Department's plans for improving the Federal 
Highway Administration's management of large construction projects.
    Answer. DOT agrees fully with the IG's recommendations. The 
Secretary has directed the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs 
to issue a DOT-wide requirement for project finance plans and 
monitoring by June. FHWA has recently initiated two distinct actions to 
strengthen its management of high-dollar projects, improve controls 
over cost, and reduce funding risks. First, FHWA has formed a ``Major 
Projects Team'' to strengthen the oversight of all Federal-aid high-
dollar projects. This team will consist of Headquarters and resource 
center personnel, including financial specialists, attorneys, engineers 
and other program specialists led by a core of Headquarters managers. 
While the FHWA Division Offices will remain responsible for traditional 
Federal-aid oversight responsibilities, the Major Projects Team will 
assist the Division Offices with risk assessment and oversight 
decisions in the areas of finance, public relations, environment, 
program development, and unusual engineering decisions. The Major 
Projects Team will support the Division Offices during the review of 
the financial plans and independent verification of financial data. The 
team will also review and oversee the implementation of recommendations 
from government audits and reviews. The Major Projects Team will report 
to the Director of the Office of Program Administration, Infrastructure 
Core Business Unit.
    Second, FHWA created a task force to update our August 1998 
guidance on financial plans. While FHWA's 1998 guidance fulfilled the 
provisions of TEA-21 Section 1305, OIG recommendations made it clear 
that more definitive guidance was necessary. The revised guidance will:
  --Define the content and format of the Initial Financial Plan and the 
        Annual Updates in terms of accepted accounting standards,
  --Provide example charts and tables to promote uniformity,
  --Require a commitment and acceptance of the plan by the leader of 
        the State Transportation Agency, and
  --Standardize FHWA's procedure for reviewing financial plans and 
        annual updates.

                                 AMASS

    Question. There has been a continuing concern about the increasing 
number of runway incursions--collisions or potential accidents on the 
ground. The upward trend in runway incursions continued in 1998, with 
325 incursions, an 11 percent increase from 1997. AMASS is the radar 
and related software/hardware to monitor airport surfaces and warn of 
potential runway incursions. A month or so ago, FAA announced that it 
was going to be two years behind schedule in deploying AMASS. Would you 
please explain the reasons for the delay in the AMASS program, and tell 
us how this will affect FAA's initiatives to reduce the number of 
runway incursions? Should we be looking at other solutions?
    Answer. The previous AMASS schedule relied on a very high-risk 
acquisition strategy and schedule that included concurrent development 
and production phases. In addition, during April 1999 new program 
requirements related to human factors evaluations were added. At that 
point, FAA recognized that the development effort required to meet user 
requirements was far more extensive than originally envisioned, and 
that it would be unable to meet the October 2000 date for commissioning 
AMASS. The AMASS program underwent an in-depth review and restructure 
during the late summer and early fall of 1999.
    AMASS will not reduce runway incursions, but will help prevent 
accidents if runway incursions occur. The implementation of AMASS at 
the nations 34 busiest airports, which is an enhancement to the Airport 
Surface Detection Equipment Model 3 (ASDE-3) radar, is one of FAA's 
initiatives to prevent accidents that may result in loss of life and/or 
property resulting from runway incursions. This spring, the FAA is 
holding nine regional workshops, bringing together airlines, airport 
officials, general aviation organizations, pilots and air traffic 
controllers to develop additional ways to reduce runway incursions at 
airports in the regions. These will be followed in late June, 2000 by a 
national runway safety summit in Washington, which will include results 
from the regional sessions and review of efforts in human factors and 
new technologies.

                   GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT

    Question. The Coast Guard has expanded the mission requirements of 
the Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement by proposing to add a buoy 
tender capability to the new icebreaking vessel. I understand that this 
is the first time the Coast Guard has proposed building other 
capabilities into an icebreaking platform. What companies in the 
domestic shipbuilding industry, if any, have experience with this type 
of design? Are there any technical challenges and management risks 
caused by trying to incorporate other missions into the replacement 
Great Lakes icebreaking ship?
    Answer. No heavy icebreakers with buoy tending capability have been 
built in the United States, although ships with similar multi-purpose 
capabilities were built in Germany and Finland within the last 10 
years. To determine the interest and capabilities of the domestic 
shipbuilding industry to successfully construct a multi-purpose 
icebreaker, the Coast Guard conducted two rounds of market research to 
identify domestic shipyards capable of design and construction of this 
unique vessel. Numerous companies responded to the surveys and several 
were found to be capable and experienced in the design and construction 
of vessels of comparable size, technology and function.
    The primary technical challenge of incorporating heavy icebreaking 
and buoy tending capabilities within the same vessel relate to hull 
design and effectively balancing the competing design requirements of 
the two missions. For example, heavy icebreaking requires a deep draft, 
large displacement, and high horsepower vessel. On the other hand, buoy 
tending requires a shallow draft, highly maneuverable vessel with 
accurate navigation and good sea keeping characteristics. 
Alternatively, many design characteristics complement the combination 
of the two missions. For example, the same maneuverability 
characteristics required to break out a vessel beset in ice will also 
provide the maneuverability required to place a buoy. To mitigate the 
technical risks, the Coast Guard developed a conceptual multi-purpose 
design and successfully tested the model hull form in an ice tank to 
validate its technical feasibility. This study was used to develop the 
proper design balance between the two missions that will result in the 
successful execution of both within the same platform.

                     DEEPWATER REPLACEMENT PROJECT

    Question. The Coast Guard has three industry teams under contract 
to conceive and design a plan to modernize its deepwater fleet, 
aircraft, sensors and communications equipment over the next twenty 
years. While there may be value in receiving three independent options 
for acquiring new deepwater assets, I remain concerned that the 
Deepwater acquisition strategy is not grounded in political or fiscal 
reality. The project's price tag has been well discussed by the GAO, 
the Department IG, and this committee. It will be difficult to bind 
future Administrations or commandants--or even disgruntled industry 
contractors--to the January 2002 award decision. When the Coast Guard 
awards the Deepwater contract, will the award be a ``winner-take-all'' 
contract for one industry team or will the Coast Guard pick and choose 
the best, most innovative procurement ideas from all three teams and 
compete each item separately?
    Answer. In January 2002, the Coast Guard intends to award the 
Integrated Deepwater System acquisition contract to just one of the 
three competing industry teams. However, the Coast Guard retains the 
right to ``mix and match'' from the three competing designs, in the 
event that all three designs contain some deficiency. To obtain 
essential contractual flexibility and protection for the Government, 
the Coast Guard intends to structure the Deepwater acquisition contract 
as an incentivized, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract. 
The Coast Guard will issue separate delivery orders under this contract 
to perform the upgrades and acquire the new assets comprising the 
industry's proposed Integrated Deepwater System. In addition, the Coast 
Guard intends to include specific Value Engineering and/or Technology 
Refreshment contract clauses. These clauses will enable the Coast Guard 
to acquire new technology that meets or exceeds proposed cost and 
performance levels from firms not originally part of the selected 
Deepwater industry team.

                        FAA FINANCIAL STATEMENT

    Question. One of the things that your office, the Office of the 
Secretary of Transportation, and the FAA Administrator's office has 
taken some pride in is the clean audit opinion for the FAA for this 
year. However, at the same time, I note that the Government Performance 
Project as reported in the Washington Post gives the FAA a ``D'' for 
Financial Management. Is this clean audit a one-time event, or have the 
structural and procedural changes been made at the FAA that will permit 
the FAA to continue to receive clean financial statement audits in the 
future?
    Answer. DOT's goal is to ensure that the clean audit is not a one-
time event. The first clean audit involved substantiating inception to 
date property and other accounts that were accumulated over 30 or more 
years. Fiscal year 2000 and future years will be based on transactions 
that occur within one fiscal year. In addition, as new property systems 
and the new DOT accounting system are put in place in fiscal year 2001, 
issues that needed to be addressed in the 1999 audit will be 
systematically resolved. Procedural changes have been made, but system 
changes will evolve as the new commercial off-the-shelf programs are 
funded.
                                 ______
                                 

           Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

                   TERMINAL VOICE SWITCH REPLACEMENT

    Question. The Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR) program was 
established to replace 421 electromechanical and supportable voice-
switching systems in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) by 2002. 
Within this program 267 systems are for larger more critical sites. 
These sites are receiving equipment under the existing Enhanced 
Terminal Voice Switch (ETVS) and the Rapid Deployment Voice Switch 
(RDVS/RDVS IIA) contracts. Does the FAA have a procurement plan for 
TVSR in fiscal year 2001-fiscal year 2004? Please present that plan and 
explain the anticipated changes from year to year.
    Answer. The FAA is procuring equipment under the budget item 
entitled Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)/Enhanced Terminal 
Voice Switch (ETVS). The following is the procurement plan for the 
TVSR/ETVS Program for fiscal year 2001-fiscal year 2004.

                          [Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal years--
                                     -----------------------------------
                                        2001     2002     2003     2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Switches (ETVS)...............       10       10       17       17
Budget..............................     $5.0     $5.0     $8.4     $8.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of systems to be procured is based on the production 
capacity of the contractor, the available FAA engineering personnel to 
oversee installation of the equipment, and the relative priority of 
this project compared to other FAA programs.

                   VOICE RECORDER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

    Question. The Voice Recorder Replacement Program (VRRP) was 
established to replace 579 aging analog voice-recording systems that 
have reached the end of their service life. These sites are receiving 
modern digital equipment from the Digital Voice Recording System (DVRS) 
contact. The FAA must procure an approximate average of 84 systems per 
year (fiscal year 1999-fiscal year 2002) if it is to replace analog 
systems that have reached the end of their service life at the 
remaining 337 ATC facilities by the time the last DVRS production 
period expires in fiscal year 2002. Does the FAA intend to procure 
sufficient DVRS systems to replace the analog systems? If not, why not?
    Answer. Yes, the FAA intends to procure sufficient DVRS systems to 
replace the analog systems. FAA is planning to renegotiate the contract 
so that the production period will be extended from August 2002 to July 
2004.

          FLIGHT SERVICE STATION SWITCH MODERNIZATION PROGRAM

    Question. The Flight Service Station Modernization Program is being 
established to replace 64 aging technology voice-switching systems with 
limited supportability for the FAA's Automated Flight Service Stations 
(AFSS). I am told that current AFSS systems have, with minor 
modifications, been used in Terminal facilities. Is that correct? Both 
ETVS and RDVS were designed and procured to replace aging technology 
voice switches. Both of these voice switches have completed extensive 
FAA and Department of Defense testing programs to qualify for Air 
Traffic Control (ATC) operations. Is it true that either ETVS or RDVS 
Switches, with minor modification, can be utilized to satisfy the AFSS 
requirements? If so, why is the FAA initiating a development program 
for an alternative?
    Answer. The FAA program currently identified to replace voice 
switches in the flight service option is known as the Automated Flight 
Service Station Voice Switch (AFSSVS). A switching system currently 
used in AFSS (Denro ICSS-1A) was adapted for a terminal application for 
its use in Southern California TRACON (SCT). However, the modifications 
required were not minor and, in addition to relative size, reflect the 
fundamental differences between the terminal and flight service 
environments and associated functions. The modifications included 
linking three systems together and removing position functions and 
peripherals found in existing AFSS switching systems. The ETVS and RDVS 
IIA were designed specifically for terminal Air Traffic Control (ATC) 
operations. The ATC environment is primarily concerned with aircraft 
separation while flight service is an advisory and planning service. It 
is not certain that the ETVS or RDVS IIA voice switches can, with only 
minor modifications, be adapted to satisfy the AFSS requirements. The 
FAA has evaluated no design or product. Requirements for the AFSSVS 
have been developed to satisfy a FAA developed mission need statement 
that identifies operational needs that differ from the existing 
terminal and flight service environment. The AFSSVS requirement 
includes the capability to fold back operations during non-peak hours, 
which will require the ability to reroute radio frequencies between 
facilities to maintain service.
    The FAA is currently performing an investment analysis on a number 
of alternatives selected to meet the approved mission need for AFSSVS. 
The objective of the investment analysis process is to determine which 
alternative approaches are feasible and affordable. The process is 
expected to be complete this spring and the results of this process 
will be presented to the FAA executive level for a decision in the 
summer of 2000. Subsequent to this decision, the selected alternative 
will be pursued in accordance with the FAA Acquisition Management 
System.

      NEW YORK TERMINAL AIRSPACE REDESIGN--NEWARK DELAY REDUCTION

    Question. The last major airspace redesign in the New York Terminal 
Area was initiated in the early 1980's, and implemented in 1987 and 
1988. Since then, air traffic has grown, en route flows have changed, 
and aircraft performance and navigation capabilities have improved.
    Unfortunately, the airspace structure has not kept pace with these 
changes. For nine of the last 12 years, and every year since 1995, 
Newark has been the most delayed airport in terms of FAA delays per 
1,000 operations. JFK and LaGuardia are similarly impacted. In response 
to this situation, and at the urging of ATC system users and the Port 
Authority of New York and New Jersey, FAA announced the initiation of 
the New York/New Jersey Airspace Redesign Project in April 1998.
    In the Fiscal Year 1999 Senate Transportation Appropriations Full 
Committee Report, $11 million was designated to support the 
Administration's national airspace review and redesign initiative, with 
$3 million specifically designated for the New York/New Jersey 
metropolitan airspace. Ultimately, the Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Bill included only $3 million for 
New York/New Jersey metropolitan airspace design.
    In fiscal year 2000, the Committee again allocated $11 million to 
support the comprehensive review and redesign of the nation's airspace 
with direction to FAA to concentrate on the eastern region, and in 
particular, the New York/New Jersey metropolitan airspace. The 
conference agreement funded the $9.622 million FAA request and directed 
$6.6 million to be used in direct support of the NY/NJ airspace 
redesign effort.
    Considering this significant funding support over the last two 
years, what progress has been made on the New York/New Jersey airspace 
redesign? In FAA's Quarterly Report to Congress on Newark Delay 
Reduction Initiatives (Oct-Dec 1999), you advised that two milestones 
had slipped, and NATCA had directed its members to withdraw from the 
redesign project until facility pay classification guarantees were 
negotiated. What is the status of the NATCA negotiations, and what is 
the impact of these issues on the redesign schedule? What alternatives 
are available to FAA to proceed with airspace redesign without NATCA 
participation? What would they cost over the life of the project, and 
how long would it take to implement them?
    Answer. The New York/New Jersey airspace redesign project has 
completed 31 public meetings to seek input from the public prior to 
developing redesign concepts. The first meeting was held September 22, 
1999, and the last meeting was held on February 3, 2000. A total of 
1,174 individuals attended the meetings and over 700 people provided 
written comments. FAA's Eastern Region will have a full report 
documenting the results of the meetings and this report will be 
available by May 2000. The Eastern Region will complete the computer 
modeling of the airspace baseline by April 2000. The Eastern Region has 
established joint NATCA/management redesign teams. These redesign teams 
are currently developing airspace design alternatives. Two alternatives 
will be ready for computer modeling by July 2000.
    In December 1999, Eastern Region NATCA directed its members to stop 
work on the National Airspace Redesign project pending discussions on a 
national memorandum of understanding. In late February 2000, Eastern 
Region NATCA resumed work on airspace redesign, although no memorandum 
of understanding has been signed. FAA continued the customer and 
community meetings, but the timeline slipped by 4 months. FAA 
management prefers to redesign the national airspace in collaboration 
with NATCA, however a contingency plan was developed to continue the 
project if NATCA did not return. The plan is still available to use if 
necessary. To continue the project, FAA would have added additional 
management employees to fill the teams. Typically, the new team members 
would have been first line supervisors from the major air traffic 
facilities. If FAA were to use this plan, they anticipate losing from 3 
to 6 months to get the new work groups educated. The overall cost of 
this project would remain the same.
    Question. Assuming that an agreement can be reached quickly with 
NATCA, what level of funding is required in fiscal year 2001 and in 
future budget years to achieve the milestones contained in the 
Quarterly Report on Newark Delay Reduction Initiatives?
    Answer. In late February 2000, Eastern Region NATCA resumed work on 
airspace redesign, although no memorandum of understanding has been 
signed. Assuming Air Traffic Airspace Management Program receives the 
fiscal year 2001 Budget request of $20,578,000 for the national 
airspace redesign activities, Eastern Region will request $5,838,000 
for fiscal year 2001. Support from the New England Region, Great Lakes 
Region, and Southern Region will be critical in achieving the 
milestones stated in the Quarterly Report on Newark Delay Reduction 
Initiatives. Future funding has not been determined.
    Question. Considering the potential magnitude of any future 
airspace changes and the length of associated environmental reviews, 
what plans does the FAA have to phase in changes that could reduce 
delays at EWR? For example, the fiscal year 2000 appropriation provides 
$1.16 million to install an LDA with glide slope at Newark. What 
progress has been made to date on this project: what is the status of 
the required environmental review; and when will the facility be 
commissioned?
    Answer. Airspace modeling at the William J. Hughes Technical Center 
is scheduled to be completed by the summer of 2000. The modeling 
results will help determine whether the Localizer Type Directional Aid/
Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach/Precision Runway Monitor 
project may proceed separately from the larger airspace redesign 
effort.
    Should it be determined that the LDA/SOIA/PRM can be separated from 
airspace redesign, then a subsequent environmental review will be 
conducted and an implementation schedule will be developed.
    Question. In the fiscal year 2000 Senate Transportation 
Appropriations Report, this committee directed the FAA to continue to 
work with the appropriate local authorities toward the installation of 
a PRM (Precision Runway Monitor) at Newark International Airport. This 
followed the provision of $2 million in fiscal year 1999 for 
preliminary work necessary for the installation of two localizer 
directional aids and a precision runway monitor at Newark. Several 
other airports (Cleveland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles) are 
interested in PRM technology. How does the FAA plan to procure PRM's to 
satisfy these needs? When will they be available for installation? Is 
there a PRM available for installation at Newark?
    Answer. The FAA has not validated a requirement for a federally 
funded PRM system for Cleveland, San Francisco or Los Angeles. However, 
we have been working very closely with the city of San Francisco and 
the Airport Authority to prepare for the installation of a PRM system 
that the city of San Francisco is procuring directly from the 
manufacturer. The FAA is providing engineering and programmatic support 
to assist in the installation of this system.
    The FAA has been working very closely with the New York/New Jersey 
Port Authority on the preliminary work to establish a PRM system at 
Newark. The use of PRM requires new procedures which are complicated 
and must be analyzed for safety and feasibility. Significant procedural 
work and modeling will validate the feasibility of installing a system. 
When validated, the FAA will work with the Port Authority to determine 
the best procurement option.
    Question. Another concept that may hold promise for delay reduction 
at Newark is called Along Track Separation (ATS). It can be applied to 
closely spaced parallel runways and uses existing straight-in 
instrument landing system flight paths, which should minimize 
environmental concerns. The procedure permits the air traffic 
controller to reduce separation behind specific qualifying aircraft 
classes in both visual and poor weather conditions. A PRM and other 
airspace changes may be required to conduct these approaches in poor 
weather, however a good weather application may be possible with 
existing radar equipment, airspace configuration, and controller 
staffing. Since existing flight tracks and instrumentation can be used, 
it may be possible to obtain early delay reduction benefits. What plans 
does FAA have to evaluate ATS in fiscal year 2000? Is funding available 
for this project in fiscal year 2000? What funding is required to 
pursue this initiative in fiscal year 2001 and when can a proof of 
concept evaluation be started.
    Answer. The FAA currently is working on several delay reduction 
initiatives specifically for Newark International Airport and other 
national initiatives with possible application to Newark. We have 
preliminarily determined that an evaluation of the ATS concept would 
require the development of new FAA separation standards. A complete 
analysis would be required to include modeling, simulation, and, 
possibly, an operational demonstration. Typically, this would be a very 
time consuming process. As part of the process, the FAA would evaluate 
the possibility of segmenting certain portions of the ATS analyses so 
that incremental benefits could be derived through a phased 
implementation. The FAA has not evaluated the ATS concept sufficiently 
to warrant a budget request in fiscal year 2001.
    Question. As part of the language and funding associated with 
airspace redesign in the fiscal year 2000 Senate Transportation 
Appropriations Committee Report, FAA was encouraged to take advantage 
of new technologies to better manage traffic and capacity in the NY/NJ 
metropolitan area. The development of Area Navigation (RNAV)/Flight 
Management System (FMS) procedures is a Newark Delay Reduction 
Initiative. Development of RNAV/FMS procedures for Newark has been 
expedited by the use of technical support from MITRE/CAASD. FAA should 
continue to use this resource to develop and test advanced flight 
procedures that reduce controller and pilot workload, increase airspace 
capacity and efficiency and minimize noise impacts. Is adequate funding 
identified and available in the fiscal year 2001 budget request to 
continue this valuable process? What specific level of funding is 
required to support continued procedural development for Newark?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2000, 12 staff months were allocated out of 
the MITRE-CAASD work program to support RNAV/FMS route development at 
Newark. In fiscal year 2000, approximately $370K was allocated for the 
Newark analysis. These resources have been provided through the MITRE-
CAASD F&E and funding of the National Airspace Redesign. Planning for 
the fiscal year 2001 MITRE-CAASD work program is in its initial phases. 
Sustained support for Newark procedures and RNAV development will be 
included as part of the proposal developed by the FAA and MITRE-CAASD. 
It is expected that the same approximate level of staffing will be 
required in fiscal year 2001. Again, the request for this effort is 
approximately $370 K.

          DEPLOYMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN THE NEW YORK AREA

    Question. Emerging technologies, including those associated with 
Free Flight, may permit FAA to improve the safety and efficiency of air 
traffic operations in the New York area, particularly during severe 
weather. Implementation of the Automated Flight Plan Processing--
Departure Spacing Program (DSP) at the New York Air Route Traffic 
Control Center has been delayed repeatedly. The latest Quarterly report 
to Congress on Newark Delay Reduction Initiatives indicated Phase II, 
i.e., full two-way Host interface at New York Center, should be 
operational for the 2000 severe weather season. The fiscal year 2000 
conference agreement provided funding for expansion of the system to 
Teterboro, White Plains, Islip, and the Air Traffic Control Systems 
Command Center. Will the system be operational for the summer of 2000? 
When will the expansion to the new locations be completed? What level 
of funding is required to sustain the system in fiscal year 2001 and is 
this funding identified in the FAA budget request?
    Answer. The Departure Spacing Program (DSP) became operational for 
the Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark, and Philadelphia airports on April 1, 
2000. The tentative date for expanding DSP to include the Teterboro, 
Islip, and White Plains airports is December 15, 2000. The Air Traffic 
Control System Command Center is scheduled to have DSP operational in 
the spring of 2001, prior to the severe weather season. The level of 
funding needed to sustain the system is $7,400,000 and has been 
requested in the FAA's fiscal year 2001 budget request.
    Question. The airlines and other industries make extensive use of 
simulators to improve training and reduce costs. Technology exists to 
provide site specific air traffic control tower simulators. NASA Ames 
has an extremely sophisticated unit, and the City of Chicago tried to 
purchase one for O'Hare. These devices would speed controller training 
and reduce the operational impacts associated with controller on-the-
job-training. Does FAA have a program to procure tower simulators? How 
much would a simulator for the new Newark Tower cost and when could it 
be operational? Does FAA have any plans to acclimate controllers to the 
new perspective in the new tower prior to commissioning of the 
facility? Has FAA done any studies to determine the cost savings 
associated with a tower simulation device?
    Answer. The FAA does not have a program to procure tower simulators 
for individual facilities. FAA operates the Airway Facilities Tower 
Integration Laboratory (AFTIL) at the William J. Hughes Technical 
Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The new Newark Airport Traffic 
Control Tower simulation scenario is in place in the AFTIL lab. Teams 
of Newark controllers have visited the lab. Views and perspectives from 
the new location were observed and assessed. A mock-up of the cab 
interior is planned for the purpose of addressing human factors and 
technical issues and making necessary adjustments to ensure an 
efficient transition to the new facility. In addition, each Newark 
controller will spend a minimum of eight hours in the new tower, prior 
to its commissioning, in order to observe the operation from a new 
vantage point. The intent is to orient and acclimatize the controllers 
to the new perspective in order to ensure a seamless cut-over. FAA has 
not done any studies to determine the cost savings associated with a 
tower simulation device.

          CONTROLLER STAFFING AT NEW YORK AREA ATC FACILITIES

    Question. New York area ATC facilities have been difficult to staff 
in the past. Over the next several years, controllers hired in 1981 
will be eligible to retire. This may result in a serious staffing 
shortage or an influx of new trainees at all facilities, particularly 
New York Center. We understand it typically takes two or more years for 
controllers to become fully certified. What are FAA's projections for 
future retirements at the major New York area terminal and en route 
facilities, including Newark Tower?
    Answer. The Eastern region has a plan to maintain a flow of 
trainees into their facilities in the most efficient manner possible, 
balancing training requirements, operational efficiency, and budget 
constraints. All New York facilities have on-board staffing that 
exceeds staffing standards. We anticipate no problems in maintaining 
adequate levels of staffing in the New York area. Although more 
controllers will become eligible for early retirement beginning in 
2001, experience shows that controllers do not retire when they first 
become eligible.
    Question. Does FAA have a plan to insure an adequate flow of 
trainees to these facilities so ATC system capacity and efficiency is 
not adversely impacted by staffing shortages, training activities, or 
excessive overtime?
    Answer. Yes, the FAA maintains a developmental pipeline of 
controllers. The pipeline is based on historical experience and is 
timed to provide fully trained controllers to backfill for expected 
retirement increases and to provide for growth in aviation activity.
                                 ______
                                 

         Questions Submitted to the Office of Inspector General

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                            LOS ANGELES MTA

    Question. The President's budget request includes a recommendation 
for an appropriation of $50 million to Los Angeles MTA to purchase 
buses consistent with the master's ruling which is currently under 
judicial review. In the course of your Mega-project review or other 
work addressing some of the difficulties experienced by the LA MTA in 
recent years, have you developed an impression of the economic impact 
of the master's ruling on the LA MTA capital investment plan by virtue 
of the required acquisition of buses. In addition, what would be the 
economic and road congestion impacts on LA streets if the thrust of the 
master's ruling to reduce the number of standees on board heavily 
trafficked transit systems became a trend? Would it increase roadway 
congestion? Would it increase operating and/or capital costs for 
impacted transit properties? The Committee's information is that the 
trend in urban transit systems is toward perimeter seating 
configurations and more standees as opposed to the direction that the 
master's ruling seems to advocate. Is the Committee's information 
accurate?
    Answer. Yes we have. The Office of Inspector General estimates that 
the capital cost to purchase the buses in the master's ruling could be 
as much as $187.6 million above the current LA MTA budget for its bus 
program. LA MTA projects that the cost to operate the additional buses 
will run about $21 million per year. LA MTA will have to reallocate 
funds from its other programs to purchase and operate these buses. LA 
MTA does not at present have a plan showing how it will fund the 
additional capital and operating costs.

                           OIG REIMBURSEMENTS

    Question. Please prepare a table summarizing all proposed fiscal 
year 2001 reimbursements to the Office of Inspector general from other 
DOT modes, and what level of reimbursements were provided from other 
modes in fiscal year 2000.
    Answer.

                 OIG REIMBURSEMENTS FROM OTHER DOT MODES
                          [Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal year
                 DOT mode                  -----------------------------
                                             2000 Actual   2001 Proposed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA......................................         $2             $3.524
FTA.......................................          1.5            1
                                           -----------------------------
       Total Reimbursements...............          3.5            4.524
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE

    Question. The most current estimate being used by the FHWA for the 
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project was developed in 1995, and the OIG 
identified $227 million in net increases to that number. According to 
FHWA, a new, more accurate estimate for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge 
Project was to be prepared by the end of 1999. What is the status of 
the estimate and how accurate is the estimate going to be?
    Answer. FHWA expects to have the updated cost estimate by early May 
2000. The Maryland State Highway Administration, Virginia Department of 
Transportation, and the District of Columbia's Department of 
Transportation have been working with their general engineering 
consultant to develop an updated estimate for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge 
since the project completed 30 percent design plans late last year. The 
states are merging the most current designs with the construction bid 
data to provide a current cost estimate for the project. The states are 
currently performing value engineering and constructability reviews to 
try to keep the cost within the $1.9 billion budget.

                            ALAMEDA CORRIDOR

    Question. The most expensive and complex segment of the Alameda 
Corridor-Megaproject is being constructed using a design/build 
contract. What benefits, if any, have been derived from the use of this 
method?
    Answer. The anticipated benefits of design/build contracting are: 
(1) allowing the project to begin sooner due to combining design and 
construction, (2) streamlining and expediting the contract award 
process, (3) awarding the contract based on ``best value,'' (4) 
transferring risks of cost growth to the contractor, and (5) 
accelerating project completion. We have not evaluated the benefits of 
design/build and therefore cannot address whether or not they are being 
achieved.
    According to the Program Manager with the Alameda Corridor 
Transportation Authority using design/build for the Mid-Corridor 
segment benefited the project in several ways. These are: (1) 
maintaining the original schedule, (2) transferring risks to the 
contractor for differing site conditions and environmental conditions 
encountered during construction, (3) improving coordination efforts 
with municipalities and utilities during construction, and (4) managing 
traffic during construction. As of March 2000, the Mid-Corridor segment 
is 27 percent complete.

                             INTERSTATE 15

    Question. The IG has previously reviewed the Interstate 15 (I-15) 
Reconstruction Project in Utah. What are the objectives of any follow-
up audit work planned?
    Answer. The objectives of our current follow-up review of the I-15 
Reconstruction Project are to: (1) update and evaluate the status of 
the project's costs, funding, and schedule since our previous report 
issued November 24, 1998; (2) identify any risks or emerging issues 
that could affect the completion of the project; and (3) follow up on 
the implementation of the recommendation contained in our previous 
report. (Our 1998 report recommended that FHWA require the Utah 
Department of Transportation to keep its finance plan current and to 
identify how it intends to resolve the funding shortfalls noted in the 
report.) We are nearing completion of our current review of the 
project. Our preliminary results indicate that project cost estimates 
remain at $1.6 billion; that funding is sufficient to cover these 
costs; and that the project is expected to be completed in July 2001, 7 
months prior to the opening of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake 
City.

                              MEGAPROJECT

    Question. Are there lessons learned from previously problematic 
``Megaprojects'' that the Department should apply to the oversight of 
other projects to avoid the same pitfalls?
    Answer. Specific lessons that we have learned are that:
    1. The Federal Transit Administration's full funding grant 
agreements have effectively limited the Federal Government's financial 
risks and promoted accountability. These grant agreements set the 
maximum amount of discretionary capital investment funds that can be 
used for transit projects. By contrast, Federal Highway Administration 
projects have no comparable limitations.
    2. Finance plans are essential tools for identifying project costs 
and funding needs. However, better criteria are needed to ensure 
finance plans are complete, reliable, and consistent.
    3. DOT needs to provide effective independent oversight of major 
projects to minimize funding risk.
    4. Owner-controlled insurance programs should be considered on very 
large projects and used when they reduce program costs. However, DOT 
needs to ensure that Federal reimbursement for these programs is 
limited to the amounts actually needed to purchase insurance coverage 
or pay incurred claims.
    5. Value engineering is a good tool for controlling cost and should 
be used on all major capital projects.

                  COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE PROGRAM

    Question. Has the OIG conducted any reviews of the Commercial 
Driver's License Program? If so, what are the findings and 
recommendations from the reviews conducted? What future work, if any, 
is planned?
    Answer. Yes, we have an ongoing audit on Disqualifying Commercial 
Drivers. Overall, we found that Federal oversight of the Commercial 
Driver's License (CDL) Program has not been adequate to reasonably 
ensure that states properly disqualify commercial drivers. This 
situation occurred because the Federal oversight reviews were not 
comprehensive and did not include operational tests of the state 
systems to ensure compliance. We found significant deficiencies in the 
state systems for untimely, incomplete, and inconsistent reporting of 
traffic convictions, inaccurate recording of convictions, and not 
properly disqualifying commercial drivers.
    We plan to recommend that the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration improve its oversight reviews conducted at the states 
and make use of centralized monitoring through the Commercial Drivers 
License Information System.
    Future audit work involving CDLs will focus on the processes for 
testing commercial drivers and issuing licenses, medical qualification 
requirements for commercial drivers, and training requirements for 
commercial drivers.
    In addition, we have conducted criminal investigations related to 
state issuance of CDLs, such as Operation Safe Road. This joint Federal 
and state task force found that corrupt officials had accepted bribes 
to issue CDLs. To date, 30 individuals have been charged criminally; 22 
of these have either pleaded guilty or been sentenced. The 
investigation identified in excess of 1,000 truck drivers who may have 
illegally obtained their licenses in Illinois. Of these, at least 175 
are now licensed in others states. The Secretary of State notified all 
50 states of the potential problem truckers. The investigation is 
continuing in its effort to uncover additional violations.

                    MEXICO-DOMICILED MOTOR CARRIERS

    Question. What actions has the FMCSA taken as a result of the 1999 
OIG report on Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers?
    Answer. FMCSA agreed corrective actions were needed. In addition, 
the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 provided them with 
greater authority to take enforcement actions against carriers found to 
be operating beyond their authorized geographical areas. This new 
authority will be helpful to the FMCSA in implementing the 
recommendations. According to FMCSA's written response to our 
recommendations, it is:
  --Drafting regulations revising the registration process for foreign 
        motor carriers to include additional safety-related questions 
        and certifications of compliance.
  --Developing reports that will be generated monthly, using data from 
        the Motor Carrier Management Information System, to identify 
        Mexican motor carriers operating outside their commercial 
        zones.
  --Developing implementation procedures for new enforcement provisions 
        contained in the new safety law, which imposes substantial 
        penalties and includes suspension and revocation of operating 
        authority.
  --Issuing policy guidance that addresses relevant registration and 
        insurance provisions to be enforced by the states at roadside 
        inspections. Also, requiring the states to describe enforcement 
        activities for registration and insurance provision in their 
        Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan when requesting Motor Carrier 
        Safety Assistance Program grant funds.
  --Drafting consistent policies and procedures for the newly 
        established North American Borders Safety Border Program 
        Division in FMCSA.
    When the above actions are completed and fully implemented, the 
intent of our audit recommendations should be satisfied.

                            FINANCIAL PLANS

    Question. Over the last several years the OIG has reviewed a number 
of financial plans for transportation Megaprojects. Please comment on 
the usefulness of these plans for reporting on the financial status of 
projects?
    Answer. We found the quality and completeness of finance plans for 
highway and transit capital projects to be highly variable. Some 
finance plans accurately reported costs and identified funding 
shortfalls. Others needed to be more thorough in disclosing problems 
and presenting information in a consistent manner over time. For 
example, the 1999 Finance Plan for the Bay Area Rapid Transit District 
includes construction costs for the new segment; including a 10-year 
forecast that identifies underlying revenue and expense assumptions.
    By contrast, in 1998, we reported that the Los Angeles Metropolitan 
Transit Authority did not have an updated, comprehensive finance plan 
but separate capital and operating budgets. At the time of our audit, 
these budgets reflected a $495 million capital funding shortfall and a 
$643 million operating shortfall.
    Similarly, in our most recent report on the Central Artery/Ted 
Williams Tunnel Project we also found significant, fundamental problems 
with its finance plan. The reporting methodology was changed so that 
the reviewer could only see the cost to complete, not the total project 
cost. The plan did not report specific cost, funding, and schedule 
indicators, such as ``budgeted cost of work performed,'' ``actual cost 
of work performed,'' ``contract awards versus budget,'' ``total 
projected cost by type of cost,'' and ``annual funding requirements by 
source.''
    Finance plans are essential tools for identifying project costs and 
funding needs. However, better criteria are needed to ensure finance 
plans are complete, reliable, and consistent. Neither FTA nor FHWA have 
adequate guidance for grant recipients to prepare finance plans. 
Finance plans describe how projects will be implemented over time. They 
identify project costs and timing, and the financial resources needed 
to pay for those costs. At a minimum, finance plans should:
  --Include the assumptions underlying both cost and revenue estimates;
  --Report actual versus budgeted amounts for contract award costs, the 
        cost of work performed, and revenue;
  --Clearly describe cost trends (e.g., contract change orders and 
        contract awards) and the potential impact of those trends on 
        project costs;
  --Identify measures being taken to monitor and control costs;
  --Identify sources of funding that can be used if costs rise or other 
        anticipated funding is not received;
  --Identify significant changes to the scope of projects, and the 
        effect of these changes on the cost and capacity of the 
        project; and
  --Identify the grantee's plan for financing existing operations 
        during construction of new or extended segments, as well as its 
        plans for financing all operations, both new and existing, once 
        construction is complete.

                   OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM

    Question. A recent report on the Owner Controlled Insurance Program 
(OCIP) for the Central Artery project recommended that the overpayments 
of insurance premiums should be recovered and reallocated. What is the 
status of the OCIP and the issue of the overpayments?
    Answer. On September 13, 1999, FHWA agreed to require the Central 
Artery to use past overpayments to pay the premiums for policy years 
1999/2000 and 2000/2001. We also agreed to allow credit for any ``past 
use'' of overpayments to pay premiums between the end of our audit and 
the date of the agreement. FHWA also agreed to issue guidance to ensure 
insurance reserves for owner-controlled insurance programs do not 
exceed allowable amounts, and that any premium adjustments are 
immediately used for other approved costs or returned to the Federal 
government.
    Information provided by the Central Artery's insurance broker on 
April 4, 2000, indicates the Central Artery has used excess reserves to 
make scheduled payments of $12.3 million on August 1, 1999; $13.2 
million on December 1, 1999; and $13.2 million on February 1, 2000. The 
state also is claiming ``past use'' credit for an $8.5 million 
reduction in the project's 1997/1998 premium; a payment of $7.2 million 
made with funds from the trust on August 1, 1998; and a payment of 
$13.5 million on December 1, 1998. The state's total claimed use of 
past overpayments is $67.8 million. FHWA and OIG are currently 
reviewing the supporting documentation regarding the above use of past 
overpayments.
    FHWA has not yet issued a policy to limit Federal contributions to 
insurance reserves to the amount needed to pay incurred claims. The 
policy is still needed to ensure this and other highway construction 
projects do not attempt to use OCIPs as a means of drawing down Federal 
funds for investment purposes. FHWA's current target date for issuing 
the policy is July 31, 2000.

                       AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR

    Question. Please describe, from your review of the installation of 
uninterruptible power systems (UPS) work on the Airport Surveillance 
Radar (ASR), whether a 480v design was a necessary requirement of a 
solution for the ASR-9 support. The committee's understanding is that 
the 480v design required a larger engine/generator to support the 
selected UPS-but that the ASR-9 solution could have been accomplished 
with a 240v system (and either the existing generator or a replacement 
generator) for substantially less cost. Is the Committee's 
understanding correct? Please discuss why the Office of Inspector 
General believes the 480v design was selected.
    Answer. FAA considered remaining with a 208v system [referred above 
as 240v] as well as higher voltage systems to address the power-related 
problems with the ASR-9. Specifically, FAA evaluated three alternative 
designs: (1) a 208v UPS installation, at an estimated cost of $130,000 
per site; (2) a 208v system upgrade (UPS, generator, wiring, circuits, 
etc.), at an estimated cost of $310,000 per site; and (3) a 480v system 
installation, at an estimated cost of $320,000 per site. FAA officials 
stated that their decision to utilize the 480v design was based on 
several factors including the better electrical noise reduction 
provided by a higher voltage design and the minimum disruption to radar 
service required for installation--two 4-hour shutdowns for the 480v 
design compared to 7-10 days for the 208v upgrade. The 208v 
installation would have been less costly, but would not have addressed 
all of the problems with the ASR-9 power system, such as the 
instability and capacity of the generator, poor circuit breaker 
coordination and transmitter circuits, and random electrical noise on 
the power conductors.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Shelby. We will convene again next Tuesday, April 
4, at 10 a.m. here in this room, Dirksen 192, to hold an 
oversight hearing on implementing the Drivers Privacy 
Protection Act positive notification requirement, which was 
part of the 2000 transportation appropriations bill.
    Gentlemen, thank you both. The hearing is recessed.
    [Whereupon, at 2:32 p.m., Tuesday, March 28, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2001

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2000

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Shelby and Bennett.

   IMPLEMENTING THE DRIVER'S PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT EXPRESS CONSENT 
                              REQUIREMENT

                       NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

    Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
    As we enter the 21st Century, we live at a time when the 
influence of technology in our lives has never been greater. 
The advent of personal computers, the Internet, silicon chips, 
ATM's, and cellular phones have changed almost every aspect of 
the way we live and have greatly enhanced the quality of our 
lives.
    The introduction of these new technologies has transformed 
our society and economy with breakneck speed. In little more 
than the blink of an eye we moved from the Industrial Age to 
the Digital Age. While the changes bring forth great economic 
promise and personal convenience, they also present difficult 
challenges.
    One of the most important of these challenges is 
establishing ground rules that preserve the privacy rights of 
individuals, while providing an atmosphere in which society can 
take advantage of the advances in information technology.
    Because recent technological innovations have the 
capability to compile, organize, store, and transmit data 
captured from all walks of life, I believe we must pay close 
attention to the manner in which personal information is 
handled in the Digital Age.
    Clearly, it would not be an understatement to say that the 
new technology economy has a voracious appetite for 
information. Information itself may now be the most valuable 
commodity in our economy.
    Furthermore, personal information is rapidly becoming the 
most valuable kind of information. The considerable demand for 
this type of information compels businesses to become much more 
aggressive in acquiring information to try to better understand 
anything and everything about consumers.
    Medical, credit card, banking, phone records, as well as 
personal information collected under force of law by 
government--records covering just about every activity in our 
lives--are being gathered, stored, shared, and sold.
    Even as we enjoy the benefits brought about by the surge of 
new technologies, most of us are developing an eerie uneasiness 
that government and industry are collecting so much personal 
information, that our privacy is at risk, and occasionally, we 
get a tangible glimpse of just how vulnerable our private lives 
are.
    Trans Union, which is one of the three largest credit 
reporting agencies, was selling the bank activity, mortgages, 
car loans, and credit card histories of 160 million Americans 
to direct marketers until the Federal Trade Commission ordered 
it to stop last month.
    DoubleClick, Inc., a leading Internet advertising company, 
was forced to delay linking web cookies or histories to 
individual accounts after a public outcry against the practice. 
The company's massive database that was put on the shelf, would 
have merged the names, addresses and other personal information 
of Internet users to a log of web sites each individual had 
visited and the purchases each had made online.
    In any event, I believe that it should be left to the 
individual to choose when and how to participate in a 
marketplace that has become obsessed with learning his or her 
personal facts. All of us already make decisions everyday 
regarding the scope and level of that participation.
    For instance, you may join a grocery store membership club 
that allows access to special discounts, and you should expect 
your purchasing habits to undergo a data sweep. You may choose, 
however, not to enter a particular web site for fear that your 
information would not be secure at that web site, and later 
choose to take advantage of the convenience of purchasing from 
a catalog sent to your home.
    Just as we have found that some consumers are price-
sensitive and others are time-sensitive in airline tickets 
purchasing, I believe that in our new economy, some consumers 
will be privacy-sensitive, and successful businesses will 
embrace this by providing consumers with greater control over 
their personal information they use or place in the commercial 
marketplace.
    So, an individual, at his or her discretion, may supply 
information to private industry. I was shocked, however, when I 
learned that much of what enters private databases is gathered 
from government records.
    Individuals are forced to provide their names, addresses, 
social security numbers, and vital statistics to the state when 
they apply for a driver's license, and additionally provide the 
make, model, and the unique number of their automobile when 
they apply to register their vehicle. This personal 
information, some of which is rather sensitive, is not 
volunteered, as it is in private transactions.
    It is compelled by the state as a condition of granting the 
license and enforced with criminal sanctions. While it is 
obviously necessary for state governments to collect such 
information for its own use, I believe it is insidious that 
state governments use the power of law to extract information 
from you while never intending to keep that information 
confidential or to seek your consent before sharing that 
information with others.
    I became interested in the sale of state government records 
after reading in several Washington Post articles that South 
Carolina had sold the photographs of its drivers to a business 
in New Hampshire, purely for making a profit. In this case, the 
business was in the process of building a national database of 
drivers' license photographs and personal information to allow 
retail clerks to verify consumers identities.
    It is a laudable goal to protect consumers from identity 
theft, a growing crime, whereby fraud artists steal personal 
information from their victims to set up phony bank and credit 
card accounts and run up huge bills.
    I am gravely concerned, however, about using drivers' 
license photographs coerced from citizens and used without 
authorization for any non-official purpose. Public outrage 
forced South Carolina, Florida, and Colorado to cancel the 
proposed bulk sale of drivers' photographs.
    I believe that outrage is a very reliable indicator of the 
public's desire to not have their personal information 
distributed without their own permission.
    Sadly, this particular incident is just the tip of the 
iceberg. Whereas this was the first instance in which states 
had begun selling images wholesale, for decades they have been 
routinely selling sensitive personal information from public 
records. The technology of the Digital Age has rendered public 
record law as obsolete as the transistor.
    No longer are public records maintained in file boxes or 
microfiche drawers in isolation from one another at government 
repositories with limited access. Instead, states store public 
records in electronic formats and use sophisticated databases 
that merge and index all of an individual's information from 
numerous public records.
    Some states are even discussing making certain records 
available on the Internet. The personal information required 
from individuals by law has become too accessible and 
potentially too vulnerable to computer pirates.
    Unrelated secondary uses of personal information without 
the knowledge of the general public--and often without prior 
approval--is troubling to a lot of us. Selling personal 
information for inspection by anyone does not promote 
accountability for government or increase the efficiency of its 
service to the citizens of that particular state.
    I believe, rather, that it is a violation of the public 
trust for the government to compel citizens to reveal their 
private information and then sell it to outsiders for profit. 
It undermines public confidence in government and encourages 
people to withdraw from the marketplace and society.
    I think that the government should either have express 
consent prior to making a sale or keep personal information 
confidential, absent a compelling need to disclose it.
    Sales of personal information to commercial enterprises, 
solicitors and direct marketers may raise money for state 
governments, but they do not meet a compelling need standard. 
In fact, I believe these profits amount to an unauthorized tax 
on the privacy of the American people. Rather than taking our 
money, the government has appropriated something arguably much 
more precious--a piece of our lives.
    In an effort to stop unauthorized sales of personal 
information by state governments, I included a general 
provision in the 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill that 
does two things; first, it ties federal transportation funding 
to compliance with the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994. 
And second, it requires states to obtain the express consent 
prior to release of information in two situations.
    First, individuals must give their consent before a state 
is able to release a category of information. This category is 
particularly sensitive information, including photographs, 
social security numbers, and medial or disability information.
    Second, individuals must grant their consent before the 
state can sell or release other personal information when it is 
used for the purpose of direct marketing, solicitations or 
individual look-up.
    These provisions have ended an unusually loathsome 
practice--an ever dangerous practice, if the information lands 
in the hands of thugs, thieves and stalkers--and promises 
greater protection for the privacy of the American people.
    Recently, in Reno versus Condon, a South Carolina case, the 
Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality 
of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. I believe, as do all 
nine members of the Supreme Court in an unaccustomed unanimous 
ruling, that the sale of personal information collected by 
state governments is clearly within the purview of Congress to 
regulate in the national interest.
    Unfortunately, in our fervor to transform the economy, we 
have not established rules to protect ourselves or our privacy. 
By pursuing the unbridled exchange of information, we have 
proceeded headlong into the modern equivalent of the 
unregulated Wild, Wild West, and there is no sheriff in Dodge.
    We are at the point where strangers, from telemarketers to 
government bureaucrats, obtain personal information about us 
and our children that we would not discuss at the dinner table, 
much less with a neighbor, and trade on it for profit.
    I am not sure this is the direction we want this new 
frontier to go. I do not believe that anyone, either in the 
marketplace or the government, has an unfettered right to the 
personal information of Americans. That is why I was inspired 
to draft the provision of last year's appropriations act.
    I am a firm believer in free markets and the benefits of 
the new technology economy. We live in the most prosperous 
society on earth because of willingness to embrace free markets 
and to adopt new technologies to our goals.
    However, as we move forward and technology plays an even 
greater role in our lives, it is essential that technology 
serves us, rather than us serving it. To fully reap the promise 
of technology in the Digital Age, it is more important than 
ever for us to establish a framework that respects and protects 
individual freedom and preserves the ability of individuals to 
make their own choices.
    The American people, as individuals, not state governments 
or financial service corporations or Internet service 
providers, should have the power to decide for themselves when 
and how they want to participate in the economy.
    It boils down to this: We have doors on our homes so that 
outsiders who seek entry must knock and ask our permission to 
enter. When we want people to come in, we invite them. When we 
do not want them in, they are not permitted to enter.
    Doors provide us with the means to control our interactions 
with other people. American citizens should have the power to 
put doors on all aspects of their private lives and to expect 
that anyone who wants to enter must seek and gain consent.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT BENNETT

    Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
your--your comments. And I commend you for holding this hearing 
and focusing on this issue, because this is an issue that comes 
up again and again and again.
    I first entered it about 4 years ago, when quite 
innocently, I tried to draft a bill dealing with the privacy of 
medical records. And I thought this was going to be a very 
simple sort of thing. We wanted to make sure that everybody's 
medical records were held confidential. And we had plenty of 
horror stories of people who had been victimized by people--
other people getting hold of their medical information.
    Four years later, I have discovered that it is not a simple 
issue at all. And as you have appropriately and correctly 
pointed out in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, we have 
the challenge of balancing the advantages of the technological 
age with the very appropriate American desire to keep 
everything confidential.
    If I may use an analogy from my odyssey through the 
difficulty of medical privacy, from a treatment point-of-view, 
it is now possible for an individual to carry a--not only a 
card, a tiny chip embedded in a card, in which his entire 
medical history is available, so that if the individual is in 
an accident, the paramedic can take that card out of his 
wallet, put it in computer, and have all of his allergies, all 
of the ``reactions to'' information, everything in front of 
him, immediately available. And that is wonderful.
    And the flip side of it is that someone can get a hold of 
the medical records, say, an--a prospective employer, look 
through all of those records and say, ``I do not want to hire 
this person, because he or she might add to the cost of my 
insurance policy, because, look, here is a--here is a disease 
that occurred 20 years ago. And having somebody of that kind in 
my insurance pool might raise my rates. And I am not even going 
to interview him.''
    Now, the same thing applies all across the board. There are 
enormous advantages that can come from having information 
available. You can be saved money, you can be saved time and 
effort by having information about your buying habits available 
to the marketers, because they will not market things to you if 
it becomes clear from your buying pattern that you do not buy 
those things.
    The flip side of it is, you get invasion of your privacy in 
areas that you might not want.
    So, the challenge is finding a balance between the very 
appropriate desire of all Americans for privacy and the desire 
of Americans to say, ``Gee, if there are advantages that will 
save me time and money by having some of this information out, 
I would like those, too.''
    Striking that balance is a very difficult challenge. And I 
am hoping in the hearing today that we can get information from 
these witnesses that will help us strike that balance.
    So, I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your past interest in 
this subject. You have been one of the leaders on this and 
helped us--helped us move forward.
    I would ask that written testimony, after the hearing, 
might be also made available, because I think people who read 
these hearings are going to have reactions that could be useful 
to us.
    So, I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the record be kept open 
for a time after the hearing for additional written comments, 
if they might come in.
    Senator Shelby. Without objection, it will so be made.
    Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Our first panel today will be--and you all 
can come on up--is Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum; Mr. Ed 
Mierzwinski, Public Citizen; Ms. Susan Herman, National Center 
for Victims of Crime; and Greg Nojeim, American Civil Liberties 
Union.
    I want to welcome all of you to the Appropriations 
Oversight hearing today. Your written testimony will be made 
part of the record in its entirety.
    I will start with you, Ms. Schlafly. You proceed as you 
wish. Welcome, again.
STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY, PRESIDENT, EAGLE FORUM
    Ms. Schlafly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
hearing, and Senators. We appreciate your interest in this 
subject.
    I am Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum.
    The Fourth Amendment is one of our precious constitutional 
rights: ``The right of the people to be secure in their 
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable 
searches and seizures, shall not be violated.''
    For various specific purposes, the government requires us 
to disclose information about our persons, houses, papers and 
effects. But the government's use of that information should be 
restricted to the purpose for which it was constitutionally 
demanded and received. The government should not be able to act 
as though it owned that information, or to sell it or display 
it or traffic with it without our consent.
    Some years ago, the telephone companies asserted a 
copyright or property right in the telephone book, with its 
listings of our names, addresses and telephone numbers. The 
Supreme Court unanimously ruled, in Feist versus Rural 
Telephone Service (1991) that copyright protection is granted 
only to authors who create new works, not to corporations that 
merely collect data. So, the phone companies do not own their 
listings of names and phone numbers just because they spent 
money collecting them.
    Likewise, the government does not own its listings of our 
name, address, phone number, social security number, 
photograph, or other personal information just because we are 
required to provide them for specific purposes.
    For the government to behave as though it owns that 
information, or to sell it to others, is not only a 
misappropriation of rights that belong to the individual, it is 
an action that tends to destroy public confidence in government 
and its trustworthiness.
    For example, we are required to give a great deal of 
personal information to the Internal Revenue Service, but we 
would be outraged if we discovered that the IRS were 
transferring that information to other agencies or selling it. 
Likewise, for the information we give to the Social Security 
Administration.
    When we apply for a driver's license, we give our identity 
information, along with a photograph and medical information, 
to our state's motor vehicle bureau, in order to be granted the 
privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public streets. 
We do not give that information for any other purpose.
    We have been shocked to discover that some states have been 
selling that information for commercial use or otherwise making 
it available to the public. That was not why we gave the state 
that information.
    We were particularly dismayed to discover that the U.S. 
Secret Service gave a grant to a New Hampshire business to buy 
state drivers' license information, including photos, which was 
then marketed to private companies.
    The discovery that states have been engaging in these 
practices, makes us feel used and betrayed. We feel the state 
has appropriated our identity without our consent. Worse still, 
this contributes to a growing perception that we cannot trust 
our government.
    The Driver's Privacy Protection Act, passed in 1994, 
forbade states from making such information available without 
providing individuals the option of having their information 
protected. In other words, the individual had to affirmatively 
opt-out of the system in order to keep their information from 
being sold. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld this law last 
year in Condon versus Reno.
    Last year, due to the vigilance of Senator Richard Shelby, 
this law was strengthened by a provision in the Transportation 
Appropriations bill to change ``opt-out'' to ``opt-in.'' This 
means that motor vehicle bureaus must seek each driver's 
written consent before selling photos and personal information 
about individuals who apply for driver's licenses.
    This change is very welcome. It not only corrects an 
injustice, but it helps to reassure citizens that the 
government is not cheating on us behind our backs.
    We should be particularly solicitous about government's use 
of driver's licenses, because it appears that driver's licenses 
have become an extraordinary temptation to various special 
interests who see them as a means to achieve other objectives. 
At the federal level, some people want to convert driver's 
licenses into federal ID cards; something that is intolerable 
in a free society.
    The 1996 Immigration Act mandated that state drivers' 
licenses contain machine-readable social security numbers as 
the unique numeric identifier, thereby enabling the federal 
government to use the driver's license as a federal ID card. 
After public protest, this requirement was repealed in 1999.
    Driver's License Protection is not a standalone issue. It 
comes in the context of the growing issue of privacy and what 
many see as an orchestrated invasion of our privacy by the 
government in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as well as by 
legitimate commercial interests and by fraud and theft. What 
makes these invasions so easy is the ability of computers to 
store massive quantities of personal information on databases 
and access that information in sophisticated ways.
    For example, yesterday's New York Times carries a large 
front-page news article relating that ``Law enforcement 
authorities are becoming increasingly worried about a sudden 
sharp rise in identity theft, the pilfering of people's 
personal information.''
    And William Safire's column, of the same date, calls 
attention to two notorious examples of the release of personal 
privacy information by the White House and the Pentagon.
    It is bad enough when private interests invade our privacy, 
but it is positively offensive when the government does this.
    That is why Census 2000 has stirred up a firestorm. 
Americans have become increasingly fearful of giving the 
government so much personal information that can be so 
efficiently and rapidly retrieved from computers. Databases 
give the government extraordinary powers to monitor the daily 
activities of law-abiding citizens.
    Now, I have, in my testimony, a lot of examples of how the 
government is gathering all of this personal information and 
how much public outcry it has caused. And all of this 
government monitoring is allegedly for the purpose of locating 
terrorists and money launderers and drug kingpins and Medicare 
and Welfare cheats, but the reach of the monitoring goes far 
beyond what is necessary to achieve its purported objectives. 
Only totalitarian regimes monitor the private actions of law-
abiding citizens.
    We should prohibit the government from building databases 
of personal information on American citizens that is none of 
the government's business. And when the information is the 
government's business, the information should be allowed to be 
used only for the purpose for which we give it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Ms. Schlafly.
    [The statement follows:]

                 PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY

    The Fourth Amendment is one of our precious constitutional rights: 
``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, 
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall 
not be violated.''
    For various specific purposes, the government requires us to 
disclose information about our persons, houses, papers and effects. But 
the government's use of that information should be restricted to the 
purpose for which it was constitutionally demanded and received. The 
government should not be able to act as though it owned that 
information, or to sell it or display it or traffic with it without our 
consent.
    Some years ago, the telephone companies asserted a copyright, or 
property right, in the telephone book with its listings of our names, 
addresses and telephone numbers. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 
Feist v. Rural Telephone Service (1991) that copyright protection is 
granted only to authors who create new works, not to corporations that 
merely collect data, so the phone companies do not own their listings 
of names and phone numbers just because they spent money collecting 
them.
    Likewise, the government does not own its listings of our name, 
address, phone number, Social Security number, photograph or other 
personal information just because we are required to provide them for 
specific purposes. For the government to behave as though it owns that 
information, or to sell it to others, is not only a misappropriation of 
rights that belong to the individual, it is an action that tends to 
destroy public confidence in government and its trustworthiness.
    For example, we are required to give a great deal of personal 
information to the Internal Revenue Service, but we would be outraged 
if we discovered that the IRS were transferring that information to 
other agencies or selling it. Likewise for the information we give to 
the Social Security Administration.
    When we apply for a driver's license, we give our identity 
information along with a photograph and some medical information to our 
state's motor vehicle bureau in order to be granted the privilege of 
operating a motor vehicle on the public streets. We don't give that 
information for any other purpose.
    We have been shocked to discover that some states have been selling 
that information for commercial use or otherwise making it available to 
the public. That wasn't why we gave the state that information.
    We were particularly dismayed to discover that the U.S. Secret 
Service gave a grant to a New Hampshire business to buy state driver's 
license information, including photos, which was then marketed to 
private companies.
    The discovery that states have been engaging in these practices 
makes us feel used and betrayed. We feel the state has appropriated our 
identity without our consent. Worse still, this contributes to a 
growing perception that we cannot trust our government.
    The Driver's Privacy Protection Act, passed in 1994, forbade states 
from making such information available without providing individuals 
the option of having their information protected. In other words, 
individuals had to affirmatively ``opt-out'' of the system in order to 
keep their information from being sold. The Supreme Court unanimously 
upheld this law last year in Condon v. Reno.
    Last year, due to the vigilance of Senator Richard Shelby, this law 
was strengthened by a provision in the Transportation Appropriations 
bill to change ``opt-out'' to ``opt-in.'' This means that motor vehicle 
bureaus must seek each drivers' written consent before selling photos 
and personal information about individuals who apply for driver's 
licenses.
    This change is very welcome. It not only corrects an injustice but 
it helps to reassure citizens that the government is not cheating on us 
behind our backs.
    We should be particularly solicitous about government's use of 
driver's licenses because it appears that driver's licenses have become 
an extraordinary temptation to various special interests who see them 
as a means to achieve other objectives. At the federal level, some 
people want to convert driver's licenses into federal I.D. cards, 
something that is intolerable in a free society.
    The 1996 Immigration Act mandated that state driver's licenses 
contain machine-readable Social Security numbers as the unique numeric 
identifier, thereby enabling the federal government to use driver's 
licenses as a federal I.D. card. After public protest, this requirement 
was repealed in 1999.
    Driver's License Protection is not a stand-alone issue. It comes in 
the context of the growing issue of privacy and what many see as an 
orchestrated invasion of our privacy by the government in violation of 
the Fourth Amendment, as well as by legitimate commercial interests and 
by fraud and theft. What makes these invasions so easy is the ability 
of computers to store massive quantities of personal information on 
databases and access that information in sophisticated ways.
    For example, yesterday's New York Times (4-3-00) carries a large 
front-page news article relating that ``Law enforcement authorities are 
becoming increasingly worried about a sudden, sharp rise in identify 
theft, the pilfering of people's personal information . . .'' William 
Safire's column of the same date calls attention to two notorious 
examples of the release of personal privacy information by the White 
House and the Pentagon. It's bad enough when private interests invade 
our privacy, but it's positively offensive when the government does 
this.
    This is why Census 2000 has stirred up a firestorm. Americans have 
become increasingly fearful of giving the government so much personal 
information that can be so efficiently and rapidly retrieved from 
computers. Databases give the government extraordinary powers to 
monitor the daily activities of law-abiding Americans.
    The 1996 Welfare Reform Act requires all employers to send the 
name, address and Social Security number of every new worker, and every 
employee who is promoted, to a new government database called the 
Directory of New Hires. We were told that this was just to locate 
Deadbeat Dads, but now we find that another law passed last year allows 
this database to be shared with the Department of Education. Another 
problem with the New Hires Directory is that small banks and credit 
unions, which can't afford the technology or manpower to search their 
customer databases every three months for ``matches'' against state-
provided lists of deadbeat dads, are just handing over to the 
government all confidential information on all their customers and 
letting the government conduct its own search for ``matches.''
    We in Eagle Forum have long been concerned about the aggressiveness 
of public schools in requiring children to fill out nosy questionnaires 
revealing all sorts of non-academic information about attitudes, 
behavior, health and family privacy. It was offensive enough when all 
this personal information went into manila file folders, but now it is 
entered on easily accessible databases where it can be shared with 
other databases.
    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) tried to impose a 
regulation called Know Your Customer--a plan to require banks to make a 
computer profile of all their customers' deposits and withdrawals and 
report ``inconsistent'' transactions to a federal database in Detroit 
called the Suspicious Activity Reporting System. After the comment 
period produced more than 250,000 negative and only 3,000 positive 
comments, the FDIC backed down and abandoned its plan temporarily.
    However, during congressional consideration of the big Financial 
Modernization bill last year, we discovered that many banks are already 
making customer profiles and selling them to telemarketers. We are 
disappointed that the banking lobby successfully blocked Senator 
Richard Shelby's amendment that would have required banks to get the 
prior consent of customers before selling private financial 
information.
    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has mandated that all 
wireless providers by 2001 be able to pinpoint the location of wireless 
phone calls. Cell phones are becoming homing devices for the government 
to track our whereabouts.
    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a regulation 
that would effectively give the government unlimited access to 
everyone's personal travel records. The FAA gave $3.1 million to 
Northwest Airlines to create software for a database of personal travel 
records, plus $7.8 million to other airlines to assist in deploying it.
    The 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum Act authorized the Department of Health 
and Human Services (HHS) to assign a ``unique health care identifier'' 
to every American so the government can enter and track individual 
medical records on a government database. Public reaction was so 
adverse that Congress put a moratorium on implementation.
    The 1993 Comprehensive Childhood Immunization Act gave the 
Department of Health and Human Services $400 million to induce states 
to create databases of all children's vaccinations. The Centers for 
Disease Control (CDC) is trying to link these state databases into a 
federal database, and this will ultimately enable the government to 
deny admission to daycare, kindergarten, school or college, or even 
access to medical care for any child who has not had all government-
mandated shots.
    Another plan to collect private information on a government 
database involves sending ``home visitors'' into the homes of all 
first-time parents in the project called Healthy Families America. 
Information is entered on a nationwide computerized tracking system 
called the Program Information Management System that can eventually be 
combined with preschool and public school tracking systems.
    HHS is recruiting senior citizens to spy on their own physicians by 
offering a reward of up to $1000 if they call the toll-free ``Fraud 
Hotline'' and file a report that leads to a monetary ``recovery'' from 
their doctor. The harassment potential is enormous when 39 million 
seniors start trying to collect a bonus if the doctor's office enters 
the wrong code number on a Medicare form.
    All this government monitoring is allegedly for the purpose of 
locating terrorists, money launderers, drug kingpins, Medicare and 
welfare cheats, student loan delinquents, and deadbeat dads. But the 
reach of this monitoring goes far beyond what is necessary to achieve 
its purported objectives. Only totalitarian regimes monitor the private 
actions of law-abiding citizens.
    We should prohibit the government from building databases of 
personal information on American citizens that is none of the 
government's business. And when the information is the government's 
business, the information should be allowed to be used only for the 
purpose for which we give it.

STATEMENT OF ED MIERZWINSKI, CONSUMER PROGRAM DIRECTOR, 
            UNITED STATES PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH 
            GROUP
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Ed Mierzwinski, go ahead.
    Mr. Mierzwinski. Thank you, Senator----
    Senator Shelby. Public citizen.
    Mr. Mierzwinski [continuing]. Shelby. That is correct.
    Mr. Mierzwinski. Senator Shelby, Senator Bennett, my name 
is Edwin Mierzwinski. I am Consumer Program Director for the 
United States Public Interest Research Group, a consumer 
advocacy organization. And my testimony today is on behalf of 
both USPIRG and Ralph Nader.
    And I apologize Mr. Nader could not be here today. As you 
know, he has been a longtime supporter of privacy interests and 
appeared with you last summer at one of your press 
conferences--and Ms. Schlafly--at a press conference on the 
Financial Privacy bill. So, he apologizes, but he strongly 
supports your legislation.
    I also want to commend you, before I start, on your ongoing 
support for privacy. Your development of the Privacy Coalition 
forged between a family-based consumer and civil liberties 
organizations that has worked, first, on the Know Your Customer 
regulations, to oppose those.
    Second, on trying to achieve a financial privacy opt-in. 
And we will continue to fight with you to achieve that.
    And finally, your founding of the Bicameral/Bipartisan 
Congressional Privacy Caucus that has already shed light on a 
number of intrusive privacy practices.
    My testimony--my written testimony summarizes all of my 
remarks, in detail. I will just be very brief.
    The Shelby Amendment is important for the following 
reasons: First, citizens deserve control over their personal 
and confidential information, particularly when it is going to 
be used for unrelated secondary purposes.
    We believe that in such circumstances, government 
agencies--whether state or federal--should comply with fair 
information practices. And that means, among other things that 
I outline in my testimony, that consumers ought to provide 
express consent before their information is used for any 
secondary purpose, particularly a commercial purpose which is 
not related to the purpose for which it was collected.
    Second, as you pointed out in your opening remarks, this 
requirement is particularly strong when the information is 
compelled to be provided. The government requires consumers to 
provide these pieces of information. In that circumstance, we 
believe that it is increasingly more important that the 
information be subject to an opt-in, rather that a weak opt-
out.
    The other reason that your amendment is so critically 
important is that since the 1994 Driver's Privacy Protection 
Act was enacted, we have come to find that there are additional 
privacy invasions, such as the sale of digitized photographs of 
citizens to third-party marketing and commercial entities, such 
as Image Data of New Hampshire. And the fact that these new 
uses of data have come to light, just means there are more 
important reasons that we need to enact your stronger 
protections.
    And finally, the other--the other issue is whether an opt-
out actually can and does work. And in my testimony, I go into 
great detail as to a number of the problems with opt-outs. The 
industry has, as you know, succeeded in a number of commercial 
areas in creating what they call a sector-by-sector approach to 
privacy--find a problem, solve it, but do not impede commercial 
interests with a broad right of privacy.
    Well, consumer groups think that the convergence of 
industry sectors that is occurring in society today means that 
we, in fact, do need to enact a broad right of privacy, but 
notwithstanding that, if you look at all of the opt-out 
programs that the industry has provided, whether voluntary 
programs of the Online Privacy Alliance or the Direct Marketing 
Association, we believe that they are designed not to protect 
privacy, but to protect commercial interests. We believe that 
they are designed to fail.
    One statutory opt-out that I find particularly outrageous 
is one that I worked for many years to enact amendments to the 
Fair Credit Reporting Act to strengthen consumer rights in 
credit reports.
    Every year, consumers receive 3.5 billion credit card 
solicitations by mail. They receive those generated from 
companies looking at your credit report and deciding that you 
qualify for a credit card offer.
    We sought to require that credit reports only be used for 
that purpose, on an opt-in basis. Of course, consumer groups 
failed and the anti-privacy interests prevailed. They succeeded 
in changing that to a weak opt-out.
    You must look at each of those solicitations you receive in 
the mail; you must look at the back of the solicitation; you 
must find the telephone number to call; you must figure out 
that the obtuse language that they use actually means that they 
are giving you a right to opt-out; then, when you call them on 
the phone to opt-out, your opt-out is only guaranteed for two 
years.
    If you choose to opt-out forever, which I believe should be 
your right, you must ask them and request a ``signed notice of 
election,'' and then receive it in the mail and send it back 
for your opt-out to continue past the two-year period.
    And that is the example that I think just proves that opt-
outs are designed to fail.
    In summary, USPIRG strongly supports the Shelby Amendment; 
believes that there is no public policy reason that it should 
not be implemented on the first of June. And we, again, want to 
commend you for your leadership and the fact that you have 
demonstrated that privacy is an issue that--that effects all 
Americans on all sides of the political spectrum. And 
ultimately, I believe we will prevail.
    Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF SUSAN HERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 
            CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

    Senator Shelby. Ms. Susan Herman, National Center for 
Victims of Crime.
    Ms. Herman.
    Ms. Herman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bennett.
    My name is Susan Herman. I am the Executive Director of the 
National Center for Victims of Crime.
    The National Center works with 10,000 organizations across 
the country to help victims of crime rebuild their lives.
    Thank you for inviting me to address the important issue of 
privacy of personal information; specifically, how releasing 
motor vehicle records impacts victims of crime.
    In 1994, the landmark Driver's Privacy Protection Act 
required states to give licensed drivers the option to keep 
their contact information confidential, limiting disclosure to 
narrowly defined purposes. As a result, victims of stalking, 
battered women, and intimidated witnesses--who need to conceal 
there whereabouts--were better able to protect themselves.
    Unfortunately, because many states required affirmative 
requests to keep information confidential, many people were 
still at risk. Without making such a request--perhaps not 
knowing the option existed--personal information remained 
available to anyone able to pay a nominal fee.
    Amy Boyer, a young New Hampshire woman, did not know her 
life was in danger. Her stalker, a man she barely knew in 
junior high school, used the Internet to get information about 
her workplace and her license plate number. With just two 
pieces of information purchased from the Internet companies, he 
found her and killed her. She never knew she was at risk. Amy 
Boyer never knew she needed protection.
    And over the last few years, we have the emergence of a new 
pernicious crime--identity theft. It thrives on access to 
personal information.
    Identity theft can happen without your knowing it. Your 
financial security can be shattered. And victims who obtain a 
criminal record via identity theft have a particularly 
difficult time clearing their names.
    Mr. Chairman, because of your efforts last year, the law 
was amended to change the opt-out provision to an opt-in 
provision. In other words, individuals now have to 
affirmatively waive confidentiality. We applaud you. This 
effort will prevent harm.
    Since enactment of this historic legislation, however, the 
National Center has come to believe that the scales have tipped 
much further in the direction of full protection of privacy. 
Based on our work with victims of stalking, domestic violence 
and identity theft, we recommend that the DPPA be amended again 
to protect victims. There should be no options. Drivers' 
personal information should never be released, except as 
outlined in the Act.
    The National Center operates a Help Line for victims of all 
types of crime. A large percentage of calls come from stalking 
victims. One of their principal concerns is that they do not 
know why they were targeted or how they were found. This is 
especially true in the 40 percent of stalking cases that do not 
arise out of a domestic situation.
    Victims of stranger stalking, at the time they were asked 
whether the government could release their personal 
information, may have had no reason to opt for privacy. How 
many people know that one in twelve women and one in forty-five 
men in America will be stalked during their lifetime?
    We also hear from victims of identity theft, who tell us 
they, too, never realized they were vulnerable. They were 
simply undergoing normal everyday activities, and their social 
security number or other information fell into the wrong hands. 
Like the stalking victims, identity theft victims had little 
reason to believe they needed to protect their records when 
they made their opt-in/opt-out decision. How many people know 
that each year more than 400,000 Americans will be victims of 
identity theft?
    Viewed from a victim's perspective, the opt-in/opt-out 
decision we are now offered really only helps people who know 
they are in danger or understand the risks we all face. We have 
heard from too many victims who realized too late that their 
personal information can be used to harm them.
    That is why, on their behalf, we respectfully request that 
drivers' personal information, with rare exception, never be 
released.
    In the alternative, we would urge this committee to 
consider legislation that would require states to notify 
individuals whenever their information has been released. When 
citizens give their government the right to release personal 
information, the government should have an obligation to inform 
them every time information is released and to whom it is 
released.
    Last year, this committee amended the Transportation 
Appropriations bill to include social security numbers within 
the scope of protected information. Now social security 
numbers, like addresses, cannot be released without permission. 
It is unclear, however, what effect this will have on those 
states that use social security numbers for the driver's 
license number, or states that show the social security number 
on the face of the license. That number is then available every 
time an individual writes a check, boards a plane or enters a 
secured building.
    States should also be prohibited from including social 
security numbers on licenses. In this age of technology and 
identity theft, no one should be required to display their 
social security number to countless strangers in the course of 
everyday life.
    In summary, we believe the government should not release 
personal information. If this practice continues, however, the 
government should at least notify individuals whenever it does 
release information. And to further decrease the risk of 
danger, social security numbers should be removed from 
licenses.
    Thank you for the opportunity to address you today on this 
critical issue. We look forward to working with you as you 
develop proposals.
    [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Susan Herman

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. My 
name is Susan Herman, and I'm the Executive Director of the National 
Center for Victims of Crime. The National Center works with 10,000 
organizations across the country to help victims of crime rebuild their 
lives.
    Thank you for inviting me to address the important issue of privacy 
of personal information, specifically, how releasing motor vehicle 
records impacts victims of crime.
    In 1994, the landmark Driver's Privacy Protection Act required 
states to give licensed drivers the option to keep their contact 
information confidential, limiting disclosure to narrowly defined 
purposes. As a result, victims of stalking, battered women, and 
intimidated witnesses--who need to conceal their whereabouts--were 
better able to protect themselves.
    Unfortunately, because many states required affirmative requests to 
keep information confidential, many people were still at risk. Without 
making such a request--perhaps not knowing the option existed--personal 
information remained available to anyone able to pay a nominal fee.
    Amy Boyer, a young New Hampshire woman, did not know her life was 
in danger. Her stalker, a man she barely knew in junior high school, 
used the Internet to get information about her workplace and her 
license plate number. With just two pieces of information purchased 
from Internet companies, he found her and killed her. She never knew 
she was at risk. Amy Boyer never knew she needed protection.
    Over the last few years, we have seen the emergence of a new 
pernicious crime--identity theft. It thrives on access to personal 
information.
    In Florida, a woman obtained a fraudulent driver's license in the 
victim's name. She used the license to withdraw more than $13,000 from 
the bank, obtained five department store credit cards, and charged 
nearly $4,000 in the victim's name.
    Identity theft can happen without your knowing it. Your financial 
security can be shattered. And, victims who obtain a criminal record 
via identity theft have a particularly difficult time clearing their 
names.
    Mr. Chairman, because of your efforts last year, the law was 
amended to change the ``opt out'' provision to an ``opt in'' provision. 
In other words, individuals now have to affirmatively waive 
confidentiality. We applaud you. This effort will prevent harm.
    Since enactment of this historic legislation, however, the National 
Center has come to believe that the scales have tipped much further in 
the direction of full protection of privacy.
    Based on our work with victims of stalking, domestic violence, and 
identity theft, we recommend that the DPPA be amended again to protect 
victims. There should be no options. Drivers' personal information 
should never be released except as outlined in the Act.
    The National Center operates a helpline for victims of all types of 
crime. A large percentage of calls come from stalking victims. One of 
their principle concerns is that they don't know why they were targeted 
or how they were found. This is especially true in the 40 percent of 
stalking cases that don't arise out of a domestic situation. Victims of 
stranger stalking, at the time they were asked whether the government 
could release their personal information, usually have no reason to opt 
for privacy. How many people know that one in twelve women and one in 
forty-five men in America will be stalked during their lifetime?
    We also hear from victims of identity theft who tell us they, too, 
never realized they were vulnerable. They were simply undergoing normal 
everyday activities, and their social security number, or other 
information, fell into the wrong hands. Like the stalking victims, 
identity theft victims had little reason to believe they needed to 
protect their records when they made their opt in/opt out decision. How 
many people know that each year more than 400,000 Americans will be 
victims of identity theft?
    Viewed from a victim's perspective, the opt in/opt out decision we 
are now offered really only helps people who know they are in danger or 
understand the risks we all face. We've heard from too many victims who 
realized too late that their personal information could be used to harm 
them. That's why, on their behalf, we respectfully request that 
drivers' personal information, with rare exception, never be released.
    In the alternative, we would urge this committee to consider 
legislation that would require states to notify individuals whenever 
their information has been released. When citizens give their 
government the right to release personal information, the government 
should have an obligation to inform them every time information is 
released and to whom it is released.
    Last year, this committee amended the Transportation Appropriations 
Bill to include social security numbers within the scope of protected 
information. Now, social security numbers, like addresses, cannot be 
released without permission. It is unclear, however, what effect this 
will have on those states that use social security numbers for the 
driver's license number, or states that show the social security number 
on the face of the license. That number is then available every time an 
individual writes a check, boards a plane, or enters a secured 
building.
    States should be prohibited from including social security numbers 
on licenses. In this age of technology and identity theft, no one 
should be required to display their social security number to countless 
strangers in the course of everyday life.
    In summary, we believe the government should not release personal 
information. If this practice continues, however, the government should 
at least notify individuals whenever it does release information. And 
to further decrease the risk of danger, social security numbers should 
be removed from licenses.
    Thank you for the opportunity to address you today on this critical 
issue. We look forward to working with you as you develop proposals.

    Senator Shelby. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF GREG NOJEIM, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, AMERICAN 
            CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Greg--is it Nojeim?
    Mr. Nojeim. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. You say it. You pronounce it. Is that 
right?
    Mr. Nojeim. I say it ``Nojeim,'' too.
    Senator Shelby. Nojeim. Great. American Civil Liberties 
Union. We welcome you here today, sir.
    Mr. Nojeim. Thank you, Senator Shelby, Senator Bennett. It 
is a pleasure to be here today to testify on behalf of the 
ACLU.
    The ACLU is a nationwide, nonpartisan organization 
consisting of over 275,000 members dedicated to protecting the 
principles of privacy and other--and freedom that are set forth 
in the Bill of Rights.
    And Senator Shelby, I want to salute you, also, for your 
leadership in this area. You have been a stalwart defender of 
privacy. And we look forward to working with you and the other 
members of the privacy caucus on this and other issues in the 
future.
    It should not take a tragedy--it should not take a tragedy 
for Congress to act to protect a person's individual privacy, 
and yet, time and time again, it does take a tragedy.
    We have heard of victims of crime that prompted Congress to 
enact the Driver's Privacy Protection Act in the first place. 
And we heard that a Nashua, New Hampshire company committed its 
own privacy tragedy by trying to collect up the images of 22 
million drivers--eventually, they wanted the images of all the 
drivers in the country--so that they could provide access to 
those images to businesses that, for legitimate reasons, wanted 
to prevent fraud.
    You know, when drivers heard about that, they were 
outraged. And it really went against one of the most 
fundamental principles of fair information practices that Mr. 
Mierzwinski mentioned earlier. That principle is that 
information given to the government for one purpose, ought not 
to be used for another purpose without the authorization of the 
person to whom that personal information pertains.
    Well, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act did a lot to 
advance that principle, but because of loopholes in the Act, it 
has fallen short. One of those loopholes allows for disclosure 
of a driver's personal information in response to an individual 
request or for bulk distribution for marketing, solicitations 
and surveys, if the driver is given notice and a chance to opt-
out of dissemination of the driver's personal information.
    Another loophole--the one that Image Data used--allowed for 
the distribution of a driver's personal information for use in 
the normal course of business by a legitimate business--
whatever that means--to pursue debtors and to verify 
information submitted to the business.
    I think that Governor Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida, 
summed up drivers' sentiments best about the Image Data mini-
scandal, when he said, ``I am personally not comfortable with 
the state mandating license photos for the purpose of 
identifying authorized drivers, then selling those photos at a 
profit for a completely different purpose.''
    Every state that participated in that plan was flooded with 
citizen complaints. And every state that participated in that 
plan called it off, as a result.
    Now, in an effort to prevent a recurrence and other abuses, 
Congress, under your leadership, Senator Shelby, enacted two 
additional privacy protections in the Transportation 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000.
    The first effectively requires states to obtain express 
consent before releasing a driver's photograph, social security 
number, or medical and disability information. In other words, 
those were given special additional protections because of 
their sensitivity. However, to have the desired effect, this 
new protection would have to be reenacted every year.
    The second 1999 enhancement is permanent. It amounts to 
amendments to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act to require 
the express consent of a driver before a state DMV releases any 
personal information, such as address, gender and age, whether 
it is in bulk, for marketing, or pursuant to an individual, so-
called, look-up request.
    The ACLU supports these changes. As a practical matter, the 
opt-out approach offers much more limited protection than does 
an opt-in. I like to call opt-out--the opt-out approach, 
``presumed consent.'' Unless the driver acts, consent to 
dissemination of the driver's personal information is presumed.
    Likewise, an opt-in could be viewed as requiring true 
consent. The 1999 changes to protect driver privacy went a long 
way toward turning the DPPA into a true consent stature. 
However, more needs to be done. We recommend five additional 
steps.
    First, to fully secure the additional--the additional 
protections the 1999 changes afforded drivers--photographs, 
social security numbers, and medical and disability 
information--those changes should be made permanent.
    Second, Congress should plug as many of the remaining 
loopholes in the Driver's Privacy Protection Act as is 
practicable.
    Third, Congress should ensure that the Driver's Privacy 
Protection Act is enforced. We recommend that the GAO be asked 
to conduct a state-by-state survey, effective June 1, to 
identify--for potential civil penalty under the Driver's 
Privacy Protection Act--the states that are not in compliance 
with the Act.
    In addition, Congress should make it clear, beyond doubt, 
that failure to comply with the DPPA will result with 
withholding of a portion of a state's federal highway money.
    Fourth, we ask that Congress repeal a mandate that Congress 
itself imposed on the states, to collect drivers' social 
security numbers on the application forms for drivers' 
licenses.
    At roughly the same time Congress acted to promote driver 
privacy by enacting and improving DPPA, Congress enacted other 
legislation that undermines the very principle upon which the 
DPPA rests; that is the principle that information submitted to 
the government for one purpose, ought not be used for another 
without consent.
    You know, social security numbers were originally 
authorized for one purpose, and that was to track contributions 
to the Social Security Trust Fund. Instead, they have morphed 
into what can only be described as a universal citizen 
identifier.
    Congress enacted two laws in 1996 to require the states to 
collect drivers' social security numbers and keep them in their 
records. Now, Congress did take one step last year to repeal 
these anti-privacy mandates.
    First--and that step was to repeal Section 656(b) of the 
1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
Act. That section would have required states, among other 
things, to demand drivers' social security numbers on drivers' 
licenses and application forms, but Congress left in place the 
mandate to collect the social security number that appeared in 
the Welfare Reform Act, as amended by the Balanced Budget Act 
of 1997.
    Finally, Congress should insist that states implement the 
1999 privacy protections relating to the Driver's Privacy 
Protection Act without delay. These provisions became law 
almost six months ago. For the most part, the states were given 
eight months to implement the provisions.
    Special steps were taken for states that have legislatures 
that do not meet this year. They were given an exception, so 
that they could implement 90 days after they next meet.
    For states that challenged the Driver's Privacy Protection 
Act all the way to the Supreme Court in Reno v. Condon, these 
states were given 90 days after that case was decided.
    Today, more than a full year after Colorado, Florida, and 
South Carolina stirred up citizen outrage by proposing to sell 
millions of their drivers' photographs without consent, no 
provision of federal law is in force to barr such an abuse in 
the future.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Now, more than ever, Congress must insist on prompt 
compliance with the law to protect the privacy of drivers' 
personal information.
    Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Gregory T. Nojeim

    Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Lautenberg and members of the 
Subcommittee: I am pleased to testify before you today on behalf of the 
American Civil Liberties Union about amendments to the Driver's Privacy 
Protection Act adopted last year. The ACLU is a nation-wide, non-
profit, non-partisan organization consisting of over 275,000 members 
dedicated to preserving the principles of freedom set forth in the Bill 
of Rights.
    Today I will identify the abuses that lead Congress to enact the 
Driver's Privacy Protection Act and the 1999 amendments to the Act. I 
will explain that the ACLU supports both because they can protect the 
privacy of the information drivers submit in order to obtain driver's 
licenses. I will also suggest additional steps Congress should take to 
close loopholes in the DPPA and ensure that drivers secure of the 
privacy benefits of the DPPA, including the 1999 amendments.

                  THE DRIVER'S PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

    An obsessed fan who had obtained the address of actress Rebecca 
Shaeffer from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) stalked 
and murdered Ms. Shaeffer. She had taken steps to protect her personal 
information. She had paid to keep her home phone number unlisted. She 
was careful about giving out her address. Yet, when she applied for a 
California driver's license, she had no idea that California would 
freely sell the information she had tried to keep private.
    In response to the killing, Congress enacted the 1994 Driver's 
Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. 2721-2725) to require states to 
protect the privacy of the information that drivers submit in order to 
obtain a driver's license. This information includes the driver's name, 
address, phone number, Social Security Number, driver identification 
number, photograph, height, weight, gender, age, certain medical or 
disability information, and in some states, fingerprints. The DPPA does 
not extend privacy protection to information relating to a driver's 
traffic violations, license status, and accidents.
    The ACLU supported the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. We 
testified in 1994 that although that state DMV records had 
traditionally been open to the public, this could no longer be 
justified. We acknowledged that access to government information 
fosters democracy and enhances personal freedom. It encourages informed 
citizen participation in the governing process, promotes accountability 
of government employees, deters government abuse, and instills public 
confidence in government through increased awareness. However, we 
believe that access to personal information collected and maintained by 
state DMV's does not substantially advance these goals and thus does 
not meet the criteria necessary to be made available under an open-
records policy. We believe that the individual's interest in avoiding 
the disclosure of personal information outweighs the public interest in 
disclosure in this context.
    As we indicated in 1994, state DMV records ought to be treated with 
protections similar to the protections afforded federal records subject 
to the federal Privacy Act of 1974. Its central principle is that 
personal information collected by the government for one purpose may 
not be used for another purpose without the consent of the person to 
whom the information pertains. As applied to drivers' records, this 
would mean that information submitted by an applicant in order to 
obtain a driver's license could not be used for another purpose without 
the express consent of the driver.

          LOOPHOLES IN THE DPPA COMPROMISE ITS PRIVACY PROMISE

    The DPPA fell short of this ideal because loopholes in the Act have 
proven problematic. There is no way under the Act for a driver to 
prevent disclosure of personal information when a loophole applies. 
Among others, there is a loophole for:
  --Each government agency to use personal information in the state's 
        DMV records ``in carrying out its functions'' 18 U.S.C. 
        2721(b)(1);
  --``Performance monitoring of motor vehicles'' 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(2);
  --``Use in connection with . . . any investigation in anticipation of 
        litigation'' 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(4);
  --``Use in connection with the operation of private toll [roads]'' 18 
        U.S.C. 2721(b)(10);
  --``Use by an employer or insurer to verify information relating to 
        the holder of a commercial driver's license'' 18 U.S.C. 
        2721(b)(9); and
  --Any other use authorized by state law ``related to operation of a 
        motor vehicle or public safety'' 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(14).
    The DPPA also included other overly broad loopholes. It allowed for 
disclosure of a driver's personal information in response to an 
individual request, or for bulk distribution for marketing, 
solicitations and surveys, if the driver is given notice and a chance 
to ``opt out'' of the dissemination of the driver's personal 
information. 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(11) and 2721(b)(12). Another loophole 
allowed for the distribution of a driver's personal information for use 
in the normal course of business by a ``legitimate'' business to pursue 
debtors who had provided inaccurate or outdated information, and to 
verify the accuracy of information submitted by an individual to the 
business. 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(3).

                 ABUSE OF DRIVERS' PERSONAL INFORMATION

    This latter loophole has led to abuse. Last year, a Nashua, New 
Hampshire company tried to exploit this loophole by purchasing from 
state DMV's the images and other personal information about 22 million 
drivers in order to build a national drivers' database. Once a 
sufficient number of drivers' images were purchased--often for a penny 
a piece--Image Data, LLC would have made its database available for a 
fee to businesses seeking to prevent fraud by retrieving the photograph 
of any customer using a credit card or a check. Image Data and South 
Carolina, Colorado and Florida, which had contracted with it to sell 
their drivers' personal information without consent, apparently took 
the position that the sale facilitated business use to verify the 
accuracy of personal information submitted to the business, and thus 
fit within the 2721(b)(3) loophole. This justification was called into 
question when it was revealed that the Secret Service had helped fund 
the drivers' photo database in an apparent effort gain access to the 
database to fight immigration fraud and airport terrorism.
    Drivers were outraged when they learned that their photographs and 
other information were being sold without their consent to create a 
national database of driver images.
    Florida Governor Jeb Bush probably summed up drivers' sentiments 
best when he reportedly said, ``I am personally not comfortable with 
the state mandating license photos for the purpose of identifying 
authorized drivers, then selling those photos at a profit for a 
completely different purpose.'' Every participating state was flooded 
with citizen complaints about privacy. And every participating state 
called off the sale.

         1999 AMENDMENTS TO THE DRIVER'S PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

    In an effort to prevent a recurrence and other abuses, Congress 
enacted two additional privacy protections in Section 350 of the 
Transportation Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000, Public Law 106-
69. The first lasts only as long as the highway money Congress 
appropriated in the law. It effectively requires states to obtain 
express driver consent before releasing the driver's photograph, Social 
Security Number, or medical or disability information. Exceptions to 
the new rule were provided for law enforcement and the execution of 
judgments, insurance claims investigations and underwriting, organ 
donation programs, and verification of information relating to the 
holder of a commercial driver's license. Thus, this sensitive 
information cannot be released for a different use authorized under the 
DPPA without the driver's express consent. To have the desired effect, 
this new protection would have to be re-enacted each year because it 
was tied to money appropriated in the Transportation Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 2000.
    The second 1999 enhancement of driver privacy is permanent. 
Congress amended the Driver's Privacy Protection Act itself by 
requiring the express consent of a driver before a state DMV releases 
any personal information such as address, gender and age, in bulk for 
marketing, solicitations and surveys. Congress also amended the DPPA to 
require express consent for the release of personal information about a 
particular individual--as opposed to a bulk distribution--for any 
purpose not mentioned as an exception in the DPPA itself. Previously, 
such information would be released pursuant to a request for an 
individual's information, or a request for bulk distribution for 
marketing purposes, if the individual had failed to ``opt out'' of the 
disclosure.
    The ACLU supports these changes to protect driver privacy. By 
requiring express consent as a condition of dissemination of personal 
information in many circumstances, Congress made the DPPA more closely 
resemble the federal Privacy Act and other legislation protecting the 
privacy of information in record systems maintained by governmental 
entities. As a practical matter, the ``opt out'' approach offers much 
more limited protection than does an ``opt in.'' I like to call the opt 
out approach, ``presumed consent.'' Unless the driver acts, consent to 
dissemination of the driver's personal information is presumed. 
Likewise, the ``opt in'' could be viewed as requiring ``true 
consent''--an expression of consent prior to the sharing of 
information. The 1999 changes to protect driver privacy went a long way 
toward converting the DPPA from a ``presumed consent'' into a ``true 
consent'' statute. However, more needs to be done.

    ADDITIONAL STEPS CONGRESS SHOULD TAKE TO PROTECT DRIVER PRIVACY

    Make 1999 Protections Permanent.--First, to fully secure the 
additional protections the 1999 changes afforded for drivers' 
photographs, SSNs and medical and disability information, Congress 
should make the changes permanent. This would not only protect driver 
privacy, it would give states additional certainty with respect to the 
rules they would be required to follow in the future. In the 
alternative, Congress should ensure that this year's transportation 
appropriations bill carries forward the good work Congress began last 
year to protect drivers' photographs, SSNs and medical and disability 
information.
    Plug Loopholes.--Second, Congress should plug as many of the 
remaining loopholes in the Driver's Privacy Protection Act as is 
practicable.
    Beef Up Enforcement Efforts.--Third, Congress should ensure that 
the Driver's Privacy Protection Act is enforced. The DPPA allows the 
Department of Justice to seek civil penalties of $5,000/day under 18 
U.S.C. 2723(b) from states that fail to comply with the DPPA. To our 
knowledge, no state has been fined for failure to comply. However, in 
the legislature of at least one state--Minnesota--steps are reportedly 
being taken to prohibit state implementation of the true consent 
provisions Congress adopted last year unless the federal government 
fines the state for non-compliance. 26 Access Reports No. 4, pp. 3-4 
(February 23, 2000). Now that the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld 
the DPPA as a proper exercise of Congressional authority., (Reno v. 
Condon, No. 98-1464 (January 12, 2000)), Congress should call on the 
Government Accounting Office to conduct a state-by-state survey to 
identify for potential civil penalty the states that are not in 
compliance.
    However, fines may not be enough. States may attempt to challenge 
the imposition of fines by the federal government on sovereign immunity 
grounds. In addition, states may argue that the fines only apply to 
violations of the DPPA, and thus are not applicable with respect to the 
1999 protections afforded SSNs, photographs, and medical information. 
These additional protections do not appear in the text of the DPPA. 
Moreover, while we believe that the 1999 privacy enhancements require 
states receiving federal highway funding to comply with the DPPA and 
the 1999 changes, some have disputed that. As a result, we recommend 
that Congress make it clear beyond doubt that failure to comply will 
result in the withholding of a portion of a state's federal highway 
money.
    Repeal SSN Solicitation Mandate.--At roughly the same time Congress 
acted to promote driver privacy by enacting and improving the DPPA, 
Congress enacted other legislation that undermines the very principle 
upon which the DPPA rests. That is the principle that information 
submitted to the government for one purpose ought not be used for 
another purpose without the consent of the person to whom it pertains. 
This other legislation requires the states to demand drivers' Social 
Security Numbers on driver's license application forms.
    Social Security Numbers were originally authorized to help the 
government keep track of contributions made to the Social Security 
trust fund. At the time they were authorized, a promise was made that 
the numbers would not become universal identifiers. This promise has 
been broken repeatedly. Each time it is broken, personal privacy is 
compromised by linkage of data files reliant on the SSN.
    In Section 317 of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Act (Public Law 104-193), Congress effectively required the 
states to ask applicants for commercial driver's licenses, occupational 
licenses and marriage licenses to provide their SSNs on the application 
form. In Section 5536 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 
105-33), Congress extended the requirement to cover all driver's 
licenses, as well as hunting, fishing and other recreational licenses. 
The purpose of the legislation was to help track down parents who had 
failed to pay child support. The effect was to diminish the privacy of 
all license applicants, including the vast majority who do not owe 
child support.
    Congress should do its part to protect driver privacy by repealing 
this anti-privacy mandate to the states. This would complete the work 
Congress began last year in the Transportation Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 2000 when it repealed Section 656(b) of 1996 Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That section would 
have, among other things, required states to demand drivers' SSNs on 
drivers' license application forms. In other words, while one federal 
requirement that states solicit drivers' SSNs was repealed, another was 
left in place. Congress should finish the job.
    Reject Calls for Delay.--Finally, Congress should insist that 
states implement the 1999 privacy protections relating to the Driver's 
Privacy Protection Act without delay. These provisions became law 
almost six months ago. For the most part, they must be implemented by 
June 1, 2000--nearly 8 months after they became law.
    Congress went to great lengths to accommodate the special 
circumstances faced by some states. For the six states whose 
legislatures were not scheduled to meet this year--Arkansas, Montana, 
Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon and Texas--Congress extended the deadline 
to the date 90 days after the legislature next convenes. For the three 
states which had challenged the Driver's Privacy Protection Act in the 
Supreme Court--Wisconsin, South Carolina and Oklahoma--Congress allowed 
90 days after the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Reno v. 
Condon.
    Today, more than a full year after Colorado, Florida and South 
Carolina stirred up citizen outrage by proposing to sell millions of 
their drivers' photographs without consent, no provision of federal law 
is in force to bar such an abuse. This is a recipe for disaster. 
Enticed by the millions of dollars of revenue that sale of personal 
information generates for some states, absent a signal from Congress, a 
repeat performance is almost a certainty. Now more than ever, Congress 
must insist on prompt compliance with the law to protect the privacy of 
drivers' personal information.
    Thank you.

    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Just an observation: I think it is rare when you have the 
Eagle Forum, the Public Citizen, the National Center for 
Victims of Crime, the ACLU to sit here together, on the same 
panel, and even more rare that you agree on this issue of 
public policy that affects every American. I think that you are 
to be commended.
    What is so compelling about this privacy issue that 
resonates with all four of your organizations? We will start 
with you, Ms. Schlafly.
    Ms. Schlafly. It is a growing issue. It is new. It has just 
come about in the last few years. And I think people are 
realizing the power of the databases to gather all of this 
personal information.
    And in my full testimony, I pointed out it is in banking; 
it is in travel; it is in cell phones; it is in the employment 
records, drivers' licenses, censuses--all of these areas. And 
we are very rapidly approaching the time when it will be very 
easy for the government to mix all of these databases.
    And then it is a power to control us. In the totalitarian 
systems, they had all of these files in manilla folders, and 
they had a secret police and a method of having family members 
snoop on each other, but it is all so easy now with the 
technology.
    And I think there is simply a growing realization of what 
is going on.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mierzwinski.
    Mr. Mierzwinski. Thank you, Senator.
    I go back to Justice Brandeis, when he said that privacy, 
the right to be left alone, is the right most cherished by 
civilized men and women.
    I just think that our organizations, from all parts of the 
political spectrum, have recognized what nearly every other 
country has recognized, and that is that privacy is a freedom, 
that privacy is a liberty, and that these large databases of 
information, whether they belong to the government or whether 
they belong to private interests, are infringing on that 
liberty or freedom.
    Privacy should not be for sale, and that is what we agree 
on.
    Senator Shelby. Ms. Herman, you bring an added perspective 
here as a representative of the victims of crime. We all want 
to be safe, but a lot of this information will make us unsafe, 
as you pointed out.
    Ms. Herman. Thank you, Senator.
    I think it is--it is very clear to us why this issue is 
compelling, because we hear from victims everyday. There is no 
confusion among people who work with victims of crime that 
releasing personal information leads to death. Stalkers, 
identity thieves are dangerous individuals. Technology has 
enhanced their ability to reach their victims. Selling, 
distributing, releasing personal information only increases the 
chances that we will have more victims.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Nojeim.
    Mr. Nojeim. First, I want to say that there is a benefit in 
openness by the government, and that there are--there is a 
Freedom of Information Act in most States, and certainly at the 
Federal Government level.
    The issue is, as Senator Bennett said, trying to balance 
privacy interests as against the interests in keeping 
government accountable to the people. And in the case where 
personal information is primarily what is in the database, we 
believe that the interests in keeping that private--keeping 
that information private, trump the interests in, you know, 
good government and open government and sunshine.
    It used to be that the Fourth Amendment was good enough to 
protect people's privacy, because most of the private things 
that you had were kept within your home. If they were outside 
your home--somebody learned them because of a transaction that 
you did--it was very difficult to gather all of that 
information together.
    Today, a point and a click, and you can gather all of that 
information together. And I think that is why the privacy issue 
is really starting to resonate in this country.
    Senator Shelby. Ms. Schlafly, is the basic issue, with 
regard to the treatment of personal information collected by 
the government, one of who controls the use of such information 
in the commercial area?
    Ms. Schlafly. Well, I think the individual should control 
his own information about his identity, his name, his picture. 
And you give it for specific purposes, or in the case of the 
government, it is demanded for--and required for specific 
purposes.
    But yes, I think the basic issue is: Who does it belong to? 
And it does not belong to the government. It does not belong to 
the--even the commercial entities that are gathering it for a 
specific purpose.
    And I think that is a--it is a tremendous and growing issue 
that people are just beginning to realize. More and more people 
are deciding they want to pay cash, so it is not recorded 
what--on somebody's database, what they are buying.
    And we find that--well, the government made a payment to 
Northwest Airlines to set-up a software to monitor our travel. 
Well, should government be doing that?
    We just do not think we want to live in a society where 
government is monitoring the daily activities of law-abiding 
citizens.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mierzwinski, earlier, you were talking 
about the opt-in and opt-out approach. Is not the opt-out 
approach dealing with financial records and so forth? Is that 
not a sham, in a sense? In other words, they know what that is. 
They know that the average person does not know about that and 
it is difficult to opt-out.
    Mr. Mierzwinski. The opt-out approach, in my view, is 
designed to fail. It is set up as a sham. And consumers do not 
usually have any idea that they have a right to opt-out.
    As you so eloquently opposed the--in the Financial 
Modernization Act that Congress passed last year, that Act 
allows companies which are merging with all kinds of 
affiliates, have all kinds of subsidiaries, to share their 
information among each of their affiliates and subsidiaries, 
and even with many third-parties, without even granting you an 
opt-out.
    Then, in some limited circumstances, that bill provides for 
a limited opt-out.
    Consumers have no idea how their information is being 
shared; how their information is being sold. And opt-outs are--
are simply designed to fail. And that is why so few consumers 
participate in even the existing opt-out programs that exist.
    That is why we believe that the only way to really and 
truly protect privacy is to have meaningful protection by 
providing expressed consent through an opt-in.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
    Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank all of the witnesses. As I said in my 
opening statement, this is a difficult challenge to get the 
right kind of balance. And Ms. Schlafly, you are exactly right. 
Technology is bringing it home in a way that it never was 
before.
    If I may be--be a little bit--give a little bit of personal 
history, I used to work for the J. C. Penney Company. And 
they--to show you how old I am, they had just initiated, when I 
went to work for them the--for them, brand new experience of a 
credit card. Prior to that time, it was strictly cash at J. C. 
Penney. We used to joke that the ``C'' in J. C. Penney stood 
for ``Cash.'' That is true. That was his middle name--Cash--
James Cash Penney.
    Anyway, I asked the question of the leadership of the 
company at that time about this new phenomenon of generic 
credit cards. VISA and MasterCard, they did not exist at that 
time. This was prior to the VISA, but people were putting out 
generic credit cards.
    And I remember the CEO saying, ``We do not ever want to 
have--anybody have a generic credit card at Penney's. We want 
them to have the Penney card, only.''
    And I said, ``Why is that?''
    And he said, ``Because we want to own the information of 
the shopping habits of our customers. We do not want some 
outside organization to--to know what our customers buy.'' And 
then he said, ``Because we will know what our customers buy, we 
will be able to target our advertising more efficiently and 
beneficially for the customer. In other words, we will not try 
to sell a housewife who buys soft goods and children's 
clothing, automobile batteries and television sets, because we 
will know that that particular customer is interested in this 
brand of goods. Since we are a full-service department store, 
it would be inefficient for us to sell--send every customer 
every flyer that we have on every type of goods that we sell. 
We can target the advertising to the benefit of the customer.''
    Well, the customer demanded that the Penney Company honor 
MasterCard and VISA, because it became a matter of customer 
convenience. The customer said, ``I do not want to go to the 
Penney store and not be able to use my MasterCard.''
    And very reluctantly, customer demand caused Penney to back 
away from their original position that said, ``We will not have 
any credit information, except with our own customers, that 
will be held within our own company.''
    And it is an illustration of how the customers come along 
and change things as to people's perception.
    My concern is--is summarized, I think, in that--that 
vignette, because I want the customer to know the advantages 
that are available in the modern world and to make an informed 
decision.
    You talked, Mr. Mierzwinski, about the customer does not 
understand the opt-out. And I think you are right in many 
instances to have an opt-in, but it is not properly explained 
to them.
    I am a little concerned that the opt-in is not going to be 
properly explained to them, because there are some advantages 
for my information to be in the right place. I do not like to 
be flooded by catalogs for stuff that I never, ever buy.
    But I get flooded, because people sell the lists, and they 
say, ``Gee, he has got these kinds of demographics, he has got 
this kind of an income platform, maybe he would love my bamboo 
gazebos from the Phillippines, because he can afford it.'' And 
they send me those kinds of weird catalogs. I do not want those 
catalogs.
    And if more information--if I opted in--and had more 
information about me, some catalog people would say, ``Gee, he 
does not buy that stuff at all. We will never send him--we will 
never send him a cigar catalog, because we know he is a non-
smoker.''
    And therefore, I am benefitted. Without information, I can 
be disadvantaged. That is the balance that we have to strike 
here.
    Now, Mr. Nojeim, I am interested--the ACLU sells its list. 
And I would like to read to you the ACLU policy here and talk 
about this whole thing.
    I am quoting from the American Civil Liberties Union 
Magazine. You say, ``The ACLU defrays the cost of our new 
member recruitment by renting our list to other non-profit 
organizations and publications.''
    In other words, you are making the decision as to who 
should have access to your list. I am not, if I join you.
    ``Never to partisan political groups or to groups whose 
programs are incompatible with ACLU policies.'' I salute you 
for that. The PBS should do that when they sold their list to 
the Democratic National Committee. They got themselves in 
trouble that you are avoiding.
    ``All lists are rented or exchanged according to strict 
privacy procedures recommended by the U.S. Privacy Study 
Commission. We never give our list directly to any 
organization. Instead, we send the list to a letter shop that 
prepares the mailing for the organization that is participating 
in the rental or exchange. That organization never sees our 
list and never knows what names are on it, unless an individual 
responds to the organization's mailing.'' I applaud you for 
that kind of protection.
    ``The ACLU always honors a member's request not to make his 
or her name available. If you do not wish to receive materials 
from other organizations, write to the ACLU Membership 
Department, and we will omit your name from list rental or 
exchange. Thank you for your understanding.''
    So, you have chosen the opt-out, but you have put in 
certain controls that you advertise to your members, saying we 
will not make our list available to the Democratic National 
Committee, the Republican National Committee, whatever, or 
anybody that is not compatible with ACLU policies.
    This is an informed kind of choice. I think it is in--
written in very clear language.
    Can you discuss this whole issue with me, if I want to make 
an informed choice as to how my information is distributed, how 
do I do it under the opt-in provisions, or is the opt-in going 
to be the flip side of what you are talking about of opt-out--
so complicated and so weighted down with legal language that I 
could never understand it?
    Mr. Nojeim. First, there is a difference between a private 
organization and government. In the case of a government, there 
should be----
    Senator Bennett. I understand that. I am not accusing you 
of hypocrisy here. I am----
    Mr. Nojeim. No. Let me just--let me just finish. There 
should be--there should be a presumption that it would be an 
opt-out; that there would be additional protections, because it 
is a government, as opposed to a private organization.
    And I do not think it would be particularly confusing to 
operate on an opt-in basis. In fact, I think that, Senator 
Bennett, you described very well the benefits that a consumer 
might choose to have on an opt-in.
    A consumer--if it is explained to the consumer that ``The 
reason we want you to opt-in and allow us to share your 
information is because we would like to market to you and 
ensure that you receive things that we think are tailored to 
your interests. Check here, if you would like to receive 
these--these offers.'' I think that is pretty simple and pretty 
clear, and that it could be done that way.
    Senator Bennett. Let us talk about the driver's license for 
just a minute. I agree, by the way, absolutely. I cannot 
conceive of any circumstance where a photograph should be made 
available to anybody, particularly, Ms. Herman, in the area 
that you are talking about.
    I have held hearings on the issue of identity theft. And 
unfortunately, a particularly attractive woman drives down the 
street, someone sees her in the car, takes down her license 
number, and then has the ability to find out where she lives. 
No. That is--clearly, we need to do everything we can to 
prevent that kind of thing from happening.
    On the other hand, I buy a new car--I have had this 
experience and maybe some of the rest of you have--I buy a new 
car. And the manufacturer knows who I am, and starts to send me 
information about options that I can buy directly from the 
manufacturer to add to the automobile.
    There are other manufacturers that have things that could 
add to the automobile that cannot know that I own a Ford or 
Chrysler or what have you, that I might like to hear from. Is 
there any way that the Department of Motor Vehicles can say to 
me, ``We would be willing to share with people who manufacture 
options for your Chrysler minivan, the fact that you own a 
Chrysler minivan.''
    Mr. Nojeim. Sure. Check here. I think that is the way that 
Maryland does it, now. And you will be hearing from the 
Maryland witness in the next panel. But asking--telling them 
``This is what we want to use that information for. This is the 
benefit we expect you to get.'' You might even have something 
that says, ``This is what we will not use the information for, 
check here.''
    Senator Bennett. If we get back to Ms. Schlafly's point--if 
this information is owned by the customer--and I agree with 
you, it is owned by the individual--the individual ought to 
have a more informed opportunity to determine how it is being 
used.
    In other words, if you take the position, okay, the 
government should not use it willy-nilly for whatever the 
government wants, by the same token, the government should not 
forbid its use, willy-nilly, for something that the customer 
may want.
    That is the balance, I think, that we are trying to strike 
here, in terms of the concept. And I agree. I think you have 
summarized the principle very well. Information is owned by the 
individual.
    And there are, in today's cyberworld, advantages to the 
individual to have that information be more widely available 
than it might not otherwise be. And the individual ought to 
have an informed opportunity to take advantage of those 
advantages.
    It is a very difficult kind of problem.
    Senator Shelby. Ms. Herman wants to comment first, and then 
Ms. Schlafly.
    Ms. Herman. I think it is very important when we are 
talking about an informed decision making process to realize 
that there is a very narrow, narrowly defined decision of 
whether this corporation or that corporation gets your 
information.
    And then there is, sort of, unintended secondary impact, I 
would say--the stalking that occurs, the identity theft that is 
growing as a crime in this country--that I do not believe that 
Americans today are fully informed about the extent of scope--
of stalking, the extent of identity theft.
    And so, it is hard, right now, at this point in history, to 
argue that you can have a fully informed decision about the 
possible consequences of this decision.
    The information gets out too easily to too many people.
    Senator Bennett. In our hearing on identity theft, we found 
that the primary source of information is stealing mail, which 
is--I mean, people send out credit cards in as bland a manner 
as they possibly can. I often almost throw away the credit 
cards, because there is no return address, there is no 
indication of what it is. And you have to open it up.
    And then I say, ``Oh. Well, they did this in such a way so 
that if somebody saw this envelope they would not recognize 
that it was a credit card.''
    But there are people who go out and just simply steal large 
chunks of mail and go through them, hoping to find a bill or a 
credit card solicitation or something else that has a social 
security number, an address and a name on it, and then the 
identity theft begins. Yes. This is----
    Ms. Herman. There are also people who are ordering that 
credit card for you, and then waiting until it is delivered to 
your home, and then picking through your garbage.
    Senator Bennett. Yes. That is part of the pattern.
    Ms. Schlafly, you were----
    Ms. Schlafly. Yes. I guess we can agree it is the 
individual who owns his personal information and not the 
government or the commercial outfit that gathers it, but I 
think we need to make a difference between the databases that 
are government-owned--government-collected and the private 
industry.
    Now, I am quite willing to let the free market cope with 
how these databases are handled in commercial affairs. ACLU 
sells their members database. Eagle Forum does not sell our 
database. That is personal organization choice.
    And I like all of those mail order catalogs. I buy mail 
order. And the stack I got before last Christmas was 6 feet 
high. I kind of like them. That is the way I do my shopping. 
And I know they are trading them. That does not bother me.
    I think when it comes to what government is doing, that we 
are really very concerned. There are just a lot of things that 
have happened in the last few years that have caused Americans 
to distrust government.
    There have been mistakes in law enforcement. There have 
been mistakes in FBI files. And there have been mistakes in 
gathering information. And it is such power in the hands of 
government, that we just do not think this--they ought to be 
able to use it any way they want.
    And now, with technology moving so rapidly, so that they 
can all be exchanged. For example, we are worried that the 
vaccine registries and the effort of the CDC to merge the state 
registries of vaccines is going to give the government a 
control of all of our medical records and enable the government 
to deny access to day care, kindergarten, school, college, even 
emergency rooms in hospitals, unless you have had the vaccines 
that the government has decided you ought to have.
    Now, this is government power that we are worried about. 
And then, of course, Eagle Forum, for 20 years, has monitored 
the gathering of private information by the public schools. 
This is another proof that the opt-out does not work, because 
you put these nosey questionnaires in front of the children in 
school, and children are supposed to do what the teacher tells 
them, and they gather all of this information. Years ago, it 
went in a manilla file. Now, it goes on the computer database.
    And it is power that we do not know how it is going to be 
used when it is in the hands of government. And we are 
concerned.
    Senator Bennett. Sir?
    Mr. Mierzwinski. Very briefly, Senator Bennett, on the 
issue of identity theft, our organization has conducted a lot 
of research and published several reports. We obviously 
supported the criminalization legislation, but we believe that 
the big problem gets back to the fair information practices, 
again.
    And that is, as you alluded in the--in the theft of mail, 
that companies do not have adequate fair information practices 
when it comes to protecting the accuracy and security of their 
databases.
    So, the thief applies for credit. The thief only knows part 
of my personal information and applies from his address. The 
companies do a terribly sloppy job of determining whether or 
not that new address is, in fact, an exact address. They do not 
match credit report to the credit application adequately 
enough.
    So, really, we think that a large part of the solution is 
to--is to not just go after the criminals, which I think is, to 
some extent, after the horse has left the barn, but to try to 
close the door of the barn better, by requiring companies to 
protect information better than they do--no more instant 
credit, better address change verification, and better matching 
of information.
    And that is just an example of one of the additional fair 
information practices that these firms do not comply with.
    Senator Bennett. Interestingly enough--and I am sorry, Mr. 
Chairman, but what step back. What you are really asking for is 
more use of data to solve the problem of improper use of date.
    Mr. Mierzwinski. Well, no. I am not more use, but better 
use. The companies just have sloppy databases. They have got 
mixed up credit reports, mixed up credit applications. They are 
not----
    Senator Bennett. To clean up--to clean up their databases. 
They would like to have more access to more information. It is 
part of the dilemma that we face.
    Mr. Mierzwinski. We would disagree that they would need 
more information about consumers to do that. We would simply 
think that they need to have better practices when they grant 
credit.
    Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
    This past January, the Pennsylvania Department of 
Transportation canceled its contract with Choice Point 
Services, Inc., a private personal data clearinghouse, because 
the data firm made driver's license records accessible by way 
of the Internet, despite being specifically prohibited by state 
contract.
    Personal information about Pennsylvania drivers somehow 
became available to Data Land, an Internet site that advertised 
and sold background information on people for $69.95 to anyone 
willing to pay.
    It seems to me that this does not inspire confidence that 
these data providers are good stewards of the personal 
information that the information collects. In other words, once 
they get it, it is gone.
    Ms. Schlafly, is that what fuels people's mistrust of 
government?
    Ms. Schlafly. Well, it is just another--another example to 
add to various items that have caused our distrust.
    While I--I want to add one more comment to what I said 
earlier. While I think the free market can and should deal with 
the commercial collections of information, we do not want--we 
do not want any law that gives these commercial outfits a 
copyright or an ownership in these collections of information 
that is accompanied by criminal penalties. And there has been 
legislation cooking around in Congress on that area.
    I feel that the free market can deal with it, but we do not 
want them running to the local District Attorney to prosecute 
anybody who wants to get her own medical records out of a 
government or--or AMA database.
    Senator Shelby. Well, you should have that right anyway. 
Should you not?
    Ms. Schlafly. Should have that right, because the 
information should belong to the individual.
    Mr. Mierzwinski. Senator, I think----
    Senator Shelby. If Congress passes my bill, you will have 
that right.
    Mr. Mierzwinski. Senator, I think that the example you gave 
from Pennsylvania--there are other examples very similar to 
that. Some of the states have entered into contracts with 
private firms that want to sell wage and unemployment data, 
ostensibly, to make credit applications easier.
    And in audits of some of those firms, I believe the 
Department of Labor has found that their data protection 
practices have not been adequate. And it just goes to show you 
that putting public records up for sale imposes grave privacy 
risks.
    Senator Shelby. Okay. I want to thank all of you in the 
first panel. We appreciate your participation. We appreciate 
your insight into this issue. And we will keep working this 
issue. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Schlafly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Herman. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF LARRY MAJERUS, VICE PRESIDENT OF 
            GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, POLK COMPANY

    Senator Shelby. On the second panel, we will hear from Mr. 
Larry Majerus from the Polk Company; Mr. Roger Cross, the 
Administrator of the Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles; and 
from Ms. Anne Ferro, the Administrator of the Maryland Motor 
Vehicle Administration.
    If you folks would come up to the table. Your written 
statements will be made part of the record in their entirety.
    Mr. Majerus. Is that right?
    Mr. Majerus. That is correct.
    Senator Shelby. You proceed, as you wish.
    Mr. Majerus. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I very much 
appreciate you inviting me to appear before you today. My name 
is Larry Majerus. I am Vice President of Government Relations 
for The Polk Company in Southfield, Michigan.
    Polk has a long strong commitment on privacy. And we 
commend your interest and leadership on privacy. And we share 
your view that an opt-in is an appropriate approach for 
sensitive information, such as photos and medical data.
    At Polk, we obtain motor vehicle title and registration 
information, which we use for several purposes, including 
publishing statistics on the sale and use of automobiles, 
safety recall, product and performance surveys, and marketing.
    Prior to coming to Polk, I was Director of Motor Vehicles 
for the State of Montana. In both positions, I have developed 
considerable experience dealing with the appropriate uses of 
motor vehicle information, balanced with citizens' concerns 
about privacy.
    Polk has helped the automotive industry develop careful 
practices involving the use of public records. And we have 
assisted many motor vehicle departments in developing and 
implementing opt-out systems for marketing use.
    I would like to make three points today. First, the opt-out 
systems that were in place were working to effectively protect 
privacy. Many States will be unable to convert to an effective 
opt-in system by June 1, causing them to shut down access for 
marketing and surveys--effectively, a prohibition.
    Second, the principal use of motor vehicle records are 
manufacturers and dealers who have used this public information 
since 1922. They would be seriously impacted by the express 
consent provision.
    And third, we believe opt-out versus opt-in needs a more 
thorough study before such action is taken. We urge the bill's 
implementation date to be delayed, to allow for a such a study 
of Section 350, paragraph D, of the Transportation 
Appropriations bill, and to provide adequate time for States to 
comply with the new requirements.
    We have heard that success of an opt-in and an opt-out 
program is going to be based on the communication to the 
consumer. So, we feel that is very important.
    The auto industry deals almost exclusively with vehicle 
registration and titles, which only contain owner name, 
address, make and year of car or truck. Provisions were made in 
DPPA for many appropriate uses of public vehicle records.
    It was accompanied by an option for consumers who might 
object to receiving mail advertising or surveys to request to 
have their name and address withheld for those purposes.
    Polk helped seven States develop opt-out systems, even 
before Congress first introduced the Driver's Privacy 
Protection Act. Thirty-one States are now operative. Today, 
citizens in these states are told that they may have their 
motor vehicle records withheld for surveys, marketing, 
solicitation, and those concerned are doing so.
    These States have descriptive opt-out language, visible on 
the application or renewal package, allowing the owner to opt-
out or make a choice. Citizens are opting out at double digit 
levels, which we believe indicates the opt-out systems are 
working as they were intended.
    Many States will have to scrap their existing opt-out 
systems, prepare notifications, and build new opt-in systems. 
We anticipate some States will shut down this important 
resource under these circumstances.
    Without a delay, auto manufacturers and thousands of 
dealers will no longer be able to reach finite markets for 
their products. We are talking about marketing a sophisticated 
expensive product to a narrow market of potential customers.
    And what of the many small businesses that have been 
created in the automotive industry and depend on make and year 
model information for their survival; like the producer of a 
special accessory for specific cars and trucks? They, like the 
auto dealers, need to reach specific vehicle owners with 
special offers.
    The new language seriously damages the auto industry, which 
really has no effective alternative source for motor vehicle 
ownership information. Without that specific vehicle ownership 
information, they have to do more data mining; they have to do 
more modeling; they have to do more consumption of consumer 
data.
    Finally, DPPA implementation was completed over a 3-year 
period, ending in September 1997. That timeframe was needed to 
achieve the objectives. By contrast, the current law passed as 
part of the final Appropriations bill in October 1999, States 
were given only until June 1 to dismantle their existing system 
and develop a whole new system. And we wonder how much 
confusion that is going to create among the consumers.
    In closing, a quick opt-out--excuse me--a quick opt-in for 
motor vehicle records will effectively be a shut-off. It will 
definitely impact the auto industry; an industry that has 
depended upon and carefully used this public information for 
over 70 years.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    We urge you to consider a delay in the implementation to 
give all parties a fair and reasonable time to discuss the 
objectives, reach acceptable conclusions, and provide adequate 
time for the States to comply.
    Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Larry G. Majerus

    Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your inviting me to appear 
before you today. My name is Larry Majerus and I am Vice President of 
Government Relations for The Polk Company in Southfield, Michigan. We 
gather motor vehicle title and registration information, which is then 
used for several purposes including publishing statistics on the sale 
and use of automobiles, safety recall, product and performance surveys, 
and marketing. Prior to my 12 years at Polk, I was Director of Motor 
Vehicles for the State of Montana for 11 years. In both positions, I 
have developed considerable experience dealing with appropriate uses of 
motor vehicle information balanced with citizens' concerns about 
privacy. My staff and I have helped the automotive industry develop 
careful practices involving the use of these public records, and we 
have assisted many state motor vehicle departments in developing and 
implementing opt out systems for marketing uses. My experience allows 
me to view this subject as a consumer, a retailer, a government 
official, and a businessman.
    I would like to make four major points today--all facts that 
suggest that last year's appropriations bill amendment to the Driver's 
Privacy Protection Act (``DPPA'') requiring ``express consent'' from 
consumers for surveys, marketing and solicitations is an unnecessary 
restriction on public records, and will greatly damage many businesses, 
especially those in the automotive industry. The four points I hope you 
will consider are first, the opt out systems that were already in place 
were working to effectively protect privacy. Many states will be unable 
to convert to an effective opt in system by the June 1st date, causing 
them to shut down access for marketing and surveys. Therefore, this 
abrupt opt in system is effectively a prohibition. Second, the 
principal users of motor vehicle records are manufacturers and dealers 
who have used this public information since 1922. They would be 
seriously impacted by the ``express consent'' provision. Third, the 
economic growth of this country may well be impacted by this new 
limitation. And fourth, we believe this bill needs a more thorough 
study before such drastic action is taken. We urge the bill's 
implementation date be delayed to allow for such discussions, and to 
provide adequate time for states to comply with the new requirements.
    Most of the motor vehicle record information under discussion has 
been open record for so long that many do not consider it ``personal.'' 
For example, the auto industry deals almost exclusively with vehicle 
registrations and titles, which contain only owner name and address and 
make and year of car or truck. Until now, users of motor vehicle 
records and the state agencies releasing them have been guided by the 
1994 DPPA. That legislation was carefully considered so as to provide 
consumer privacy protections (and even avoidance of unwanted mailed 
advertising)--balanced with the needs of the nation's businesses for 
access to these open public records. Provision was made in the DPPA for 
many appropriate uses of public motor vehicle records including safety 
recall, fraud detection, statistics, motor vehicle research, and 
marketing. More importantly to our discussions today, inclusion of 
marketing, surveys and solicitations was accompanied by an option for 
consumers who might object to receiving mailed advertising or survey 
requests to have their names and addresses withheld for those purposes. 
``Clear and conspicuous'' notice is provided and the consumer can opt 
out.
    We have had such a system within our own company for many years, 
and we helped seven states develop opt out systems even before Congress 
first introduced the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. We believe DPPA 
was a good balance of the principles. Accordingly, states set about, 
with industry help, to develop opt out systems. Thirty-one states are 
now operative. Today, citizens in these states are told that they may 
have their motor vehicle records withheld from ``surveys, marketing, or 
solicitations,'' and those concerned are doing so. These states have 
very descriptive opt out language, clearly visible in the application 
or renewal package, making it easy for the owner to opt out and 
detailing what will happen as a result of that choice. States flag the 
record information we receive so that those owner names may be used for 
safety recall, for example, but not for ``surveys, marketing and 
solicitations.'' Citizens are opting out at double-digit levels, which 
we believe, and the states confirm, indicates that the opt out systems 
are working as they were intended.
    Many people, however, choose not to opt out. As the advertising 
industry knows, people are informed, educated, and motivated by 
advertising but they do not usually seek it out. The 1999 USPS 
Household Survey finds that only 4.9 percent of U.S. households object 
to advertising mail. And Simons Market Research finds that in the 
latest reported year, 68 percent of all adults in the U.S. bought 
something through direct marketing.
    The mechanics of advising consumers, and providing an opportunity 
for them to opt in, are mind-boggling, especially in the short time 
allowed by this new legislation. For example many states will have to 
scrap existing opt out systems, prepare notifications, and build new 
(and probably expensive) opt in systems. We anticipate that the states 
will have little choice but to shut down this important resource under 
these circumstances. A delayed effective date will give states time to 
evaluate whether and how an opt in system can be effectively 
implemented.
    Without a delay, auto manufacturers and thousands of dealers will 
no longer be able to reach finite markets for their products, which is 
our second point. This is not selling soap or candy, which everyone 
might use, but rather we are talking about marketing a sophisticated 
and comparatively expensive product to a narrow market of existing and 
potential customers. That marketing is vitally important to the auto 
industry. Not everyone is a prospect for a new car, as is demonstrated 
by the fact that 15 million car sales in a given year are made to over 
100 million households.
    And what of the many small businesses that have been created 
recently in the automobile industry and depend on make and year model 
information for their survival, like the producer of special 
accessories for specific cars and trucks? They will suffer as will any 
auto-oriented business, like a car dealership, that needs to reach 
specific groups of owners with special offers.
    For those who use motor vehicle records for marketing, the need is 
very great. Without this information, manufacturers will have 
difficulty reaching their own owners. Yes, they start with a name and 
address from the sales record, but people move and sell their cars. 
Registration and title data is necessary to keep that information 
current and provide for important communications between seller and 
customer. It does so merely using name and address, and the make and 
year of car.
    Our third point concerns the impact on our economy. The new 
language seriously damages the auto industry which has no alternative 
source for motor vehicle ownership information. That should be a 
concern, because the latest data available indicates that auto industry 
sales approximate $650 billion each year and represent 25 percent of 
all retail sales. State taxes on motor vehicles amount to some $41 
billion each year, representing 11 percent of all taxes collected by 
states and that does not include sales tax on cars and trucks.
    Surely an industry so important to the nation's economy should not 
be impeded in following the marketing and survey practices it has so 
successfully used without problem for many years.
    That is especially true when you consider that the auto industry, 
and its data providers like Polk, have used this information very 
responsibly since the first compilations in 1922. It is principally for 
these automotive clients that we purchase this public data from the 
states and take such great care to insure that we use it responsibly.
    Finally, one of the reasons this legislation can hurt so many 
businesses and people is because it passed quickly, and allows 
extremely limited implementation time. When the Driver's Privacy 
Protection Act was developed, discussions by staff with the private 
sector began more than a year before the bill's passage. Over time, 
several versions of the bill were prepared to provide for many 
legitimate uses, avoiding unnecessary impact on business, and still 
offering citizens an easy way to withhold their names. Planning for 
this significant legislation--into which everyone had input--started in 
July, 1993 followed by a year of hearings and discussions until passage 
in the fall of 1994. Implementation was to be complete three years 
later in September, 1997. That total four year time frame was needed to 
delicately but decisively achieve the objectives. It is especially 
important to note that states were allowed a full three years--from 
1994 to 1997--to pass legislation, build their systems, and notify 
owners of the impending change. I can assure you from personal 
knowledge that this was not too much time.
    By contrast, the current plan was introduced last May and passed as 
Section 350 paragraph d) of the final appropriations bill in October, 
1999. DPPA took 50 months to enact and implement but as a result of 
these major revisions, states are given only until June 1, 2000 to 
dismantle their existing systems and develop new ones. We believe that 
nothing of this magnitude and of such importance to so many should 
become law so quickly without full investigation of the unintended 
consequences and adequate time to implement the requirements.
    In closing, the facts are clear. A quick opt in for motor vehicle 
records will effectively be a shut off. It will definitely impact the 
automotive industry, an industry that has depended upon and carefully 
used this public information for over 70 years. If the auto industry is 
hampered, the repercussions may be felt in the nation's economy, 
considering the value of automotive sales and associated taxes. And 
until now, at this hearing, none of us has had an opportunity to air 
the many sides of this issue, nor is ample time being allowed for 
states to implement the results. We urge you to consider a delay in the 
implementation date to give all parties a fair and reasonable time to 
discuss the objectives, reach acceptable conclusions, and provide 
adequate time for states to comply.
                                 ______
                                 
                                          The Polk Company,
                                                    April 10, 2000.
Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies, 
        Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 
testify before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies 
on April 4th regarding amendments to the Driver's Privacy Protection 
Act (``DPPA''). I am submitting this letter for the record in order to 
respond to two clusters of issues raised during the hearing.
Issue Cluster 1:
    It was asserted during the hearing that all of the personal 
information contained in motor vehicle title and registration records 
and drivers' license records is sensitive and that the source of this 
personal information (i.e., the government) should be the primary 
determinant of the level of privacy protections that should be afforded 
to the information.
Issue Cluster 2:
    It was asserted that opt-out systems are designed to fail and have 
consistently resulted in a failure to provide adequate privacy 
protections.
Response 1:
    It was suggested during the hearing that all of the information 
contained in motor vehicle title and registration records and drivers' 
license records is very sensitive, and that this fact, coupled with 
this governmental source of this personally identifiable information, 
determines the level of privacy protections that should be afforded to 
the information.
    In fact, just the opposite is true. Mostly, the information is 
traditionally public domain-type information--i.e., name and address 
information.
    The Fourth Circuit most closely scrutinized the sensitivity of the 
information in ``motor vehicle records'' in a portion of their decision 
in Condon v. Reno, 155 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 1998), that was left 
undisturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court. After analysis and discussion, 
they concluded: ``In sum, the information found in motor vehicle 
records is not the sort of information to which individuals have a 
reasonable expectation of privacy.'' Id. at 465. Consequently, while, 
as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Reno v. Condon that Congress may 
chose to regulate the information found in motor vehicle records as 
``an article of commerce,'' it is not the type of information to which 
individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
    On the issue of the factors that have traditionally been considered 
in determining the level of privacy protections that should be afforded 
to personal information, it is the subject matter (i.e., sensitivity) 
and the use that is to be made of the information that customarily 
determines the type of privacy protections that should apply. That is 
why so many federal and state privacy laws permit some unrestricted 
uses of personal information but subject other uses to substantial 
regulation. The consumer reporting laws, for example, protect consumers 
from uses of personal information, even if obtained from public court 
records, when the use determines that person's eligibility for a job, 
or household credit or insurance.
    Deciding whether or not to market a product or service to an 
individual has not been deemed to be a sufficiently important decision 
to merit substantial privacy protections. Federal privacy laws, for 
example, enacted after hearings and careful study, have repeatedly 
found that notice and opt-out suffices to allow consumers to avoid 
marketing uses of their personal information. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 
2710(b)(2)(D) (Video Privacy Protection Act), 47 U.S.C. 551(c)(2)(C) 
(cable TV subscriber privacy). The Safe Harbor Principles also 
recognize that data used in direct marketing is ``not used for 
decisions that will significantly affect the individual.''
Response 2:
    Opt-out systems under the DPPA can provide adequate privacy 
protections.
    Appropriately constructed and implemented opt-out systems have 
consistently been judged to provide strong privacy protections. Opt-out 
systems implemented under the DPPA have been successful in those states 
that have--
  --1. Provided a clear, detailed and conspicuous notice;
  --2. Devised a simple method by which consumers can exercise their 
        opt-out rights;
  --3. Made the consumer's choice permanent, that is, until the 
        consumer changes his/her mind; and
  --4. Reached all relevant data processors.
    A robust notice explains the types of information that are being 
collected, how the information will be used, to whom the information 
may be disclosed, the purposes for which the information may be 
disclosed, and the consumers' rights with respect to the information.
    In those states that have developed clear, detailed and conspicuous 
notices and effective, consumer-friendly mechanisms to implement opt-
outs, consumers understand their rights and are able to exercise their 
right to choose. In these states, opt-out rates can exceed 30 percent. 
These kinds of opt-out rates reflect consumer choices which balance 
privacy interests with an interest in allowing their information to be 
used for various DPPA purposes, including marketing and surveys. Many 
consumers benefit from these marketing efforts and choose to receive 
marketing materials to make purchases of many useful products, 
including automobile safety-enhancing and fuel efficiency products.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                          Larry G. Majerus,
                              Vice President, Government Relations.

STATEMENT OF ANNE FERRO, ADMINISTRATOR, MARYLAND MOTOR 
            VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION

    Senator Shelby. Ms. Ferro.
    Ms. Ferro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bennett. We 
appreciate--I do appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
    I am Anne Ferro, the Administrator for Maryland.
    Maryland is a bit different than some of the other States, 
and certainly, the AAMVA position you will hear today about the 
other States. Maryland has moved ahead with both an opt-out and 
an opt-in. So, perhaps, we are a good example of what can be 
accomplished, depending on which way leadership is going.
    You will hear from AAMVA, and while Maryland is a very 
active member and supporter of AAMVA activities, on this issue, 
in particular, I would have to make sure you understand that 
our perspective is different.
    A snapshot of Maryland. Maryland is a State of 3.5 million 
active drivers and 4 million active vehicle records. So, while 
relatively small in the scheme of 200 million driving records 
nationwide, we certainly have a sizable database to work with 
in moving ahead with a privacy provision.
    Following the Federal enactment of a Privacy Act, Maryland 
leadership, both the General Assembly and the Governor, were 
successful in enacting a Maryland law, specifically requiring 
an opt-out system. That was enacted in April 1997. And we had 
to have it, of course, in compliance with the Federal Act by 
September 1997, and then, for Maryland's purposes, the extra 
pieces by October 1997. So, we moved rather quickly.
    Implementation of that Act was somewhat expensive because 
of the time frame. It was about a $1.5 million. But it 
certainly was doable within the context of the constraints that 
we had.
    Now, Maryland's 1997 Privacy Act mirrored the Federal 
Privacy Act, insofar as we offered an opt-in--an opt-out 
approach--excuse me--but our record access remained open to law 
enforcement, Federal and State government, courts, insurance 
industry, private investigators, and the towing industry, and 
other specific emergency purposes. So, our regulations 
reflected that.
    Now, in our testimony--you have a copy--the last two pages, 
the second to last page is a copy of the form that Maryland 
made available to the public. And the reason I brought it is, 
it is indicative of something that has already been reflected 
by your prior panel and yourself, Mr. Chairman. An opt-out 
system is confusing to the public.
    Maryland's law, since 1943, has mandated an open record 
system. So, in fact, Maryland vehicle law made records open to 
the public from 1943 forward. When the Maryland General 
Assembly moved ahead with enacting an opt-out system that, for 
the first time ever, allowed Maryland citizens to close access 
to their records, the public went wild. They thought that, for 
the first time, Maryland was offering for sale, over-the-
counter, their record. It had just not been an issue before.
    Even at the Federal level, the attention had not been paid 
to the Federal Act. But the Maryland public, with the 
assistance of the Worldwide Web, perceived that, in fact, for 
the first time ever, Maryland was offering the sale of your 
vehicle record over-the-counter by picking up a tag of someone, 
as your mentioned, Senator Bennett, who was attractive, who 
happened to drive by.
    That confusion, combined with the marketing industry's 
concerns--which again, the attempt in the 1997 Act was to 
balance the concerns between privacy, public safety and the 
very valid interests of commercial industry and the 
availability of mailing lists. That balance was proven to be 
somewhat skewed in actual implementation of an opt-out system.
    What the commercial industry found was that Maryland's $3.5 
million--3.5 million-record driver database was no longer 
reflective of Maryland, because by virtue of an opt-out system, 
about 1 million of our citizens opted to close public access to 
their records--about a third.
    Senator Shelby. From everyone? Did everybody respond to----
    Ms. Ferro. No, they did not.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Ms. Ferro. And that is a very good question to raise.
    Maryland renews about 20 percent of its drivers every year. 
We have had the opt-out system on the books now for a little 
over 2 years. Everybody, at the time of renewal of their 
driver's license, as well as their vehicle, is offered the 
opportunity, verbally, ``Would you like to close public access 
to your record?''
    We also issued numerous press releases, and there was a 
great deal of coverage to the public, announcing, in September 
and October 1997 through the fall, that you, in fact, could 
call a toll-free number, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 
yourself close access to your records, so you did not have to 
wait for renewal, or you could submit this form.
    Senator Shelby. Would it not be easier Ms. Ferro for 
everybody, if the prohibition be that you could not sell their 
driver's license or use their information unless they opt-in?
    Ms. Ferro. And that is, in fact, what we moved to.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Ms. Ferro. By virtue of that confusion that occurred----
    Senator Shelby. Because the other would confuse you.
    Ms. Ferro. We went from opt-out to opt-in.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Ms. Ferro. And part of it was by virtue of that public 
outcry. And what we found was, while over two-and-a-half years, 
more than 45 percent of our recordholders really were literally 
asked the question over-the-counter, ``Would you like to 
privatize your record?'' in addition to being bombarded with 
forms that had the information on it, with access through the 
press releases and newspaper coverage, information on our web 
site that you could privatize your record any time you wanted--
even with all of that availability of information, only 31 
percent of our drivers actually privatized their records.
    It defied what you would have expected. And I think it 
speaks right to Ms. Herman's point--people do not know when 
they need to be protected.
    We offered it over-the-counter. Of course, we asked a lot 
of questions, ``Would you like to register to vote? Would you 
like to be an organ donor?'' But most importantly, this privacy 
question, a lot of people said, ``Don't care,'' because they 
probably did not realize how important it was until something 
may have happened, as Ms. Herman pointed out.
    So, in light of that confusion, Maryland's General Assembly 
did, in fact, in January--or the 1999 session, I should say, 
enacted, by April, an opt-in provision. And that will take 
effect July of this year.
    Because Maryland already implemented much of the 
programming that was required under the opt-out provision, we 
have really made our major expense back in 1997. So, the move 
to the opt-in system is very simple. It is about a quarter of a 
million dollars, a lot of training to our employees, but our 
slogan to them is, ``When in doubt, don't give it out.''
    So, we have been able to move ahead. And I just wanted to 
reinforce, I think, some of the----
    Senator Shelby. Can we use that slogan?
    Ms. Ferro. Yes, you may. Please. Nothing we do is 
copyrighted.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Ms. Ferro. It is yours. We would be honored.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    So, in fact, I just wanted to speak from our own experience 
in Maryland. It is doable. We are relieved, in fact, and I see 
my light, to go to an opt-in system, and feel that that will 
offer more protection to our citizens.
    Senator Shelby. For the people.
    Ms. Ferro. Yes.
    [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Anne S. Ferro

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I thank you for the 
opportunity to come before you today. I am Anne S. Ferro, Administrator 
of the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. I have been asked today 
to detail Maryland's efforts to make motor vehicle records private.
    The Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration's (MVA) primary customers 
and business partners are the public, industry, employees and other 
government agencies. The MVA interacts directly with most of Maryland's 
residents, conducting approximately 7.5 million walk-in customer 
transactions annually and 10 million total transactions overall. The 
MVA's products include over 3.7 million vehicle registrations, 3.4 
million driver licenses and identification cards, and 2.5 million 
emission tests.
    The MVA collects almost $900 million in revenue per year that is 
deposited into the state's Transportation Trust Fund. This revenue 
represents an average of 30 percent of the total Transportation Trust 
Fund and is redistributed to all modes within the Maryland Department 
of Transportation to fund major transportation initiatives and 
operating costs. Funds are also distributed to the state's General Fund 
and local governments. MVA's current operating budget is $114.4 
million.

                   MARYLAND'S 1997 PRIVACY INITIATIVE

    Maryland driver and vehicle records maintained by the Motor Vehicle 
Administration (MVA) have been open to public access through the 
authority of the 2 State Motor Vehicle Act of 1943. The Federal Driver 
Privacy Protection Act of 1994 specifies that, beginning September 1, 
1997, state motor vehicle agencies must offer record holders the 
opportunity to close their records to public use. Maryland implemented 
strong state initiatives in 1997 and 1999. The 1997 initiative (Chapter 
338 of the Laws of 1997) allows Maryland citizens the opportunity to 
block access to their records for use in commercial mailings and to the 
public. (See Attachment I). This legislative initiative was the result 
of three years of deliberations and has resulted in 31 percent of 
Maryland drivers requesting that their records be privatized.
    Under the current privacy law, citizens have options on whether 
their records are closed to individuals and whether they consent to 
having their addresses sold for merchandizing promotions. As of, March 
26, 2000, the options taken by Maryland citizens were:

MVA Records Blocked Under 1997 Act

Block public access and mail list purchases.............       1,038,518
Block public access; allow mail list purchases..........          12,360
Allow public access, block mail list purchases..........           1,398

                   MARYLAND'S 1999 PRIVACY INITIATIVE

    One unintended result of the 1997 legislation was the public 
confusion and perception that the General Assembly had opened all motor 
vehicle records to allow for their sale to marketers. The resulting 
legislative response was to fully close motor vehicle records through 
legislation enacted in 1999. Chapters 349 and 350 of the Laws of 1999 
become effective July 2000. (A copy of this law has been provided to 
the committee staff) They prohibit disclosure of MVA records, unless 
the individual specifically consents to the disclosure in writing. (See 
Attachment II) Personal information covered by this statute includes: 
address, driver's license number, medical information, name, 
photograph, Social Security Number, or telephone number.
    Briefly, Maryland law governing privacy authorizes the following:
  --Closes all MVA records to the public and to mail list purchases, 
        beginning July 2000. Only when a record holder opts for a file 
        to remain open is it accessible to the public.
  --Restricts access to personal information from Motor vehicle records 
        except for certain permissible uses.
  --Requires each entity accessing MVA records to retain a record for 5 
        years of the use and re-disclosure of the records. Any access 
        to MVA records is subject to monitoring and audit by the MVA.
  --Prohibits use of MVA records for telephone solicitations.
  --Requires the MVA to establish regulations governing waivers of 
        privacy.
  --Allows access to the following users, consistent with federal law:
    --Applicants who provide written consent from the record holder.
    --Employer or Insurer for holder of a Commercial Drivers' (CDL) 
            License to obtain/verify information required under law.
    --Government Agency (Federal, State and Local).
    --Individual or his/her attorney. Insurer/Insurance Support Agency 
            in connection with rating, Underwriting claims.
    --Law Enforcement/courts.
    --Legitimate business entity to verify personal information already 
            provided to recover debt, and purse legal remedies against 
            the individual.
    --Licensed Private Detective Agency or Security Guard Agency for 
            purposes permitted by law.
    --Motor Vehicle Driver Safety, Vehicle Theft, Vehicle Emissions, 
            Alterations or Recalls.
    --Private Toll Facility operations.
    --For use in connection with court proceedings for process service 
            investigation in anticipation of litigation and execution/
            enforcement of judgements and orders.
    --Research/Statistical for purposes approved by MVA.
    --Towing Company or Impound Facility.
    --Operator of a taxicab, limousine, funeral vehicles for matters 
            relating to public safety or emergency treatment for a 
            member of the public.
                 fiscal impact of maryland privacy act
    The MVA currently sells certified and non-certified records for 
fees of $10 and $5, respectfully. Additionally, the MVA sells groups of 
records for a minimum fee of $500, and $.05 for each record over 
10,000.

                       REVENUE SALE OF MVA RECORDS
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 1997     1998     1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual record purchases..................    $12.9    $13.6    $14.0
Direct mail purchases........................       .7       .9       .9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Individuals or entities that would still have authorized access 
under the exceptions provided for in the Maryland law purchase the 
majority of certified and noncertified records. However, the bill 
prohibits the sale of groups of records that are sold to marketers, 
surveyors and solicitors, unless the expressed written consent of the 
person in interest is received by the MVA.
    It is expected that a few individuals will give consent to avail 
their driving and registration records for public inspection. As a 
result, the MVA estimates a $.9m decrease in Transportation Trust Fund 
revenues beginning in fiscal year 2001. The cost of implementing the 
changes is an estimated $235,000 in fiscal year 2001 necessary for 
computer programming and for replacing forms inventory to notify 
drivers and vehicle operators of the new privacy requirement. 
Therefore, the total fiscal impact of this initiative is over $1.1 
million loss to the Administration and the Trust Fund.
    The MVA continues to work to guarantee full privacy of the records 
of Maryland citizens. We have the full support of Governor Glendening 
and the General Assembly. MVA has notified commercial business that the 
public records will no longer be available. MVA staff are being trained 
on major legislative changes; and all programming changes are scheduled 
to be in place by July 1, 2000.
    Thank you for requesting Maryland's perspective on the matter of 
privatizing access to motor vehicle records. I would be pleased to 
answer any questions at this time.

                              ATTACHMENTS

    (I) Current form for citizens to request their motor vehicle and 
driver's license file be closed
    (II) Draft form to accommodate July 2000 law changes allowing 
citizens to request that their motor vehicle and driver's license files 
remain open.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP04.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP04.001

STATEMENT OF ROGER CROSS, ADMINISTRATOR, WISCONSIN 
            DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Cross.
    Mr. Cross. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bennett.
    My name is Roger Cross. I am the Administrator for the 
Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles. And I am here 
representing the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators, AAMVA. It is a voluntary organization 
representing motor vehicle administrators and highway safety 
officials in the United States and Canada.
    Our members are responsible for administering the laws for 
motor vehicle operation, and we maintain driver history records 
of over 200 million vehicle operators in the United States, 
alone.
    We share the concerns of Congress and the public to protect 
the privacy of personal information gathered and maintained by 
State agencies. I am pleased the State of Maryland is also here 
participating.
    The focus of my testimony, though, is to be on the issues 
identified by 45 States that have to comply with the amendments 
to the DPPA by June 1, 2000. South Carolina, Oklahoma, and my 
State of Wisconsin have accelerated implementation deadlines as 
a result of the Supreme Court decision.
    Motor vehicle officials take seriously our role as 
administrators of a consumer agency, a highway and traffic 
safety agency, and as administrators of the leading State 
government agency for identity verification.
    Because of this multifaceted accountability, we are 
continually balancing the legitimate needs to access records 
for safety purposes against unauthorized release of information 
that may infringe on an individual's personal safety.
    That is why AAMVA played an active role in shaping the 
original language of the DPPA in 1994. At that time, there was 
not 100 percent agreement among the States that the DPPA would 
provide the level of privacy protection that it purported. Many 
States questioned its constitutionality. In fact, Wisconsin was 
one of those States.
    The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reno versus 
Condon has clarified States' questions about the 
constitutionality of the DPPA. However, the passage of Section 
350 has raised a host of new concerns for the States.
    I will use the remainder of my time to identify some of the 
concerns States have expressed in complying with the 
amendments.
    With regard to the new category of ``Sensitive Personal 
Information,'' the AAMVA community is very pleased that 
Congress has authorized access to law enforcement, insurance 
companies, employers, and the courts. The information disclosed 
for those purposes has a direct impact on public and highway 
safety.
    Subsection 350(c) amends permissible use 11 and requires 
States to receive express consent of the person prior to the 
release of individual records for secondary use. This amendment 
eliminated the opt-out provision.
    The term ``express consent'' is not clearly defined and may 
create a non-uniform interpretation at the State level. The 
term ``opt-in'' has a uniform meaning among State agencies and 
industry partners alike. Typically, an individual opts in, in 
writing. Express consent may be interpreted by States to mean 
either in writing, verbally or electronically.
    In light of the burden placed on States to receive express 
consent, clarification would help ensure that the State 
practices are uniform.
    Subsection 350(d) amends permissible use 12 and requires 
States to receive the express consent of an individual prior to 
inclusion of their record for bulk distribution for surveys, 
marketing and solicitations.
    A survey of AAMVA's membership reflects that members are 
working diligently to comply with the implementation deadline. 
However, some States have determined that the costs associated 
with establishing a statewide opt-in system for a small number 
of participants would not be the best use of limited financial 
resources. Therefore, many States will simply close their 
records for marketing purposes.
    The AAMVA community also seeks clarification of Subsection 
350(e). The intent of this language is not clear. In seeking 
clarification of this subsection, Congressional staff explained 
to the Association that the intent of the language is ``not to 
burden the' individual' to give express consent as a condition 
of the receipt of a motor vehicle record.''
    The problem with that interpretation is that the language 
never references the ``individual.'' The language only 
references ``the issuance of a motor vehicle record.''
    Some States' Attorneys General have expressed concern that 
this language would prevent a State from charging an 
administrative fee for records. If the intent is not to coerce 
individuals into giving consent, then that needs to be clearer, 
and AAMVA recommends redrafting the language in Subsection 
350(e).
    In late February, AAMVA wrote Secretary Slater to request 
written interpretation of the language found in Subsection 
350(f). Our concerns relate to the fact that the State 
administrators were unclear what actions the Department would 
undertake if a State is found to be in noncompliance. In 
addition, the language includes reference to ``grantee,'' which 
is not used elsewhere.
    The motor vehicle community is seeking clarification on 
whether the language is referencing receipt of safety grants, 
such as are available under Section 402 or 410 of DOT 
appropriations.
    Finally, the Association seeks clarification on behalf of 
its members on permissible access to the press. Many States 
have allowed access to the press under permissible use 14 of 
the DPPA. We would appreciate clarification on this issue.
    AAMVA has compiled information on States' implementation 
strategies to date. We have also submitted an additional list 
of concerns States have expressed that require further 
clarification. Guidance on these issues will help ensure that 
States implement the provisions consistent with the 
subcommittee's intent.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    We look forward to working with the subcommittee and staff 
to resolve these issues. I thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today and will respond to questions.
    [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Roger D. Cross

    Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name 
is Roger Cross. I am the Administrator for the Wisconsin Division of 
Motor Vehicles and I'm here representing the American Association of 
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA).
    AAMVA is a voluntary association representing the motor vehicle 
administrators and highway safety officials in the United States and 
Canada. Our members are responsible for administering the laws for 
motor vehicle operation, and they maintain the driver history records 
of more than 200 million vehicle operators in the United States alone.
    I know I speak on behalf of my fellow administrators when I say 
that we share the concern of Congress and the public to protect the 
privacy of personal information gathered and maintained by state 
agencies.
    I am pleased that two other member jurisdictions of AAMVA, the 
States of California and Maryland are also participating in this 
morning's hearing. They represent two distinct perspectives on access 
to driver and motor vehicle records.
    The focus of my testimony is on issues identified by the forty-five 
(45) states that have to comply with the amendments by June 1, 2000. 
South Carolina, Oklahoma and my State of Wisconsin have accelerated 
implementation deadlines as a result of the Supreme Court decision.
    Motor vehicle officials take very seriously our role as 
administrators of a consumer protection agency, a highway and traffic 
safety agency, and as administrators of the leading state government 
agency for identity verification.
    Because of this multifaceted accountability, we are continually 
balancing the legitimate needs to access records for safety purposes 
against the unauthorized release of information that may infringe on an 
individual's personal safety.
    That's why AAMVA played an active role in shaping the original 
language of the DPPA in 1994. At that time, there was not 100 percent 
agreement among the states that the DPPA would provide the level of 
privacy protection that it purported. Many states questioned its 
constitutionality. In fact, Wisconsin was one of those states.
    The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reno v. Condon has 
clarified states' questions about the constitutionality of the DPPA. 
However, the passage of Section 350 has raised a host of new concerns 
for the states.
    I will use the remainder of my time to identify some of the 
concerns states have expressed in complying with the amendments.
    With regard to the new category of ``sensitive personal 
information,'' the AAMVA community is very pleased that Congress has 
authorized access to law enforcement, insurance companies, employers, 
and the courts. The information disclosed for those purposes has a 
direct impact on public and highway safety.
    Subsection 350(c) amends permissible use 11 and requires states to 
receive the express consent of the person prior to the release of 
individual records for secondary use. This amendment eliminated the 
``opt-out'' provision.
    The term ``express consent'' is not clearly defined and may create 
non-uniform interpretation at the state level. The term ``opt in'' has 
a uniform meaning among state agencies and industry partners alike. 
Typically, an individual ``opts in'' in writing. Express consent may be 
interpreted by states to mean either in writing, verbally or 
electronically.
    In light of the burden placed on states to receive express consent, 
clarification would help ensure that state practices are more uniform.
    Subsection 350(d) amends permissible use 12 and requires states to 
receive the express consent of the individual prior to inclusion of 
their record for bulk distribution for surveys, marketing and 
solicitations.
    A survey of the AAMVA membership reflects that members are working 
diligently to comply with the implementation deadline. However, some 
states have determined that the costs associated with establishing a 
state-wide opt-in system, for a small number of participants, would not 
be the best use of limited financial resources available to these 
agencies. Therefore, many states will simply close their records for 
marketing purposes.
    The AAMVA community also seeks clarification of subsection 350(e). 
The intent of this language is not clear. In seeking clarification of 
this subsection, congressional staff explained to the Association that 
the intent of the language is ``not to burden the `individual' to give 
express consent as a condition of receipt of a motor vehicle record.''
    The problem with that interpretation is that the language never 
references the ``individual.'' The language only references the 
``issuance of a motor vehicle record.''
    Some states' Attorneys General have expressed concern that this 
language would prevent the state from charging an administrative fee 
for records. If the intent is not to ``coerce'' individuals into giving 
consent, then that needs to be clearer. AAMVA recommends redrafting the 
language in subsection 350(e).
    In late February, AAMVA wrote Secretary Slater to request written 
interpretation of the language found in Subsection 350(f). Our concerns 
relate to the fact that state administrators are unclear what actions 
the Department will undertake if a state is found to be in 
noncompliance. In addition, the language includes a reference to 
``grantee,'' which is not used elsewhere.
    The motor vehicle community is seeking clarification on whether the 
language is referencing receipt of safety grants such as are available 
under Section 402 and 410 of DOT appropriations.
    Finally, the Association seeks clarification on behalf of its 
members on permissible access to the press. Many states have allowed 
access to the press under permissible use 14 of the DPPA. We would 
appreciate clarification on this issue.
    AAMVA has compiled information on states' implementation strategies 
to date. We have also submitted an additional list of concerns states 
have expressed that require further clarification. Guidance on these 
issues will help ensure that states implement the provisions consistent 
with the Subcommittee's intent.
    We look forward to working with the Subcommittee and staff to 
resolve these issues. I thank you for the opportunity to testify today 
and will respond to questions at the appropriate time.
questions regarding impact of section 350 in implementing amendments to 
                    driver's privacy protection act
    1. What is the impact on operation of National Motor Vehicle Title 
Information System (NMVTIS) or any other electronic system developed to 
exchange motor vehicle information through third-party providers?
    2. What are private investigators allowed access to if request is 
not connected to an ongoing court case?
    3. Does ``motor vehicle record' as defined in H.R. 2084, section 
350(a) include ``all'' motor vehicle records [which is how it is 
defined in the DPPA at section 2725(1)] or just the personal 
information contained within the motor vehicle records?
    4. Are third parties acting on behalf of insurance companies still 
able to buy motor vehicle records in bulk if the information is used 
only for insurance purposes?
    5. Will subsections (a) and (b) of Section 350 expire annually as 
they are tied to appropriations language?
    6. If there is a missing signature to transfer title, can the 
jurisdictions rely on permissible use 14 to release personal 
information to the customer who is seeking to contact that person to 
obtain the required signature?
    7. Are bulk sales permitted, without receiving express consent, for 
motor vehicle records (i.e., vehicle identification number, make, 
model) if no personal information is released?
    8. Is it permissible to provide personal information from motor 
vehicle records to lawyers seeking clients to sue liable parties 
involved in accidents? These attorneys are called ``ambulance chasers'' 
and seek this information for business development purposes.
    9. Is it permissible to disclose personal information to licensed 
security services that call the DMV to verify the owners of vehicles 
parked on their premises?
    10. The walk-ins have caused a great deal of confusion for many 
jurisdictions. For instance, current practice is that if someone walks-
in and supplies the DMV with the name, date of birth, and address of an 
individual, information will be provided to them without receiving 
``express consent'' from the individual to whom the record applies. Is 
that practice permissible under the DPPA as amended?

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP04.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP04.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP04.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP04.006

    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    I want to ask all of you this question: What is the purpose 
of a driver's license? Ms. Ferro.
    Ms. Ferro. The purpose is fundamentally public safety.
    Senator Shelby. Sure. Mr. Majerus.
    Mr. Majerus. In my experience--and not with the Polk 
Company, because we do not purchase driver's license 
information. But with my past experience, I think that--I think 
the other purpose is identification. And that--it has come to 
be the identity card in the State that is called upon when you 
wish to conduct a business transaction or to appear before a 
notary or whatever--that you are the person who the license 
says.
    It is--everybody who goes to the airport knows that it is 
an identification tool if you want to get on an airplane. So, 
it is certainly, in addition to that, also, a strong 
identification tool.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Cross.
    Mr. Cross. The purpose of the driver's license is--as Ms. 
Ferro said, is public safety, to assure that the people who are 
driving the roads are capable of driving, and of course, there 
is a revenue collection benefit, as well. But it has the effect 
of also becoming an identification card.
    Senator Shelby. Why do States collect personal information 
and snap photographs before issuing a driver's license? Ms. 
Ferro.
    Ms. Ferro. To ensure that law enforcement--should you be a 
haphazard driver, in fact, to ensure that law enforcement can 
identify you at the time that they have a traffic stop, and 
ensure that it really is you.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Cross.
    Mr. Cross. Yes. We collect, obviously, the address 
information for notification, if we should need to notify the 
driver of a change in their driving status. We also, obviously, 
use the photograph for identification purposes.
    Senator Shelby. For a government need, in a sense, is it 
not?
    Mr. Cross. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. If you were called upon. Mr. Majerus.
    Mr. Majerus. I agree with that.
    Senator Shelby. You agree with that.
    Should the U.S. Government sell census data for commercial 
purposes? Ms. Ferro.
    Ms. Ferro. Let me----
    Senator Shelby. Just your opinion. I know it is not----
    Ms. Ferro. All right. I will say, from Maryland's 
perspective--I will not say census data--motor vehicle data, if 
I may, on this point. Maryland has taken the position that, no, 
it should not; that it is for----
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Cross.
    Mr. Cross. Wisconsin will comply with DPPA and not sell the 
data. However, in bulk, I think it could be very useful--not 
with the personal identifiers.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Majerus.
    Mr. Majerus. I think census data is now only provided in 
demographic form. I do not believe it is provided on an 
individual household level. And whether they should do that or 
not, I will leave that up to the Congress, because I know you 
debated that before you did the census.
    I would point out, however, that some people do rely on 
that information and find it very valuable. And if the 
government decided not to do that, they would probably use 
other methods of modeling and profiling to accomplish the same 
objective.
    Senator Shelby. Yes. They would figure out some other way, 
but it would not be using information that is compelled by the 
government of all of us, as citizens, that we give to the 
government because we have to. If we do not, we will not get a 
driver's license, for example.
    And second, we are compelled by law to do this, it is 
required in order to operate a vehicle. We have to give this 
information and so forth. But most people, I believe, do not 
realize that this information is being sold after it is 
extracted from them, for a profit, by the government.
    Ms. Ferro.
    Ms. Ferro. Well, I would affirm--based on our experience 
with an opt-out system, I would affirm your remarks. Prior to 
1997, I would have said, ``No. The public knows it is public, 
because they come in and buy them all the time, to the tune of 
$10 million.''
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Ms. Ferro. But clearly, the public was not aware of it.
    Senator Shelby. Okay. Mr. Cross, last year, members of the 
Conference Committee that we were on, from your State of 
Wisconsin, insisted that the States party to the South Carolina 
suit have 90 days from the date of the Supreme Court ruling to 
be in compliance with the DPPA.
    Mr. Cross. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. We did that. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 
unanimous decision you are very familiar with----
    Mr. Cross. Very.
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. Did not take as long as they 
might have thought to reach a unanimous decision. Your State of 
Wisconsin, as well as all States, is required to comply with 
the amendments to the DPPA by April 13, I believe.
    Mr. Cross. That is correct.
    Senator Shelby. What is your department doing to come into 
compliance?
    Mr. Cross. We are, essentially, in compliance right now. 
What we did was we had a form that we had used--we were 
originally--when we were in compliance prior to our joining the 
lawsuit, we had the forms already made up.
    What we did, of course, we had to modify them to take out 
permissible use 14, but we will essentially be in compliance. 
However, we are being in compliance by simply not having an 
opt-in phase, and simply shutting off all--all use of 
marketing.
    Senator Shelby. Ms. Ferro, in your testimony, you state 
that the costs of implementing an affirmative consent system is 
estimated to be $235,000, due to computer programming and new 
forms. Would you characterize this as a nonrecurring cost, 
basically?
    Ms. Ferro. Yes. The only recurring cost is system 
maintenance of about $50,000 a year. I would say, there is a 
cost, also, in lost revenue from sales of bulk mailing lists of 
$900,000, but that has not been----
    Senator Shelby. I see.
    Ms. Ferro. I am sorry.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Majerus, at least seven States, 
including the State of California, our largest State in 
population, do not permit the disclosure of personal 
information for commercial purposes. Does this mean that you do 
not provide personal information to marketers about the 
residents of California at all, or do you do it in other ways?
    Mr. Majerus. We do--we do purchase the information for 
commercial purposes in California. We purchase registration and 
title information for recall and statistics, and for--for 
compiling title histories that do not have name and address in 
them. So, we do purchase records for commercial purposes.
    We do--we are not allowed to use those records for direct 
marketing or solicitation.
    Senator Shelby. Okay. Do you use it mainly for safety 
considerations?
    Mr. Majerus. Recall----
    Senator Shelby. That is what I mean.
    Mr. Majerus. Product recall goes much beyond safety 
nowadays. There--you know, there is one set of recalls that is 
mandated by the Federal Government. In some Administrations 
there is less mandated recalls and more voluntary recalls. 
There is other product recalls related to motor vehicles that 
are not safety-related.
    And then, in more recent years, there are a number of 
environmental recalls that are--that happen. So, it goes--it is 
broader than just the safety issue anymore.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
    Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Majerus, you made a comment that I find interesting, 
and I would like you to expand on. You say if--if this 
information is not made available in the ways that it 
historically has been, that they--your customers--I gather, 
your customers--I did not get it all written down, exactly, so 
I may not have it exactly right, but you made the phrase, 
``they will do more mining for consumer information than they 
are doing now,'' and that ironically, that may end up bringing 
up more information in--in a public way or in a way that some 
privacy advocates would be concerned about, than the present 
system would.
    Would you expand on that? Because that is a very 
interesting kind of side effect. We live in a world of 
unintended consequences as we pass legislation here. And I just 
kind of caught that as you went by, that maybe the side effect 
in one area will be a lessening of privacy, because of more 
mining of this.
    Can you tell us what you mean when you say, ``do more 
mining''?
    Mr. Majerus. I will use--I will use the----
    Senator Bennett. Did I get the phrase right?
    Mr. Majerus. Yes. I will use the Chairman's example in 
California, where we are unable to use vehicle-specific data 
for direct marketing. In those States, our clients have to use 
other data to try to achieve similar results.
    As I pointed out in my testimony, first of all, it is more 
expensive and it is not as effective. But what they do is they 
compile other data, they look at other data, they do profiling, 
they try to make a relationship with the type of product that 
they are selling, and they collect, actually, more information 
on the consumer than they would before.
    Privacy issues----
    Senator Bennett. What sources do they have for that, that 
would allow them to do that?
    Mr. Majerus. Other sources within the industry. They may 
purchase data from other sources that collect information. 
Nowadays, everybody collects some. Not everybody sells it, but 
there are some that make it available for specific purposes.
    I think privacy issues--I think it is careful to--or maybe 
we should recognize that privacy issues do not necessarily 
arrive from the source of the data, whether it is government 
data or whether it is private data, but on the subject matter, 
and whether the subject is sensitive, like, financial 
information, medical information, or other information that 
they consider--that the public considers very sensitive, and of 
course, the use of that data and how it is used in the end--
whether it is used for honorable purposes or not.
    Senator Bennett. Let us go back to the first panel for just 
a minute, and Ms. Herman. Are there sources that could be used 
to achieve the goal of identity theft outside of government 
that might be stimulated by a change in the government's 
situation; that people would say, ``Gee, I can get it someplace 
else''? In other words, are we going to exacerbate the kind of 
problem that she was talking about or not?
    Mr. Majerus. That is possible. Again, it depends on how the 
data in the industry is protected and how careful the industry 
is who gathers that data and whether they make it available.
    In some cases, they are very protective of that 
information. In most cases, they are very protective of that 
information. I am unaware of an incident where identity theft 
arose from somebody putting together a marketing list or 
getting marketing lists.
    Quite the contrary, that we are occasionally contacted by 
people who want to know what type of information we have on 
them, because they feel that their identity theft was--or their 
identity may have been stolen, and they are wondering whether 
any of that information would get back to us in some way--
whether it would be a change of address or something along 
those lines.
    So, sometimes, that serves as a help to people who are 
concerned about their identity theft.
    Senator Bennett. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. I want to thank all of you for appearing 
here today--both panels--and I appreciate your candor.
    What I have heard here today convinces me that Congress did 
the right thing on the Transportation Appropriations bill last 
year, except we may not have gone far enough.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    I am going to continue to work in this area, because I 
myself, think that this privacy belongs to the individual. And 
especially, where government compels you to provide this 
information, the government, in my opinion, should not sell, 
barter or transfer that data.
    Thank you, all. The meeting is recessed.
    [Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., Tuesday, April 4, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2001

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2000

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:45 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby 
(chairman)presiding.
    Present: Senators Shelby, Specter, Campbell, Lautenberg, 
Reid, and Murray.

       OVERSIGHT HEARING ON AVIATION CONSUMER SERVICE AND DELAYS

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    Federal Aviation Administration

STATEMENT OF HON. JANE GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR

                      Office of Inspector General

STATEMENT OF KENNETH MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

    Senator Shelby. The Committee will come to order. Good 
morning.
    The subject of today's hearing is something that almost 
everyone in the audience has some expertise in. I expect that 
almost everyone in the room has experienced airline flight 
delays and questionable airline passenger service, or they are 
afraid to fly--one or the other.
    I thought that having a hearing today toward the end of the 
summer storm season would allow us to discuss some of the 
issues and challenges facing travelers, the FAA and the 
airlines, while all three of these groups struggle with the 
frustrations and the inconveniences of summer air travel.
    During these peak summer months when it seems that 
virtually every American is taking to the air to reach their 
next business meeting or vacation destination, complaints about 
airlines have never been greater. Passengers are complaining 
about flight delays, flight cancellations, missing connections 
and shoddy service.
    It is difficult to open a newspaper or watch the news 
without hearing another horror story about air travel. Perhaps 
the only statistic more revealing than the rate of increase in 
the number and duration of flight delays is the increased 
number of consumer complaints about poor service.
    But that is not to say that there has not been progress in 
this debate over the past few years. There is wide-spread 
acknowledgment that congestion, delayed flights, flight 
cancellations, missed connections and inconveniences to air 
passengers, caused at least in part by the failure to manage 
congestion, is a serious problem in America. For when it comes 
to getting to the bottom of the delays, the air is thicker with 
accusations than with aircraft.
    While everyone agrees that there is a problem that must be 
addressed, the airlines, the FAA, and passengers have different 
views on what factors cause the delay problems.
    That is why this subcommittee asked the DOT Inspector 
General to look into the cause of delays and cancellations.
    However, we should not have to call in the Inspector 
General to find out what is causing delays.
    The airlines blame the FAA and the air traffic controllers 
for mismanaging the National Airspace System. The FAA blames 
bad weather, aircraft equipment problems, and outdated 
technology.
    The air traffic controllers point their finger at the 
airlines for scheduling so many flights at the same time during 
peak hours.
    Passengers just know the simple truth, that air travel is 
costly, unpleasant and less reliable than they would like.
    There is probably validity to all the points of views that 
I have related. But we need to get away from the blame game and 
get to a commonly accepted assessment of the problem and work 
expeditiously and cooperatively towards a solution.
    Over time, new air traffic control system technologies will 
allow reduced separation standards and will ease congestion 
somewhat. But I think we should be aware of regarding 
technology as a panacea.
    Rather, I believe we should view technology for what it is, 
a long-term tool to increase capacity on an incremental basis.
    Other reforms are also needed. For example, with the influx 
of regional jet service, which fly faster than turbo-props, but 
slower than larger jets, perhaps we need to create new 
altitudes for those slower jets to fly in. In effect, 
establishing additional highways in the sky, fast lanes, slow 
lanes, high lanes, low lanes.
    The way I see it, we need to focus on doing two things, 
increasing air space capacity and doing a better job of 
managing capacity during disruption, whatever the cause.
    The other topic I want to touch on this morning is the 
state of customer service in the airline industry. One has to 
only open a major newspaper, or turn on the nightly news, or 
take a flight to realize that passenger treatment is an issue 
on the minds of the traveling public.
    The Department of Transportation Inspector General has 
recently completed a 6-month review of the airlines customer 
service plans, and he will give us his views on their progress 
in that regard.
    The subject of delays and customer service are closely 
related issues. If a flight is delayed for several hours or 
cancelled, chances are that passengers are going to have a 
pretty dismal view of that carrier's treatment of its 
customers.
    Accordingly, if an airline makes a traveler's trip longer 
by losing baggage, subjecting passengers to surly gate or 
flight attendants, long lines or cardboard sandwiches for the 
in-flight meal, a short hop can seem like it lasted an 
eternity.
    I think what starts the airlines and the traveling public 
off on the wrong foot is the hurry-up-and-wait mentality that 
pervades the travel experience. We are told to get to the 
airport at least an hour before flight time, only to wait in 
line to be processed.
    We are told to be at the gate at least 20 minutes before 
flight time or our seat will be forfeited, only to wait in line 
to be herded onto the plane like domesticated farm animals.
    We are told to be belted in our seats 5 minutes before 
scheduled departure, only to pull away from the gate and be 
held hostage until the airline's real schedule or the system 
can accommodate us.
    When we get down to it, the passenger is a captive in the 
system from the moment he or she arrives at the airport. That 
is the nub of customer dissatisfaction and frustration with air 
travel, and why some of my constituents and colleagues believe 
it may take an act of Congress before many airlines will treat 
their customers with more respect and offer better, more 
reliable service.
    I would note that some airlines do a better job than others 
in both of these areas. And perhaps the Inspector General will 
name some names this morning.
    I would also note that some of the point-to-point carriers 
and the low-fare airlines offer better passenger treatment or 
do a better job of communicating to passengers what to expect 
and in recovering from disruptions to their flight schedules 
than the hub and spoke carriers.
    That leads me to believe that we can do things better and 
that the airlines can treat passengers better. But that 
passengers or the Congress has not yet found the right way to 
get enough attention on these issues.
    While all the network carriers compete on a non-priced 
basis for the high-fare passenger, what have the airlines done 
to help the non-business passenger? Ask any mother with small 
children how much they look forward to traveling the friendly 
skies. In the name of productivity, some have eliminated the 
outdated practice of allowing mothers and small children the 
option of pre-boarding the aircraft.
    I guess it was inconvenient to the flight attendants or the 
first-class passengers. If eliminating that courtesy has made 
the departure more efficient and timely, the airline should 
look into streamlining the process even more.
    Let us have the first-class and the titanium, millennium, 
premiere status frequent flyer board with a mother struggling 
with two car seats, a stroller to gate check, the diaper bag, 
and two little ones. I would hope that the airlines could find 
ways of expediting the boarding process without making travel 
anymore stressful.
    I believe Senator Reid--Senator.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

    Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate your holding this hearing. This is very timely.
    Mr. Chairman, I do not know about the rest of you, but 
every time that I realize that I have to go home, which is very 
often, the day before the flight is ready to take off, I start 
getting a little anxious.
    I wonder--I am wondering if the plane is going to be there 
when I get there. And if the plane is there, are we going to 
have a crew there. And then are we going to be taken out to the 
airplane and left on the airplane at the gate. And then are we 
going to be taken from the gate and left out on the tarmac some 
place.
    All these things with my almost 20 years of experience here 
cause me to be a little bit anxious when I get ready to go 
home.
    In recent weeks, we have seen a series of news reports that 
made my feelings--I guess the feelings of most Americans, 
because what we are told in a report that has not been totally 
completed, the Inspector General has released an interim report 
indicating that passenger complaints to the Department 
increased 74 percent since last year. And complaints about 
delayed, cancelled and re-routed flights were up 115 percent, 
more than double last year.
    The report also indicated that airlines have done a poor 
job communicating the reasons for delays and cancellations to 
the customers. According to the report, the information 
provided by the airlines was frequently inaccurate, incomplete 
or unreliable.
    Last year, in response to Congressional pressure, which you 
played a key role--which you are to be commended, Mr. 
Chairman--the airlines announced plans for voluntary reform.
    But these numbers and my personal experience indicate that 
things have not gotten better. More--more than likely they have 
gotten worse.
    So something needs to be done. Mr. Chairman, I have 
introduced some legislation. I introduced legislation about an 
air rage bill. I want to make sure that the hard-working 
airline employees are treated fairly.
    I have had--I had an experience on an airline--well, 
actually on two occasions where these people were--the flight 
attendants were treated physically bad. And this--there is 
untold numbers of reports about how badly they are treated.
    The--my air rage is now law. And no longer can the public 
treat flight attendants and other airline personnel as they 
have in the past--mean, actually physically abuse them and 
expect nothing to happen.
    Now, something will happen, both civilly and criminally. 
And that is the way it should be.
    And I have also introduced--I have worked very hard on the 
appropriations committee and this will be the second year of 
funding of which you have been a part of that, Mr. Chairman, 
where we--we are making sure that the cabin air quality--the 
air that passengers breathe is clean and safe.
    We do not know about that. You hear all kinds of 
conflicting reports. Johns Hopkins University is studying that 
to make sure that is the case.
    I also introduced last year an air traveler's fair 
treatment--last week, an air traveler's fair treatment act, 
which is aimed at some of the most pressing issues like giving 
prompt and accurate notice of delays, setting uniform 
regulations for medical equipment training, giving customers 
greater access to fair ticket prices, and a number of other 
things.
    I am also working--this is the first year we have gotten 
money--and, again, Mr. Chairman, you have worked with us on 
this--to have off-site baggage check-in so that somebody can go 
directly to the gate, their baggage is already checked in and 
it is safe. It is better. And it will relieve tremendous 
congestion at airports.
    This is a study that has been going on. People believe it 
will work. And we have tested it, and it will work.
    But, Mr. Chairman, in spite of these things that I have 
done and other members of Congress have done, I think it is 
time to step back and take a broader view of the underlying 
causes for this congestion and delay, and examine more 
fundamentally what the Federal Government can do to help 
address these underlying causes.
    As you have already indicated, it is not all the fault of 
the airlines. And that is an understatement.
    Hardly, any new airports are getting built. We built a new 
one in Denver, closed one in Denver--net gain of nothing.
    We have--our highways are clogged to capacity. Our 
airlines--our airports, I'm sorry, are clogged to capacity.
    We add no new airports, but we keep adding new flights. And 
I mentioned recently, Mr. Chairman, to an airline--some airline 
people, I think they should understand they are not in the 
airline business. They are in the transportation business.
    And they need to take a look at helping in other ways. I 
think they could make money doing this.
    Senator Moynihan and I have worked very hard to develop 
different ways of carrying people for distances up to 300 
miles, airline travel is very inefficient, but yet we have 
people all over America traveling 300 miles or less by air.
    What we need to do is do what they are--what Danby and 
Powell, a couple of scientists from MIT who were stuck in 
traffic in New York in the sixties--they said, ``This is 
wrong.'' And, well, to make a long story short, Mr. Chairman, 
they developed what is called magnetic levitation.
    The Federal Government helped fund that for a few years. We 
stopped funding it. That all went to Germany and Japan. Now, we 
are going to be buying the technology that should be ours and 
the equipment that we should be manufacturing here from Germany 
and Japan.
    I think the airline business should help us, the Federal 
Government, take a look at getting into some of this, traveling 
between Las Vegas and L.A. That is less than 300 miles.
    Those vehicles go 300 miles an hour. They are safe. They 
are non-polluting. And we should move to that type of travel, 
because our rail travel now is--even though Amtrak--I am a big 
supporter of Amtrak, it is very old-fashioned and we need to do 
better.
    Air traffic controllers, understaffed, underworked--
overworked, I am sorry--and at major airports often working 
with air traffic control systems that are obsolete and in dire 
need of repair and upgrade. Some of the systems at our busiest 
airports are decades old, and we are installing stuff now 
even--that it has taken 20 years to get it ready to be 
installed--it is old before we put it in.
    So when I am on an airplane, I recognize that the people 
who are making my flight safe are the air traffic controllers. 
These people are the unsung heroes of modern aircraft safety. I 
mean, I cannot stress enough how much I appreciate their hard 
work.
    And the pilots, we do not hear much from the pilots, but 
they also are to be complimented. We need to get--and I am glad 
that you are going to have here, Mr. Chairman, someone from the 
air traffic control network to talk about air traffic control.
    We need their input. We need pilots' inputs. We need input 
from the airline. And we, as the Federal Government, have to 
step up--step up to the plate and start spending more money. As 
you have indicated in your statement, we need--we need new 
traffic lanes through the air.
    The State of Nevada, about over 40 percent of the State of 
Nevada, you cannot fly over. It is restricted military. We got 
to take some of these--take a look at this. If we can in Nevada 
and other places change that.
    So let us step back and figure out what the FAA needs in 
order to do its job. The number of flights keep increasing. It 
is going to cost us, but the Senate has just passed some bills 
that we are cutting a lot of taxes, which is great. But maybe 
we should not cut taxes as much for some wealthy people; 
instead let us give some money to some of the people that will 
make it safer for all of us to fly.
    We need to buy more simulators for air traffic controllers 
to help new controllers learn more quickly. Right now, new 
controllers are required to have more separation between planes 
on the runway, which contributes to delays, simply because they 
have not been trained enough through simulators.
    We need to do a better job educating passengers about what 
is going on behind the scenes. Maybe we can think about putting 
up electronic weather maps in airport terminals so that 
passengers can see for themselves the weather fronts that might 
be keeping them on the ground.
    Or maybe we can set up information kiosks so that they can 
better understand the kinds of mechanical or safety problems 
that might delay a flight or why a weather front in Cleveland 
would hold up a flight in Las Vegas.
    Or maybe the Federal Government and the airline industry 
needs to widen its focus. Instead of thinking of themselves as 
only being in the airline business, as I mentioned, maybe we 
can start viewing ourselves as being in the transportation 
business and look at supplementing air travel through 
alternatives.
    These are just some of my ideas, Mr. Chairman. My 
fundamental point is that the causes of gridlock at our 
airports are complex. I think we need to be creative in finding 
solutions, because what we are doing now is not working.
    I commend, again, you for your interest. I am looking 
forward to working with this Committee to find ways to improve 
the quality of air travel.
    And I ask your permission, Mr. Chairman, I have--the Senate 
is going to move off the morning hour at 10:30, and I have to 
be there to make sure that the Republicans treat everybody 
fair.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Reid.
    Senator Campbell.

              STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL

    Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
very important hearing this morning. It could not have come at 
a better time. We all fly. I happen to fly home every week, as 
Senator Murray often does too. I often see her just as 
frustrated at the airport as I am.
    And what is interesting is that people recognize us in the 
crowd will often come up and complain to us and say, ``Senator 
can you not do something about this?''
    I guess they are rather surprised when I tell them, ``Wait 
a minute, you have got a story? Let me tell you my story.''
    I guess they think somehow we get a better deal and that we 
can get on them when they are not flying for anybody else. But 
we--we face the same kind of complaints.
    And I think the night before last, I have to tell you, was 
a good example. I thought I was going to have a bill that was 
going to be on the floor yesterday, so I went to the airport 
Sunday afternoon, where I saw Senator Murkowski and we got on a 
plane. Then we were told after we sat on the plane for about a 
half an hour, there was going to be a delay, because one oxygen 
mask on a portable oxygen bottle was missing on the plane. I 
guess the FAA regulations are that the whole plane has to be 
checked for oxygen leaks or something, if one little old mask 
is missing. And so they ended up cancelling the flight.
    Senator Murkowski never did get on a flight that night and 
had to cancel a very important hearing, because he could not 
get here. I managed to get on what is called a red-eye, which 
we all hate, but often have to get on.
    The only red-eye was going to leave Denver at 11:30. It got 
out of there about 1:00 in the morning, and I ended up getting 
here about 8:00 o'clock the next morning, just absolutely ringy 
as we all are when we have to catch those flights. So I am just 
as fed up and frustrated with the delays as anybody else that 
is flying.
    Senator Reid mentioned a number of things that I assume 
were supposed to be in the purview of the FAA, whether it is 
pilot training, air separation, whether it is dealing with the 
virus loaded oxygen that we keep breathing on those airplanes, 
or air traffic controllers, and so on.
    I do not think we can micro-manage all of that, very 
frankly, from Congress. And we should not. But clearly they are 
some of the things that people are beginning to worry about.
    I am not opposed to flying. I happen to--I used to fly. I 
have about 600 hours in high-performance single. I am IFR-
rated. I used to love to fly.
    But very frankly, when I get done with this job I have 
already told my wife, I am going to take a note out of John 
Madden's book and buy a doggone bus where I have a pretty sure 
chance I am going to get there.
    From where I take the mainline to Denver, I have to take a 
commuter for another hour, if I fly. It is a 6-hour drive. But 
on many occasions, I have ended up having to drive the 6 hours 
because I could not get on a plane.
    If I had known when I first got to the airport in Denver 
the planes were going to cancel, I could have just got a car 
and taken off. The real problem is you sit around there when 
they say, ``Well, one more half hour, or another hour we will 
have a definite decision.''
    And you keep--they keep milking the thing. You keep staying 
there and staying there and staying there until you eat up 3 or 
4 hours when you could have been on the road at least driving 
to where you were going to go. So we all face that too.
    And I guess while I am on this tirade, I might also say I 
wish they would change some of the comments they always make, 
you know, at the beginning of the flight--the flight attendants 
always say something, ``In case of emergency,'' and then they 
go through this--this dialogue.
    ``In case of emergency,'' I am beginning to think is sort 
of code words for ``In case we crash.'' And they say, you know, 
pull down the handle, turn the door to the side, throw the door 
out, all that kind of stuff. Have you ever seen one of those 
things after they crash?
    I think they ought to change the whole rhetoric and be 
honest and say, ``In case we crash, forget the door and start 
praying.''
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Murray.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

    Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for 
having this hearing----
    Senator Shelby. You are welcome.
    Senator Murray [continuing]. And thanks to our speakers 
today for coming to talk about an issue that obviously really 
makes most people irate. Senator Campbell and I have spent many 
hours in the airport together trying to get back to the west 
coast.
    I travel 6,000--over 6,000 miles a week. And I have heard 
every comment and every frustration from travelers. Concerns 
have increased dramatically over the 8 years I have been doing 
this. I think there is a lot of fingers to point and I think 
the airlines themselves do need to make this commitment.
    The comment I hear most often is if they would just tell us 
the truth. Senator Campbell just mentioned that. Why? Because 
if--if it is not going to be as busy as you say, we will find 
another way to get there.
    This is probably the biggest frustration. People want safe 
ways to fly. But they would like to have the truth from the 
airlines, and I think that is critical.
    But, Mr. Chairman, I think this hearing is important 
because it points out that this is more than the airlines' 
responsibility. We have a responsibility in Congress to make 
sure that we have the infrastructure in place to accommodate 
the ever-increasing number of Americans who are flying.
    Modernizing air traffic control, making sure that strong 
competition is in place, and making sure the infrastructure 
exists is something we have to do. I think it is very important 
that this Committee in particular hears this topic and looks 
for ways that we can help solve this ever-increasing 
frustration that many Americans are facing. So thank you for 
having us here.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

    Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 
sorry for the delay, but conditions beyond our control 
prevented me from being on time.
    Senator Shelby. You must have been on an airplane.
    Senator Lautenberg. I thought that would get at least a 
snicker.
    Senator Shelby. Well, it got one.
    Senator Lautenberg. Okay. Thank you very much. I listened 
to my colleagues with great respect and with a degree of 
monotony because we are all going to say the same thing.
    Just like our constituents across the country, we are not 
getting the kind of service we are paying for, and it is 
appropriate that we are meeting at this time. We just saw a 
published report on delays. And in this past month, June 2000, 
the number of monthly delays across the country topped 50,000 
for the first time. The number more than doubled from the same 
level--from the level experienced, rather, 6 months earlier, 
December 1999.
    And when I look at that card up there and I say, ``Well, 
there is the report card.'' Now, if I was the teacher or if the 
public was the teacher, what kind of grade do we think that the 
airlines and their partners in managing the aviation system 
would get.
    It would not be a very good mark in my view when I see 
``offer the lowest fare available and notify customers of 
delays''--I do not know how many of you get phone calls that 
say, ``Sorry, Mr. Smith, but your plane is delayed two hours.''
    What I get is, ``The flight is on time. We know that there 
are thunder storms, snow storms, lightning and dangerous 
conditions, tornadoes, but we expect to be taking off on 
time.''
    And when you get there, you find out that you are in good 
company with lots of other disappointed people, so we are--this 
is not, Mr. Chairman, I am assured by your balanced view of 
things--I know this is not to be a vendetta.
    But we are going to ask some questions and find out for the 
public why it is that the answers are so foggy and so often 
delayed.
    The FAA tells us that the same time frame, the number of 
delays attributable to bad weather grew by almost 150 percent, 
but we also know that several airlines have struggled to keep 
up with the record demand for air travel in terms of having the 
right crew, the equipment in place at the right time to ensure 
that the flights take off on time.
    And it is appropriate that this hearing combines two of the 
issues, delays and customer service. Nothing challenges the 
airlines' ability to provide quality customer service like 
crowded airplanes, sitting on a taxi way for hours as a thunder 
storm passes overhead, but we also know that when it comes to 
providing quality customer service, the airlines can do a much 
better job.
    Jane Garvey--we are happy to see our FAA administrator this 
morning--is going to be testifying on the topic of delays. And 
in her testimony, as usual, Ms. Garvey exhibits her candor and 
her commitment to improvement.
    We appreciate that, to always be willing to speak out on 
the issue, because hiding them is not going to make them go 
away. As a matter of fact, sometimes we speak out and they do 
not go away. But we will have to work on it.
    She points out that in the past the FAA has been criticized 
appropriately by the airlines for not treating them like 
customers. But I would point out that the inspector general, 
Ken Mead, who we often see telling us what is happening in the 
real world is also here this morning to testify that several of 
the airlines have taken the liberty of blaming the FAA for 
their own problems.
    The I.G. has identified several instances in which several 
airlines have blamed delays on the FAA when, in fact, the 
causes were attributable to extremely bad weather, crew 
unavailability, or maintenance problems.
    So while I appreciate the fact that the airlines would like 
to be treated more like customers, I would point out that 
airline passengers would like to be treated more like customers 
than cows by the airline. At a minimum, they do not want to be 
lied to.
    Last year, Congress balked at the enacting of a passenger 
bill of rights. In my view, it was a mistake. Unfortunately, 
the leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee decided to accept 
a voluntary customer service commitment on the part of the 
airlines.
    And it was later found out that of the 12 commitments the 
airlines made, only two of them were new. Ten of these so-
called commitments or maybe commandments were already required 
in law or regulation.
    The I.G. will testify this morning the performance of the 
airlines in meeting even the 10 long-standing customer service 
requirements is mixed at best.
    Six months from now, the inspector general will be doing a 
follow up review of the airlines' performance on these 
commitments. I will not be here when my colleagues receive that 
review. But I hope that my colleagues will not flinch at moving 
passenger rights legislation, if the I.G. finds that the 
airlines have yet again failed to live up to their word.
    I want to say something. I am not an opponent or a 
particular critic of airlines. They do a pretty darn good job. 
Our system is fundamentally safe. We get a lot of passengers 
moved through the place each and every day, almost each and 
every hour of the clock.
    But the fact of the matter is that they are not very free 
with their information. They are not very generous with the way 
they treat cancelled flights or cancelled seats, which is a 
worse condition.
    I have had a couple of those. And I do not speak for 
myself, because I represent the whole of New Jersey and the 
country when I am in this job of mine.
    But cancelled flights, I got to a flight. It was 15 minutes 
to go. It was oversold and the seats are filled.
    So I said, ``Well, why do you not offer somebody a bonus to 
hop off.'' Well, they went through, they said no one would take 
it.
    But they were not going to give me the bonus that they 
would have given to someone else, because there was someone 
sitting in the seat. Well, in my position, you do not make too 
much of a fuss, even though your blood is boiling. That is one 
of the reasons why I am retiring--make the airlines fulfill 
their promise.
    Anyway, all estimates are that aviation traffic will 
continue to grow. A prosperous economy has brought us ever more 
crowded runways. Airlines experienced record high-load factors, 
even though the planes are packed full.
    And I guarantee you that if I ask for a show of hands, 
there would be people here who would tell you that on a short 
flight between here, let us say, and New York--that includes 
Newark, that includes Westchester County--that many times the 
delays have been far longer than the air time, that the flight 
takes to get there.
    And that is a terrible annoyance, frustration that lots of 
time it results in cancelled critical appointments, be it 
doctors, be it business, be it family--pick up a child coming 
out of school or something of that nature. It is not an 
acceptable condition.
    In my region of the country, the growth in traffic will put 
an even greater strain on an already stressed system.
    Mr. Chairman, I have got a considerable challenge 
representing the most delayed airport in the United States, 
Newark International. It has been the most delayed airport for 
each of the last 3 years and 9 of the last 12 years.
    And I was commissioner of the port authority when that 
airport was being developed. And I am especially pleased that 
we have Ed Kragh here, a controller from New York. He is going 
to tell us things as he sees it.
    I am interested in gathering his views, as well as those of 
Ms. Garvey and Mr. Mead on how we can specifically address the 
challenges related to the very congested air space, not only in 
the New York/New Jersey region, but across this country.
    And I thank you very much, and I am sorry to take so long, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Our witnesses today are the Honorable Jane Garvey, 
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department 
of Transportation; the Honorable Kenneth Mead, Inspector 
General, U.S. Department of Transportation; Mr. Edward Kragh, 
Newark International Airport Air Traffic Controller, Secretary, 
Newark Local, National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
    We welcome all of you here today. Your entire statement, 
all of them will be made part of the record in their entirety 
and if you would take a few minutes to sum them up.
    We will start with Ms. Garvey.
    Welcome, Ms. Garvey.

                        STATEMENT OF JANE GARVEY

    Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator 
Lautenberg and members of the subcommittee.

                            AVIATION SAFETY

    First of all, I do want to thank you for the opportunity to 
testify before you today. It is an important issue and we 
appreciate the Committee's great attention to the issue.
    Let me state at the outset, and you may hear me say this 
again, that we at the FAA are willing to do whatever is within 
our power to improve the efficiency of the air traffic system, 
so long as safety is not compromised. That safety is of 
paramount importance, is clearly supported by everyone engaged 
in this discussion, in this debate.

                       2000 SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

    Before I begin, I do want to publicly take this opportunity 
to thank the Subcommittee for its very strong support of our 
fiscal year 2000 supplemental funding request. Through your 
personal support, through your personal leadership, the $75 
million approved earlier this month will allow us to hire more 
safety inspectors, to replenish our inventory, and to restore 
the level of redundancy that is so important for our system.
    Without your support and leadership this would not have 
been possible. And on behalf of everyone at the FAA, thank you.

                                 DELAYS

    Delays, as you all have said, have a significant financial, 
significant service consequences for the airlines and certainly 
result in understandable frustration for their passengers. 
There are many conditions that cause delay. I know the 
Inspector General will go into that in more detail. But 
everything from bad weather to inoperable runways, to airport 
capacity limitations, to equipment problems, crew problems and, 
yes, air traffic equipment outages and air traffic procedures.
    Delays, while they will never be eliminated--and that is 
certainly true--but it certainly is our job, our challenge to 
minimize delays. I think it is a challenge for all of us, for 
us at the FAA, for the industry, for the unions, for the 
pilots, to work to minimize delays in whatever way possible--
again, without compromising safety. I think it is important to 
say that sometimes delays are really a built-in safety 
mechanism. We do not want to lose sight of that.
    You all have mentioned the great growth in the economy. And 
I think that is important. It is important to recognize really 
what has happened to air travel in this country. The 
deregulation of the airlines combined with what is an 
extraordinarily healthy economy has led to a huge increase in 
passenger air travel.
    A 190 million more passengers are traveling now than 10 
years ago. In addition, if you look at some of our busiest 
airport hubs, they are growing at 15 to 20 percent per year. 
That is significant. When the system is running at or near 
capacity as it has been, a large number of severe thunder 
storms can create havoc with our aviation system.
    A few facts just from last month, during June we had severe 
thunder storms from Canada to Texas for 12 consecutive days. We 
had 19 days of bad weather compared to 5 in June 1999.
    And on just 1 day, June 27, the National Weather Service 
issued a record 281 severe weather warnings. That has an 
impact.

                           SPRING/SUMMER PLAN

    In light of the increases in delay, as this Committee 
knows, we joined together with the industry and, again, I want 
to note it is the industry, including the pilots and the unions 
as well as the airlines, to create the spring/summer 2000 
initiative. The whole goal was to better manage air traffic 
during severe weather. We focused on maximizing the use of the 
available air space, on improving communication between the FAA 
and aviation system users, and expanding the use of new 
technology to help reduce delays.
    And we were taking the approach that we had to approach 
this together. A little bit about how the plan works.
    Every morning at the Air Traffic Control Center in Herndon, 
the strategic planning team comprised of command center traffic 
management specialists, airline representatives, and air 
traffic operation managers from field facilities agree on a 
common weather forecast. First, they have a telecommunication 
or teleconference at 5 a.m. in the morning; and a second one at 
7 a.m. in the morning. And I will tell you that I have looked 
into these conferences and heard the communication among the 
airlines and the FAA, and the whole goal, again, is to come up 
with a strategic plan for the day.
    It is particularly important on a bad weather day. It is a 
consensus plan. It is not dictated by the FAA. It is jointly 
developed by a team that knows it best.
    Throughout the day, the team reviews the common weather 
forecast and as the conditions change, they update the plan 
every 2 hours until 10 p.m. in the evening. The key is better 
communication and the sharing of information.
    So the critical question is: Is it working? How is this 
plan working? I think it is working in terms of communication. 
We have common weather information that is being disseminated. 
We have not had that before.
    We are sharing real time arrival and departure capacity 
information at the major airports to allow airlines to change 
their flight plans in the event of severe weather.
    Predictability is key for the airlines. Some airlines have 
told us that even with the increase in severe weather days, our 
collaborative efforts allow them to plan better and to execute 
operations in advance of the severe weather. That approach 
provides the predictability that the airlines need to manage 
their operation.
    I will tell you that we are not fully there yet and there 
are areas that need improvement. For example, we are 
discovering that airlines have very different approaches to 
some of the problems that we are facing. Trying to negotiate a 
plan that everyone agrees to is sometimes a challenge. For our 
own house, that is the FAA, I sometimes feel that the field 
facilities are not playing full out. And really making sure 
that coordination from the Command Center is occurring all the 
way down to the individual field facilities is something that I 
think we need to constantly be focused on and to constantly 
work on. But I think overall the approach is the right 
approach. And if you ask the airlines, I think most of them 
would say that this is the right approach.

                               SOLUTIONS

    I also want to stress that the spring/summer plan is a 
piece of a large solution. And again, I think the Committee has 
articulated this very well this morning. The delay problem is 
complex. The solutions must be multi-faceted.
    It is going to take all aspects, all members of the 
industry coming together, airports, airlines and the FAA. For 
airports, they have a real challenge and that challenge is to 
work with communities to create coalitions to support the kind 
of runway capacity enhancements that are so needed. For the 
airlines, they really need to look at their own procedures, for 
their aircraft mix, and how they schedule flights. And 
certainly we, at the FAA, need to continue to successfully 
modernize our air traffic control system.
    I think we have made great progress in the last 2 or 3 
years, but I also think we need to stay very aggressively 
focused on that goal. Let me say that I would like to end where 
I began, and that is to say at the FAA, we will do everything 
we can to work with the airlines, to work with the unions and 
work with the industry to improve this system for the traveling 
public. Our focus should be and is on solutions.
    One anecdote, one story, and that is several weeks ago, we 
came together with the airlines, with the unions to talk about 
some tactical strategies we could develop for the summer. The 
suggestion that came out of it was to focus on some choke-point 
areas, areas where we were having the most critical problems. I 
cannot tell you whether it was the union or the FAA or the 
industry that came up with that suggestion. But the point is it 
was a good suggestion. It was the coming together of all 
aspects of the community and saying let's figure out tactically 
what we can do.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    We now have 21 recommendations that grew out of that 
session. And I think that is the right approach--doing it 
collaboratively, with--and in cooperation and the recognition 
that all of us own a piece of this solution.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Jane F. Garvey

    Chairman Shelby, Senator Lautenberg, Members of the Subcommittee: I 
would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today 
on the important topic of airline delays. We welcome this Committee's 
interest in this serious issue. Let me state at the onset that we at 
the FAA are willing to do whatever is within our power to improve the 
efficiency of the air traffic system, so long as safety is not 
compromised. That safety is, and should remain, of paramount importance 
is clearly supported by all parties to the debate.
    Before I begin, I want to take this opportunity to thank the 
subcommittee for its strong support of the FAA' fiscal year 2000 
supplemental funding request. Through your personal support and 
leadership, the $75 million approved earlier this month will allow the 
FAA to continue the service, reliability, and performance of our air 
traffic control system (ATC) to the level the industry and the American 
public expect. Without your support, this would not have been possible.
    Delays have significant financial, scheduling, and service 
consequences for airlines and result in understandable frustration for 
their passengers. The issue of delays is very complex. There are many 
conditions that cause delay; bad weather, inoperable runways, airport 
capacity limitations, aircraft equipment problems, maintenance and crew 
problems, and, yes, air traffic equipment outages and air traffic 
procedures. Delays will never be eliminated, but it is the job of the 
FAA to work to minimize delays to the greatest extent possible, without 
compromising safety. I will acknowledge at the outset that, in the 
past, FAA has been criticized, with some justification, for not fully 
appreciating the total reliance of airlines on air traffic control. No 
other industry is as totally dependent on the Federal Government action 
to produce a product. Airlines felt that the air traffic control team 
should be more sensitive to the carriers' complete reliance on their 
efforts and that the airlines should be thought of and treated more 
like customers rather than users of the system.
    In light of the increases in delays, and the need to establish a 
collaborative planning process between the FAA and users of the 
National Airspace System (NAS), President Clinton announced on March 10 
the creation of our Spring/Summer 2000 plan for reducing aviation 
delays. At the heart of this initiative is a collaborative plan 
developed by industry, labor, and Government to better manage air 
traffic during severe weather. It maximizes the use of available air 
space, improves communications between FAA and aviation system users, 
and expands the use of new technology to help reduce delays. Decision-
support tools and information sharing are absolutely essential to the 
success of the Spring/Summer 2000 plan.
    Here is how the plan works:
    Every morning at the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in 
Herndon the Strategic Planning Team, comprised of Command Center 
traffic management specialists, airline representatives, and ATC 
operations managers from field facilities, report at 5:00 Eastern time. 
The team agrees on a common weather forecast by 6 a.m. This is a 
first--previously the FAA and the airlines worked from separate 
forecasts, which could be different and often were.
    By 7 a.m. the team has developed and released the day's first 
Strategic Plan of Operations, which includes collaborative measures 
designed to respond to predicted constraints in the National Airspace 
System. Constraints can include weather, airport construction projects, 
aircraft incidents, and any equipment failures. This is a consensus 
plan, not dictated, but jointly developed by a team that knows it best.
    Throughout the day the team reviews the common weather forecast, 
and, as conditions change, updates the plan every two hours until 10 
p.m. Eastern time.
    Perhaps the most important decision-support tool for the group is 
the Flight Schedule Monitor. This collaborative decisionmaking tool 
provides a shared database of current flight information that allows 
the Command Center and the airlines to be on the same planning page.
    We know this approach is making a difference. Some airlines have 
informed me that even with the increase in severe weather days so far 
this year, our collaborative efforts enabled them to better plan and 
execute operations in advance of the severe weather. This is the key to 
our Spring/Summer plan.
    While our Spring/Summer plan represents a new approach to air 
traffic management, we need to keep this in perspective. I do not want 
to suggest that this new approach will eliminate delays. That is not 
possible. What we are doing is providing the basis to better manage 
delays through continuous communication and collaboration. This 
approach provides the predictability that the airlines need in order to 
manage their operations. Predictability is key.
    I also want to say that some airlines take different approaches to 
predictions of severe weather. The FAA is not only working with many 
challenging issues, such as weather, airport capacity, and airline 
scheduling. We are also working in an environment in which our 
customers are in fierce competition with each other. Collaboration it 
not always easy in such a competitive industry.
    While I am satisfied that FAA is stepping up to the plate, 
acknowledging our shortfalls and working in a productive and 
collaborative way to deal with them, air traffic control faces 
significant challenges in both the short and long term. The advent of 
regional jets offers more service and competition opportunities to 
airlines and communities. Regional jets, however, are using the same 
runways and flying at the same altitudes as larger aircraft and put 
more demand on the system than the turboprops they are replacing. This 
has the effect of reducing controller options, especially during peak 
periods. For example, one air traffic procedure controllers use with 
turboprops that has served to increase capacity is land and hold short 
(LAHSO), which is not an option for regional jets at certain airports. 
Regional jets, as compared to smaller turboprop aircraft, require a 
longer distance to stop. They can land, but cannot hold short of 
intersecting runways that are also in use. They are also slower on take 
off. Thus, when larger, faster turbojets are taking off behind them, 
ensuring aircraft separation becomes more challenging. Also in the 
enroute environment, regional jets, which operate more slowly than the 
new fleet of commercial aircraft, create a mix of speeds at altitude 
that will get more complex as the number of regional jets increase.
    A further factor that complicates air traffic control, and one over 
which the FAA has no control, is that of airline scheduling and airport 
capacity. At the risk of stating the obvious, air traffic is a dynamic 
situation. Every procedural enhancement, every step forward in 
modernization, every improvement in efficiency, cannot be measured in a 
static environment, but is evaluated in light of daily changes in 
weather, runway availability, and airline schedules. Consequently, the 
installation of an Instrument Landing System (ILS), enhanced radar, or 
a reduction of miles in trail requirements may not necessarily 
translate into a reduction of airline delays, even if efficiencies are 
achieved. The FAA clearly has an important role to play in the 
reduction of airline delays, but this responsibility is shared with 
airlines and airports. True progress can only be realized when all 
three players accept their roles and work in cooperation with each 
other.
    As Members of this Committee know, the issue of airport capacity is 
very politically sensitive. Whether local communities are discussing 
new runways, new terminals, or new airports, the debate is always 
heartfelt and emotional. While FAA will continue to make those 
improvements to the NAS that are within our control, improving how the 
aircraft are controlled in the air does not necessarily ensure them a 
speedy decent to the runway. Hard choices will have to be made at all 
levels of government with communities across the country to ensure that 
we have the infrastructure in place to accommodate anticipated demand.
    Notwithstanding the airport capacity issue, FAA's longer-term role, 
and one in which we are currently engaged, is enhancing the system for 
a new era. This effort includes redesign of our nation's airspace and 
air traffic control (ATC) automation. The National Airspace Redesign is 
expected to take approximately eight years to be implemented across the 
entire country, but tangible benefits are expected in the eastern 
portion of the United States within five years. The most congested and 
complicated airspace is east of the Mississippi River. Because this 
airspace poses the most challenges, it is the initial focus of our 
redesign. Our goal is to establish comprehensive processes and 
procedures to ensure adaptable and flexible airspace that meet the 
demands of the future NAS. Equally important are the procedural changes 
we are making on a continual basis as the opportunities arise. For 
example, we have begun the use of military airspace to facilitate the 
north-south flow of air traffic along the east coast.
    Another important aspect in our effort to improve the management of 
the air traffic control system is modernization. As Members of this 
Committee know, we are well into a successful modernization plan. I 
have stated in the past that our modernization efforts are essentially 
divided into three areas. The first category is to sustain our current 
system by replacing aging equipment and renewing the infrastructure 
(the Display System Replacement (DSR) and Airport Surface Detection 
Equipment). The second category will add safety features, including 
weather related enhancements (improved enroute surveillance and 
improved weather on Standard Terminal Automation Replacement Systems--
STARS). The final category will improve system capacity and efficiency 
(Free Flight Phase I). Taken as a whole, modernization will improve the 
controller's ability to manage increasing levels of traffic. Decision 
support tools are being developed to facilitate more efficient routings 
and shorten airborne time. The reliability of the system is also being 
increased, thereby increasing confidence in system. We continue to 
develop technologies and equipment that will result in safe reductions 
in aircraft separation.
    I am very confident about our modernization program. Our 
incremental approach to modernization ensures that we resolve problems 
at an early stage in project development. This attitude, which 
highlights our lessons learned from past FAA practice, means that we 
are acknowledging and dealing with problems when it is more cost 
effective and easier to do so. Some benefits of this approach are that 
all HOST computers have been replaced, we have completed the transition 
to DSR at our air route traffic control centers, and Free Flight Phase 
I technologies are beginning to provide benefits to the aviation 
community.
    In conclusion, I would like to say that from my air traffic 
management team, to my modernization team, to our airport folks, the 
FAA recognizes our responsibilities and our challenges when it comes to 
aviation delays. We are working aggressively and cooperatively to meet 
them. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to answer any questions.

                       STATEMENT OF KENNETH MEAD

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead.
    Mr. Mead. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Lautenberg, I hope when you retire you will 
continue to write in from time to time about your experiences 
in the world of transportation.
    Senator Lautenberg. I plan to.
    Senator Shelby. He is not going to write to us, though, is 
he?
    Senator Lautenberg. I am going to write to my Senator.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Mr. Mead. We have two reports here. One was requested by 
this Committee and deals with flight delays and cancellations.

                        DELAYS AND CANCELLATIONS

    The other, which was issued a couple of weeks ago, has to 
do with the customer service commitments. As you know, the 
A.T.A. and 14 of its member airlines pledged to improve 
customer service and voluntarily signed the Airline Customer 
Service Commitment, which is displayed over here.
    This was in lieu of legislation. It includes 12 provisions, 
which each airline was supposed to implement and did implement 
through plans. Each airline was supposed to have a plan, in 
other words.
    But two of the twelve provisions notifying customers of 
delays and cancellations and meeting customers' essential needs 
during long on-board aircraft delays--were in direct response 
to the growth in delays and cancellations.
    Now, I would like to cover our delay and cancellation 
report before addressing----
    Senator Shelby. Go ahead.
    Mr. Mead [continuing]. A couple of these commitments.
    A major finding of our review and something that I think 
needs very urgent attention in the short term--we found that 
there is the absence of a system for collecting causal data and 
reporting a reasonably complete picture of the causes of delays 
and cancellations from pre-gate departure to arrival at the 
gate.
    The AIR-21 legislation, which Congress passed earlier this 
year requires this, but there has been little progress in 
implementing it.

                       AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

    Meanwhile, what is happening is that the air carriers are 
blaming much of the cause for delays not on scheduling, but on 
what they see as an antiquated air traffic control system that 
does not keep pace with the demand.
    FAA points primarily to flight volume and weather--I think, 
in the neighborhood of 80 percent in that category. And then 
they say, ``Well, we have new equipment.'' And that is in 
direct contradiction to what the airlines are saying.
    For its part, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 
which also keeps delay and arrival data, does not keep any 
causal data, but they consider a flight as departing on time as 
long as it pushes back from the gate within 15 minutes of its 
scheduled departure time.
    Senator Shelby. Say that again.
    Mr. Mead. All right. This--this is anomalous.
    Senator Shelby. I know.
    Mr. Mead. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which 
also keeps delay data, considers a flight as departing on time 
if it leaves the gate, pushes back from the gate within 15 
minutes of its scheduled departure time, even though you may 
end up sitting on the runway for three more hours.
    So you are telling the consumer that they left on time. The 
consumer knows they did not leave on time, because they are 
sitting on the runway.
    Senator Shelby. Who came up with that rationalization? Who 
came up with that?
    Mr. Mead. I do not know who the author of that was.
    Senator Shelby. Are they still working? He should not be.
    Can you find out for us just to find out who came up with 
that? I would like to share that with my colleagues.
    Well, go ahead, Mr. Mead.

                         MEASURING PERFORMANCE

    Mr. Mead. Yes, and the point in mentioning that is that a 
system that is measuring performance----
    Senator Shelby. Yes.
    Mr. Mead [continuing]. Through measures such as that is 
destined not to succeed.
    FAA causal data do not cover delays or cancellations due to 
air carrier activities, such as aircraft maintenance, lack of a 
plane, or lack of a flight crew. In other words, we do not have 
a complete picture of the data.
    And if there is no plane, that flight is going to be 
delayed, one way or the other. But FAA does not keep track of 
that.
    Now, the airlines do track these causes and it becomes a 
very complicated task when you----
    Senator Shelby. Why--what does not FAA do it----
    Mr. Mead. I am----
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. Or require them to do it for 
FAA?
    Mr. Mead. I think they should.
    Senator Shelby. Ms. Garvey, would you get in on that?
    Ms. Garvey. I do not want to interrupt his testimony, but--
--
    Senator Shelby. That----
    Ms. Garvey [continuing]. We--the rationale for the FAA has 
always been to focus on those pieces of the system that we can 
control so that we can improve the operation, but I will wait 
until Mr. Mead is finished.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Ms. Garvey. But we are doing some--some other things.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.

                      CONSISTENT AND COMPLETE DATA

    Mr. Mead. The lack of consistent and complete data has only 
created confusion and finger-pointing. And the traveling public 
is caught somewhere in between on the delayed or cancelled 
flight.
    The issue boils down--in our view, Mr. Chairman, to what 
can reasonably be expected of the air traffic control system in 
airports. And this is both a short- and long-term issue. And 
there is no silver bullet solution.
    But what is feasible in the way of relief can only be 
addressed if there is a common language between the airlines 
and the FAA and an agreed upon system for defining the various 
causes of delays, and tracking the approximate and underlying 
causes of those delays from both pre-gate departure, all the 
way to arrival.
    And until we do that, it is going to be very difficult to 
target effective solutions.
    We need to know how much of the problem can be fixed in the 
short- and the long-term by ATC equipment, and how much cannot 
be fixed by ATC equipment.

                        DELAYS AND CANCELLATIONS

    That will be the guide to solutions, including any 
necessary adjustments to flight schedules. That is why the AIR-
21 provision should be implemented without further delay.
    Moving to the highlights of what we found in our delay and 
cancellation work, FAA identified a 58 percent increase in 
delays between 1995 and 1999. Flight cancellations grew at an 
even faster rate than delays, increasing 68 percent over that 
5-year period.
    Total flight operations increased 8.3 percent. This means, 
Mr. Chairman, that one in every five commercial flights, 20 
percent, roughly 1.1 million were late in arriving with an 
average delay of almost 50 minutes. Nearly 3 percent of the 
flights were cancelled in 1999. And if you were on one of 
those, you were on one of 154,000 flights.
    Delays are getting longer. Most delays occur on the ground.

                             TAXI-OUT TIMES

    At the 28 largest U.S. airports, flights experiencing taxi-
out times of 1 hour or more increased 130 percent, from about 
17,000 in 1995 to 40,000 in 1999.
    Flights with taxi-out times of 2, 3 and 4 hours increased 
by huge margins of 186, 216 and 251 percent respectively. 
Because some of these flights pushed back from the gate within 
15 minutes, they were under the rules considered on-time 
departures.

                              FLIGHT TIMES

    I also want to point out that the true extent of delays are 
masked by increases in scheduled flight times. Between 1988 and 
1999, the 10 carriers reporting to the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics increased their scheduled flight times on over 80 
percent of roughly 2,000 domestic routes. And 390 of those 
routes experienced scheduled flight increases of 10 to 27 
minutes on average over the past decades.
    The reasons the airlines are doing this is understandable. 
The schedules are increased to compensate for anticipated 
longer ground and air times. And the reason I mention this is 
because the number of arrival delays would have increased by 
over 25 percent in 1999 if the air carriers' scheduled flight 
times had remained at the 1988 levels.
    We think that measures of the system's performance should 
consider both the scheduled or built-in delays as well as those 
delays that occur over and above those that are scheduled.

                          CUSTOMER COMMITMENT

    I would like to move to the customer commitment, sir. 
Flight problems such as delays and cancellations are the number 
one air travel complaint.
    Customer care and baggage complaints are the next two. 
Altogether, they comprise about 70 percent of the complaints. 
The complaints doubled in 1999 over 1998. And they are doubling 
again this year.
    The Internet is partly responsible for this. It is a lot 
easier to complain today than it was. But I think if people 
just point to the Internet and say, ``Well, that is why,'' they 
are doing so at their peril.
    I think it is important for everybody to understand what 
these commitments do and do not do. They address matters such 
as improved communication, offering the lowest fares available 
over the phone, and that is an important distinction, timely 
return of delayed baggage, and allowing reservations to be held 
or cancelled without penalty.
    The commitment, though, does not directly address the 
underlying sources of consumer dissatisfaction, such as 
extensive flight delays, baggage not showing up on arrival. The 
commitment on on-time baggage delivery, really is not on-time 
baggage delivery; that commitment is to return bags within 24 
hours that did not show up on time.
    That would--it is not exactly the most artful way of 
expressing----
    Senator Shelby. It sounds like again they are gaming the 
system. In other words, they are not really telling the truth 
in the statistic.
    Mr. Mead. Well, I think they could have described that 
particular commitment title with greater clarity.
    Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
    Mr. Mead. The commitments also do not address, directly, 
long check-in lines and high fares in certain markets. In our 
view, until those factors are addressed, you are going to 
continue to experience widespread discontent in the system.
    What we found in our testing--and our people are going out 
to the airports and on the airlines, so they are experiencing 
this first-hand--we found that the airlines are actually making 
a genuine and clear commitment to paying greater attention to 
customer service.
    But the bottom line results are mixed and the airlines have 
a long way to go to restore consumer confidence.

            NOTIFYING CUSTOMERS OF DELAYS AND CANCELLATIONS

    I would like to just mention what we were finding with the 
two commitments that pertain to delays and then close off. The 
commitment about notifying customers of known delays and 
cancellations--we found that for the most part, the airlines 
were really making a significant effort at ensuring that there 
would be greater communication between the pilots, between the 
gate agents and so forth, but we found major room for 
improvement in the accuracy and reliability and timeliness of 
what was being communicated.
    We found several airlines repeatedly pointing to the air 
traffic control system as the reason for delays, even in cases 
of extremely bad weather, crew unavailability, or maintenance 
problems. In fact, in some cases, we were told the flight was 
leaving on time, and there was no plane.
    The way we checked out these things is we would hear what 
the gate agent was saying and then our staff would run up to 
the air traffic control tower to find out exactly what was 
happening. And we tied together the two stories.
    We also found a disconnect between what the airlines are 
saying in their plans and what they say in their contracts of 
carriage. The contract of carriage is a legally binding 
document.
    With one exception, all the plans say, ``We will provide 
accommodations for passengers put in an overnight status due to 
airline operations.'' Now, the airlines define what is due to 
airline operations.
    But my point is only two airlines say that they will 
provide overnight accommodation in their contracts of carriage.
    Instead, what the contract of carriage says is, ``We will 
do it if the passenger is diverted to another airport.'' So for 
those contracts of carriage, in the next 6 months, we would 
like to see them incorporate more of what is in the plans.
    Senator Shelby. I wonder who reads those.
    Mr. Mead. Well, my staff is reading them because they have 
to.
    Senator Shelby. Yes. Well, that answers my question.

                        MEETING CUSTOMER'S NEEDS

    Mr. Mead. The other one is the meeting of a customer's 
essential needs during long on-aircraft delays. During our 
initial visits, less than half the airlines had comprehensive 
customer service contingency plans for dealing with these at 
all the airports they serve.
    They now advise us, and we are checking it out, that they 
do have them in place. But the provision and the plans use 
general terms, such as the airline will provide ``food,'' will 
make ``every reasonable effort'' when the delay is ``for an 
extended period of time,'' for an ``emergency.''

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    And these terms are obviously not self-defining. So we 
think the airlines need to do a better job of providing the 
consumer with a clearer understanding of what to expect.
    And I think I will just close off there, sir.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Kenneth M. Mead

             air carrier flight delays and customer service
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the 
opportunity to discuss airline flight delays and cancellations, and 
airline efforts to improve customer service. Concerned over increasing 
complaints in air travel, compounded by the continued growth in flight 
delays and cancellations, Congress considered whether to enact a 
``passenger bill of rights.''
    Congress, the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Air 
Transport Association (ATA) agreed that, for the time being, 
legislation would not be necessary. Instead, ATA and 14 of its member 
airlines (Airlines) executed a document on June 17, 1999, known as the 
Airline Customer Service Commitment. The Commitment includes 12 
provisions. Two of these provisions (notifying customers of known 
delays and meeting customers' essential needs during on-aircraft 
delays) are in response to the growth in flight delays and 
cancellations.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

The Airlines Commit to:
  --1. Offer the lowest fare available
  --2. Notify customers of known delays, cancellations, and diversions
  --3. On-time baggage delivery
  --4. Support an increase in the baggage liability limit
  --5. Allow reservations to be held or canceled
  --6. Provide prompt ticket refunds
  --7. Properly accommodate disabled and special needs passengers
  --8. Meet customers' essential needs during long on-aircraft delays
  --9. Handle ``bumped'' passengers with fairness and consistency
  --10. Disclose travel itinerary, cancellation policies, frequent 
        flyer rules, and aircraft configuration
  --11. Ensure good customer service from code-share partners
  --12. Be more responsive to customer complaints

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    At the request of the Chairman, we reviewed the amount of flight 
delays occurring in the National Airspace System as well as the systems 
for tracking delays and cancellations and their causes. The results are 
in our Report on Air Carrier Flight Delays and Cancellations, which we 
are submitting for the record. The Airlines cooperated fully with us 
during our reviews. Today, I would like to address growth in flight 
delays and cancellations, and our interim results on the Airlines' 
implementation of the Commitment and Plans.

         GROWTH IN AIR CARRIER FLIGHT DELAYS AND CANCELLATIONS

    Mr. Chairman, a major finding of our review, and one on which we 
believe urgent attention is required, is the absence of a system for 
collecting causal data and reporting a reasonably complete picture of 
the causes of delays and cancellations from pre-gate departure to 
arrival. The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 
21st Century requires such a system, but there has been insufficient 
progress.
    Meanwhile, air carriers blame much of the cause for delays on what 
they see as an antiquated air traffic control (ATC) system that has 
failed to keep pace with demand. The Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) points primarily to weather and flight volume. The lack of 
consistent and complete data has only fueled this debate--with the 
traveling public experiencing the result of delayed or canceled 
flights. We found that FAA causal data do not cover delays due to air 
carrier activities, such as aircraft maintenance, or lack of an 
aircraft or flight crew. Most of the air carriers maintain their own 
causal information for internal purposes, but their information is 
generally not consistent with the information collected by FAA.
    The issue boils down to what can reasonably be expected of the ATC 
system and airports. For those in search of solutions, this is both a 
short- and long-term issue, and there is no ``silver bullet'' solution 
to reducing delays and cancellations. The Airlines do not view 
scheduling practices as the core problem; it is their expectation that 
a modern ATC system and airports should be able to handle the load. 
What is feasible in the way of relief--short- and long-term--can only 
be addressed with a common language between the Airlines and FAA and an 
agreed-upon system for tracking the proximate and underlying causes of 
delays and cancellations from pre-gate departure through all stages of 
flight. Our major conclusions are summarized below.
  --Flight Delays and Cancellations Have Increased Significantly Since 
        1995.--Both the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and 
        FAA reported increases in flight delays between 1995 and 1999. 
        However, there is a large variance between BTS and FAA delay 
        totals because they use different systems to define and track 
        delays. BTS tracks only gate departure and arrival of a flight, 
        while FAA tracks the intervening ground and airborne phases.
      According to BTS data, delays increased 11 percent (1,863,265 to 
        2,076,443) during this time period. Likewise, FAA data 
        identified an even larger increase of 58 percent (236,802 to 
        374,116). During this same period, total flight operations 
        increased 8.3 percent, from approximately 64 million to 69.3 
        million.
      We also found that the number of delays continues to increase in 
        2000. Overall, there were about 12 percent more FAA-reported 
        delays and over 5 percent more BTS-reported delays during the 
        first 5 months of 2000 than during the same period in 1999.
      Flight cancellations between 1995 and 1999 grew at an even faster 
        pace than flight delays, increasing 68 percent (91,905 to 
        154,311). Some high traffic routes had cancellation rates three 
        to five times higher than the 1999 national average. Increases 
        have continued this year, with the first 5 months of 2000 
        experiencing over 5 percent more cancellations than in the same 
        period in 1999.
  --Flight Delays Are Also Getting Longer.--Not only are there more 
        delays, but those occurring are longer. The length of delays 
        reported by BTS and FAA increased 16 to 18 percent, 
        respectively. According to BTS data, the average arrival delay 
        increased to over 50 minutes in 1999 from 42 minutes in 1995. 
        We also found substantial differences among the top 28 
        airports, with average delay times ranging from 70 minutes at 
        Baltimore to 25 minutes at Las Vegas.
  --Most Delays Occur on the Ground.--We found that most delays took 
        place on the ground in the form of longer taxi-out and taxi-in 
        times. Our analysis of BTS data found that 82 percent of the 
        increase in gate-to-gate times between 1995 and 1999 was due to 
        longer taxi-out and taxi-in times, with the remaining 18 
        percent involving longer flight times.
      Also at the 28 largest U.S. airports, the number of flights 
        experiencing taxi-out times of 1 hour or more (flights in which 
        the aircraft has departed the gate but remained for extended 
        periods of time on the ground awaiting taking off) increased 
        130 percent between 1995 and 1999, from 17,164 to 39,523. More 
        significant, at these 28 major airports, the number of flights 
        with taxi-out times of 2, 3, and 4 hours increased by huge 
        percentages of 186, 216 and 251 respectively during the same 
        period. Push-back from the gate within 15 minutes of scheduled 
        departure counts as an on-time departure for BTS reports, even 
        if a flight remains on the taxiway for an hour or more.
  --Lengthening of Scheduled Flight Times Masks True Growth of 
        Delays.--Between 1988 and 1999, the 10 major air carriers 
        reporting to BTS increased their scheduled flight times on over 
        80 percent of their domestic routes (1,660 of 2,036 routes). By 
        increasing the schedule time, the actual extent of delays 
        through the system is underreported. For example, the number of 
        arrival delays would have increased by nearly 25 percent in 
        1999 if the air carriers scheduled flight times had remained at 
        their 1988 levels. We estimate that, from 1988 through 1999, 
        these schedule changes added nearly 130 million minutes of 
        travel time for air passengers.
      In an effort to measure the true growth in flight delays and the 
        resulting impact on consumers and air carriers, we developed 
        the Consumer Flight Delay Indicator (CFDI). This indicator 
        calculates the average delay time per flight flown by the 10 
        major air carriers and takes into account both scheduled and 
        unscheduled delays. Using 1988 as the base year, we found that 
        the CFDI rate in 1999 was 16:18 minutes. This represents a 42 
        percent increase from 1995 when the CFDI was 11:24 minutes.
  --DOT Lacks a Uniform Methodology for Tracking Delays.--We found 
        major differences in the methodologies used by FAA and BTS to 
        determine flight delays. These differences can lead to somewhat 
        confusing results. FAA collects data on flight delays via the 
        Operations Network (OPSNET). OPSNET data come from FAA 
        personnel who manually record aircraft that were delayed by 
        more than 15 minutes after coming under FAA's control, i.e., 
        the pilot's request to taxi out. As such, an aircraft could 
        wait an hour or more at the gate or ramp area before requesting 
        clearance to taxi. So long as the flight, once under FAA's 
        control, took off within 15 minutes of the airport's standard 
        taxi-out time, the flight would be considered an on-time 
        departure.
      Conversely, the major air carriers submit monthly flight data to 
        BTS. According to BTS, a flight is counted as ``on time'' if it 
        departed or arrived within 15 minutes of scheduled gate 
        departure and arrival times shown in the airline's reservation 
        system. Using this definition, an aircraft could wait an hour 
        or more on the airport taxiway for takeoff and be reported by 
        BTS as having departed on time if it left the gate within 15 
        minutes of its scheduled departure.
  --Although Actions Are Underway, Much Work Remains.--Partly in 
        response to the increase in delays and cancellations as well as 
        the number of complaints, FAA along with representatives of the 
        airline industry conducted an extensive evaluation in 1999 
        aimed at improving its management of air traffic. As a result 
        of the evaluation, FAA and the industry identified 165 near-
        term action items to relieve delays including: (1) limiting 
        locally initiated ground stops to 30 minutes; (2) providing 
        estimates to air carriers of the time a ground stop will end 
        and the cause for this action; and (3) ensuring that local 
        facilities coordinate miles-in-trail restrictions\1\ through 
        the National Air Traffic Control System Command Center. 
        According to FAA, most of the action items have been 
        implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Miles-in-trail is an ATC tool that intentionally paces traffic 
by increasing spacing between aircraft to keep volume at manageable 
levels. This spacing between aircraft is different from FAA's safety 
separation standards requirement of 5 nautical miles laterally or 2,000 
feet in altitude, in sectors of high-altitude traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      FAA also recognizes the need for a common system for tracking 
        delays, cancellations, and their causes. As a result, the 
        agency has been working closely with the major air carriers in 
        developing the Aviation System Performance Metric (ASPM). ASPM, 
        which became operational at 21 airports in April 2000, 
        establishes a uniform set of metrics on which to measure delays 
        during each flight segment, i.e., gate departure, taxi-out, en 
        route, taxi-in, gate arrival, and overall flight time.
      FAA officials noted that ASPM will initially be used to help 
        identify and track delays and cancellations as well as measure 
        ATC performance. They also noted their intent to eventually 
        include causal information in ASPM, which will be critical in 
        helping FAA and the air carriers identify areas for 
        improvement, such as changes in traffic management practices, 
        funding for equipment and airport enhancements, and airspace 
        redesign.
  --Causal Data on Flight Delays and Cancellations Are Woefully 
        Incomplete.--Beyond the methodologies used to determine flight 
        delays, we also found causal data varied significantly-with no 
        one system possessing a complete picture of the causes of 
        flight delays and cancellations. For example, BTS does not 
        collect causal data for delays or cancellations. FAA only 
        collects causal data on delays reported through OPSNET, but 
        maintains no comparable information on cancellations. Moreover, 
        FAA causal codes do not cover delays due to air carrier 
        activities, such as aircraft maintenance, boarding of 
        passengers, or fueling. While most of the air carriers maintain 
        causal information for internal purposes on both delays and 
        cancellations, those causes are associated primarily with gate 
        departure delays, and generally are not consistent with the 
        causal information collected by FAA.

 PRELIMINARY RESULTS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AIRLINES' COMMITMENT AND 
                            PLANS ARE MIXED

    The Growth in Delays and Cancellations Has Led to Increases in 
Customer Dissatisfaction With Air Carrier Customer Service.--The 
Airlines are at the 6-month point in implementing their Plans designed 
to restore and improve customer service. We reported our preliminary 
results in our Interim Report on Airline Customer Service 
Commitment.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Report Number AV-2000-102 issued June 27, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  --The Commitment Does Not Address Underlying Reasons for Customer 
        Dissatisfaction.--The Commitment addresses such matters as 
        improved communication with passengers, quoting the lowest 
        available airfare, timely return of misrouted or delayed 
        baggage, allowing reservations to be held or canceled without 
        penalty, providing prompt ticket refunds, and meeting 
        passengers' essential needs during long on-board delays. 
        However, the Commitment does not directly address underlying 
        reasons for customer dissatisfaction, such as extensive flight 
        delays, baggage not showing up on arrival, long check-in lines, 
        and high fares in certain markets. In our opinion, until these 
        areas are effectively addressed by the Airlines, FAA, and 
        others, there will continue to be discontent among air 
        travelers.
  --Airlines Have a Long Way to Go to Restore Customer Confidence.--In 
        our initial observations and testing, we found the Airlines are 
        making a clear and genuine effort at strengthening the 
        attention paid to customer service, but bottom-line results are 
        mixed, and the Airlines have a long way to go to restore 
        customer confidence.
      For instance, at least 2 of the 12 provisions cover airline 
        service when flights are delayed or canceled. These two 
        provisions address notifying customers of known delays, 
        cancellations and diversions, and meeting customers' essential 
        needs during long on-aircraft delays. We found the Airlines 
        were making a significant effort, both at the airport and on-
        board aircraft, to improve the frequency of communication with 
        customers about delays and cancellations. These improvements 
        include investments in various communication technologies and 
        media as well as more frequent announcements to customers. 
        However, we also found major room for improvement in the 
        accuracy, reliability, and timeliness of the Airlines' 
        communications to customers about the status of flights. For 
        example, several Airlines pointed to the air traffic control 
        system as the reason for delays, even in cases of extremely bad 
        weather, crew unavailability, or maintenance problems.
      We also found a disconnect between what the Airlines specified in 
        their Plans and what is in their contracts of carriage. With 
        one exception, all the Plans specify that the Airlines will 
        provide accommodations for passengers put in an overnight 
        status due to Airline operations. However only two Airlines 
        explicitly provide for this in their contracts of carriage. 
        Most Airlines' contracts of carriage only provide for 
        accommodations if the passenger is diverted to another airport 
        and put in an overnight status at that other airport. It is 
        unclear if the passengers' rights to the services provided in 
        the Airlines' Plans are enforceable if those rights are not 
        specified in the Airlines' contracts of carriage.
      Likewise, accommodating passengers during on-aircraft delays is a 
        major challenge faced by the Airlines. We found that less than 
        half the Airlines had comprehensive customer service 
        contingency plans in place, at all the airports they served, 
        for handling delays due to severe weather or Airline service 
        irregularities (e.g., unscheduled equipment maintenance or crew 
        shortages). This provision also does not specify in any detail 
        the efforts that will be made to get passengers off the 
        aircraft when delayed for extended periods, either before 
        departure or after arrival. The provision uses general terms 
        such as ``food,'' ``every reasonable effort,'' ``for an 
        extended period of time,'' or ``emergency.'' These terms should 
        be clearly defined to provide the passenger with a clear 
        understanding of what to expect.
      Our detailed observations on the Airline's efforts to implement 
        the Commitment and needed initiatives to enhance the success of 
        Customer Service Plans are included later in this testimony.

                               BACKGROUND

    FAA estimates that delays to commercial aviation cost the airlines 
over $3 billion a year and projects that delays throughout the system 
will continue to increase as the demand for passenger travel rises. 
Moreover, passengers are directly affected by the inconvenience of 
delays in terms of missed flight connections, missed business meetings, 
and lost personal time. Over the last year, the news media reported a 
growing debate on flight delays and their causes. One large U.S. 
airline claimed that it lost as much as $120 million in the first half 
of 1999 because of air traffic control (ATC) delays and canceled 
flights. FAA contended that few delays resulted from ATC equipment 
problems, and attributed the bulk of all delays to poor weather.
    Domestic air carriers \3\ that account for at least one percent of 
domestic scheduled passenger revenues submit monthly Airline Service 
Quality Performance Reports to the DOT's Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics (BTS). For this report, a flight is counted as ``on time'' 
if it departed or arrived within 15 minutes of scheduled gate departure 
and arrival times shown in the airline's reservation system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Those 10 reporting air carriers are Alaska Airlines, America 
West Airlines, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air 
Lines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Trans World Airlines, 
United Airlines, and U.S. Airways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FAA collects data on flight delays via the Operations Network 
(OPSNET). OPSNET data come from observations by FAA personnel who 
manually record aircraft that were delayed for 15 minutes or more after 
coming under FAA's control, i.e., the pilot's request to taxi out. 
Delays attributable to an air carrier's operations, such as aircraft 
and flight crew problems, are not included in OPSNET, nor are canceled 
flights (regardless of the reason).
    A key reason for differing data maintained by FAA and BTS is in how 
each uses the information it collects. For FAA, delay information 
serves to measure system-wide ATC performance as well as to identify 
areas for improvement. For BTS, measuring delays (and subsequent 
ranking of air carriers by on-time arrival performance) serves as a 
source of air travel information to consumers and helps ensure more 
accurate reporting of flight schedules by the air carriers.
Flight Delays and Cancellations Have Increased Significantly
    Both BTS and FAA reported increases in all types of flight delays 
between 1995 and 1999. For instance, according to BTS data, delays 
increased 11 percent (1,863,265 to 2,076,443) during this time period. 
Likewise, FAA data identified an even larger increase of 58 percent 
(236,802 to 374,116). Figure 1 illustrates FAA-reported delays from 
1995 to 1999. During this same period, both flight operations and 
enplanements were increasing, on average, 2 and 4 percent per year, 
respectively.

             Figure 1.--Growth in FAA-Reported Flight Delays

        Year                                               No. of delays
1995..........................................................   236,802
1996..........................................................   271,507
1997..........................................................   245,259
1998..........................................................   306,234
1999..........................................................   374,116

    We found that the number of delays continues to increase in 2000. 
Overall, there were about 12 percent more FAA-reported delays and over 
5 percent more BTS-reported delays during the first 5 months of 2000 
than during the same period in 1999. The number of canceled flights the 
10 major air carriers reported to BTS increased 68 percent, from 91,905 
to 154,311, between 1995 and 1999. Increases have continued this year, 
with the first 5 months of 2000 experiencing over 5 percent more 
cancellations than the same period in 1999.
Length of Delays Also Increased, Ranging From 16 to 18 Percent
    Not only were there more delays in 1999 than in 1995, but the 
length of delays also increased. Table 1 lists the average duration of 
FAA OPSNET delays (i.e., departure, en route, and arrival) and BTS 
arrival delays from 1995 to 1999.\4\ Overall, the length of FAA OPSNET 
delays increased 16 percent, while BTS arrival delays increased 18 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ These averages are based on delays of 15 minutes or more, since 
15 minutes is the cut-off point used by both BTS and FAA in determining 
a delay.

         TABLE 1.--DURATION OF FAA OPSNET AND BTS ARRIVAL DELAYS
                              [In minutes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  BTS
                      Year                        FAA OPSNET    Arrival
                                                    Delays      Delays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................       37:34       42:41
1996............................................       40:41       46:12
1997............................................       37:45       44:40
1998............................................       41:04       49:19
1999............................................       43:30       50:26
                                                 -----------------------
      Percent change 1995-99....................          16          18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most Delays Occur on the Ground During Departure
    We found that most delays took place on the ground. FAA's analysis 
of flights to and from 55 major U.S. airports found that ground delays 
represented approximately 83 percent of the total delay time in 1999. 
This percentage is supported by our own analysis of BTS data. 
Specifically, we determined that 82 percent of the increase in gate-to-
gate \5\ times between 1995 and 1999 was due to longer taxi-out and 
taxi-in times, with the remaining 18 percent involving longer en route 
times. This represents a noticeable shift from 1996, when only 60 
percent of the increase in gate-to-gate times (over 1995) was due to 
longer ground times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Also referred to as ``block'' time, gate-to-gate time covers 
the period between gate departure and gate arrival.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We also found that the number of flights that experienced taxi-out 
times of 1 hour or more (e.g., the aircraft departed the gate but 
remained for extended periods of time on the ground awaiting takeoff) 
had increased 130 percent, as noted in Figure 2. Of even greater 
concern for passengers is the number of flights with taxi-out times of 
2, 3, or 4 hours, which increased at an even faster pace, i.e., 186, 
216, and 251 percent, respectively, between 1995 and 1999.

 Figure 2.--Flights with Taxi-Out Times of 1 Hour or More at 28 Largest 
                                Airports

        Year                                              No. of flights
1995..............................................................17,164
1996..............................................................25,417
1997..............................................................22,535
1998..............................................................29,970
1999..............................................................39,523

Actual Extent of Delays Is Much Greater, and Is Masked By Increases in 
        Scheduled Flight Times
    To compensate for longer ground and air times, the air carriers 
have increased their flight schedules on nearly 82 percent (1,660 of 
2,036) of domestic routes between 1988 \6\ and 1999. Overall, we 
identified 390 domestic routes, comprising 793,586 flights in 1999, 
which experienced schedule increases of approximately 10 to 27 minutes 
(on average) over the last 11 years. By increasing their scheduled 
flight times, however, the actual extent of delays throughout the 
system--as tracked by BTS--is underreported. For example, the number of 
arrival delays reported to BTS would have been nearly 25 percent higher 
in 1999 if flight schedules had remained at their 1988 levels. Overall, 
we calculate that scheduled delays added nearly 130 million minutes of 
travel time for air passengers from 1988 through 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 1988 is the first complete year of data from the 10 major air 
carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an effort to measure the actual growth in flight delays, taking 
into account both scheduled and unscheduled delays, we developed the 
Consumer Flight Delay Indicator (CFDI). This indicator calculates the 
average delay time per flight flown by the 10 major air carriers. Using 
1988 as the base year, we found that the CFDI rate in 1999 was 16:18 
minutes.\7\ This represents a 42 percent increase from 1995, when the 
CFDI was 11:24 minutes, as indicated by Figure 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ We calculated that 10 of 28 major U.S. airports had CFDIs equal 
to or greater than 20 minutes in 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Figure 3.--OIG's Consumer Flight Delay Indicator

                       [1995-99 (BasedYear 1988)]

        Year                                                     Minutes
1995.............................................................. 11:24
1996.............................................................. 14:30
1997.............................................................. 13:18
1998.............................................................. 14:30
1999.............................................................. 16:18

DOT Lacks a Uniform Methodology for Tracking Delays
    We found major differences in the methodologies used by FAA and BTS 
to record and track flight delays. As a consequence, FAA and BTS differ 
as to what they consider a delay and how such delays are calculated. 
For example, FAA tracks delays on the taxiway and runway (departure) 
and airborne (en route and arrival). BTS tracks delays at the departure 
or arrival gates. The two agencies also have little in common with 
respect to how they calculate delays. As a consequence, these differing 
methodologies can lead to somewhat confusing (if not misleading) 
results as shown in the two examples.
    Example 1.--On November 2, 1999, United Airlines flight 645 from 
Newark to O'Hare left the gate 68 minutes after the scheduled departure 
time due to mechanical problems. Because this delay took place at the 
gate, it incurred a departure delay as defined by BTS. Once repaired, 
however, the flight took off within 24 minutes of receiving FAA's 
clearance to taxi. Because the total time period between the request 
for taxi and wheels off did not exceed the allotted taxi-out time of 29 
minutes at Newark, FAA did not record a departure delay.
    Example 2.--On November 1, 1999, American Airlines flight 1599 from 
Newark to O'Hare departed the gate at the scheduled time. As such, it 
achieved an on-time departure as defined by BTS. Because of an FAA 
ground delay, the aircraft remained in the ramp/taxiway an additional 
113 minutes before takeoff. FAA, therefore, recorded a departure delay 
since the elapsed period far exceeded Newark's allotted taxi-out time 
of 29 minutes.
    For instance, FAA calculates a delayed departure as the difference 
between the time a pilot requests FAA clearance to taxi and the time an 
aircraft's wheels lift off the runway, minus the airport's standard 
unimpeded taxi-out time. In comparison, BTS calculates a delayed 
departure as the difference between scheduled and actual departure time 
from the gate.

Causal Data on Flight Delays and Cancellations Are Incomplete
    There is significant disagreement within the aviation community as 
to the causes of flight delays and cancellations. Air carriers, for 
example, blame FAA and weather for most delays. In contrast, FAA points 
to weather and flight volume as the main factors. Moreover, the lack of 
consistent and complete data on the causes of delays and cancellations 
has only fueled this debate. In conducting our audit, we found no 
system that provides a complete picture of the causes of flight delays 
and cancellations. FAA causal codes do not cover delays due to air 
carrier activities, such as aircraft maintenance, boarding of 
passengers, or fueling. While most of the carriers maintain causal 
information for internal purposes on both delays and cancellations, 
those causes are associated primarily with gate departure delays, and 
generally are not consistent with the causal information collected by 
FAA. Until this inconsistency is resolved, FAA and the air carriers 
will continue to blame one another, and the decision-makers' ability to 
address the underlying causes such as runway capacity, air traffic 
control equipment and procedures, weather, and airline scheduling 
practices will be hindered.

Increase in Flight Delays and Cancellations Fuel Customer 
        Dissatisfaction
    Over the last several years, DOT has ranked flight problems 
(delays, cancellations and missed connections) as the number one air 
traveler complaint, with customer care (such as the treatment of 
delayed passengers) and baggage complaints ranked as either number two 
or number three. As depicted in Figure 4, 1999 data show that these 
three types of complaints account for nearly 70 percent of all 
complaints received by DOT against U.S. and foreign air carriers. This 
trend continues for the first 5 months of 2000, with flight problems, 
customer care and baggage complaints accounting for over 70 percent of 
all complaints received by DOT against U.S. and foreign air carriers.

                  Figure 4.--Air Travel Consumer Report

                            [1999 Complaints]

        Complaints                                               Percent
Flight Problems...................................................    35
Customer care.....................................................    20
Baggage...........................................................    14
Reservations, ticketing, and boarding.............................     8
Refunds...........................................................     7
Other.............................................................    16

Preliminary Results on Implementation of the Commitment and Plans Are 
        Mixed
    The Commitment and the Airlines' Plans for implementing it were 
essentially a commitment to place substantially greater emphasis, 
attention and resources on customer service. The Airlines realized they 
needed to improve the way they treat passengers and that good customer 
service begins with the successful execution of, and continuous 
improvement to, existing customer service policies and procedures, 
programs and plans, as well as systems and technologies.
    In developing the Commitment, the Airlines included two provisions 
that constituted new policy. The provision to either hold a reservation 
without payment for 24 hours or (at the Airline's choice) cancel a paid 
reservation within 24 hours without penalty is a new service the 
Airlines are providing. Another new provision was to support the 
increase in the baggage liability limit from $1,250 to $2,500, which 
became effective January 18, 2000.
    As for the remaining 10 provisions in the Commitment, the Airlines 
agreed to focus on better execution of customer service policies and 
procedures, many required by law or regulation, required under the 
Airlines' contracts of carriage, or part of Airline operating policy. A 
few of these provisions had subsets that provided new policies such as 
notifying customers in a timely manner of the best available 
information regarding known delays, cancellations and diversions; 
making every reasonable effort to return checked bags within 24 hours; 
issuing an annual report on frequent flyer redemption programs; and 
providing information regarding aircraft configuration (seat width and 
legroom).
    Our interim results are based on visits to the Airlines' corporate 
headquarters and other key facilities, and review of Airline policies 
and procedures before and after implementation of the Commitment. This 
allowed us to evaluate what impact the formal Commitment had on the 
Airlines' customer service. We also reviewed the Airlines' Plans and 
contracts of carriage to determine whether the provisions of the 
Commitment have been incorporated into these documents. To date, we 
have visited over 30 domestic airports to observe and test portions of 
the individual Airlines' Plans that are in place. We are continuing to 
test the effectiveness of the Commitment and will provide our results 
in our final report. To date, our preliminary results have identified 
areas that appear to be working well, as well as areas for improvement, 
as illustrated in the following examples.
  --Offer the lowest fare available.--The Airlines agreed to offer, 
        through their telephone reservation systems, the lowest fare 
        available for which the customer is eligible. However, Airlines 
        did not commit to guaranteeing the customer that the quoted 
        fare is the lowest fare the Airline has to offer. There may be 
        lower fares available through the Airlines' Internet sites that 
        are not available through the Airlines' telephone reservation 
        systems.
      We found six Airlines enhanced the provision by (1) offering the 
        lowest fare for reservations made at their city ticket offices 
        and airport customer service counters, not just through the 
        Airlines' telephone reservation systems; or (2) requiring their 
        reservation agents to query customers about the flexibility of 
        their itinerary in terms of travel dates, airports and travel 
        times to find the lowest fare available; or (3) notifying the 
        customer through an on-hold message that lower fares may be 
        available through other distribution sources and during 
        different travel times.
      Ongoing testing of this provision shows that Airline telephone 
        agents were usually offering the lowest available fare for 
        which we were eligible, but there were a sufficient number of 
        exceptions to this that it is an area to which the Airlines 
        should pay special attention. The problems we identified were 
        not deliberate on the part of the Airlines, but were due to 
        employees not following established procedures.
  --Notify customers of known delays, cancellations, and diversions.--
        For the most part, we found the Airlines were making a 
        significant effort, both at the airport and on-board aircraft, 
        to improve the frequency of communication with customers about 
        delays and cancellations. These improvements include 
        investments in various communication technologies and media as 
        well as more frequent announcements to customers. For example, 
        six airlines have procedures in place to contact passengers at 
        their home, work, pager, or cellular telephone number about 
        known delays and cancellations. However, we also found major 
        room for improvement in the accuracy, reliability, and 
        timeliness of the Airlines' communications to customers about 
        the status of flights. For example, several Airlines pointed to 
        the air traffic control system as the reason for delays, even 
        in cases of extremely bad weather, crew unavailability, or 
        maintenance problems.
      We also found flight monitors and gate displays in the boarding 
        areas showed the flights as on-time although, at the time of 
        the flight, it was evident there would be a delay because (1) 
        there was no aircraft at the gate, or (2) the flight was 
        scheduled to leave in 5 minutes and passenger boarding had not 
        begun. During some of our tests, when queried, the gate agent 
        told us the flight was scheduled to leave on-time when in fact, 
        we knew from FAA air traffic control that it was delayed.
      The Airlines and FAA must move beyond finger-pointing, and work 
        towards greater cooperation in identifying and addressing the 
        causes for flight delays and cancellations. FAA and the 
        carriers need to move forward and establish a common framework 
        for documenting and identifying the causes of delays and 
        cancellations. The need for this was recently demonstrated by a 
        lengthy delay at a major U.S. airport when some passengers were 
        on-board aircraft from 4 to 8 hours. FAA and the Airline have 
        different views on what happened and why. This illustrates the 
        need for better communications and systems for documenting the 
        cause of delays.
      We also found a disconnect between what the Airlines specified in 
        their Plans and what is in their contracts of carriage. With 
        one exception, all the Plans specify that the Airlines will 
        provide accommodations for passengers put in an overnight 
        status due to Airline operations. However only two Airlines 
        explicitly provide for this in their contracts of carriage. 
        Most Airlines' contracts of carriage only provide for 
        accommodations if the passenger is diverted to another airport 
        and put in an overnight status at that other airport. It is 
        unclear if the passengers' rights to the services provided in 
        the Airlines' Plans are enforceable if those rights are not 
        specified in the Airlines' contracts of carriage.
      We suggested the Airlines improve the lines of communication and 
        streamline the flow of accurate and reliable information 
        between (1) FAA and the Airlines' Operations Control Centers, 
        and (2) the Airlines' Operations Control Centers and frontline 
        personnel who deal directly with passengers. We also suggested 
        that the Airlines consider making their contracts of carriage 
        consistent with their Plans to clarify the customers' rights 
        when put in an overnight situation due to delays, 
        cancellations, or diversions.
  --On-time baggage delivery.--Passengers expect to find their checked 
        baggage upon arrival at their destination airports, but this 
        provision actually deals with the delivery of misrouted or 
        delayed baggage. The Airlines committed to return the misrouted 
        or delayed bag to the passenger ``within 24 hours.'' We have 
        found examples where Airlines have invested in advanced baggage 
        scanning technologies to facilitate the return of baggage or 
        increased staff resources for processing claims. However, we 
        also found that the Airlines were not consistent in their Plans 
        when defining what constituted ``within 24 hours.'' For 
        instance, some Airlines started the 24-hour clock when a 
        passenger filed a missing bag claim and others only after the 
        bag arrived at the destination airport.
      The Airlines should consider committing to returning unclaimed 
        and lost checked baggage to customers within 24 hours of 
        receipt of a customer's claim. The filing of a claim is when a 
        customer would reasonably expect the 24 hours to begin. Also, 
        those Airlines that have not already done so should consider 
        providing a toll-free telephone number for customers to call to 
        check on the status of their bags.
  --Allow reservations to be held or canceled.--This is a completely 
        new customer service commitment, which allows the customer 
        either to hold a telephone reservation without payment for 24 
        hours or (at the Airline's option) cancel a paid reservation 
        without penalty for up to 24 hours. This provision should be 
        very popular with passengers who book nonrefundable tickets, 
        because it allows customers to check for lower fares and time 
        to coordinate their travel without losing a quoted fare.
      Our ongoing testing shows that, with a few exceptions, the 
        Airlines were living up to this commitment in practice. 
        However, where a ticket purchase was required, the reservation 
        agents typically did not tell us that we could receive a full 
        refund if the reservation was canceled within 24 hours. 
        Therefore, we suggested that the Airlines requiring a ticket 
        purchase affirmatively notify passengers that if they cancel 
        the reservation within 24 hours they can receive a full refund 
        without a penalty, even on otherwise nonrefundable tickets.
  --Provide prompt ticket refunds.--By agreeing to this provision, the 
        Airlines have, in essence, agreed to comply with existing 
        Federal regulations and requirements. The 7-day refund 
        requirement for credit card purchases has been in effect for 
        nearly 20 years and is governed by Federal regulations. The 20-
        day refund requirement for cash purchases has been in effect 
        for over 16 years. With the exception of one Airline, our 
        ongoing testing did not show compliance problems with this 
        provision.
  --Meet customers' essential needs during long on-aircraft delays.--
        During our initial visits to the Airlines, less than half had 
        comprehensive customer service contingency plans in place for 
        handling extended delays on-board aircraft at all the airports 
        they served. Subsequent to our initial visits, the Airlines 
        have all stated that comprehensive customer service contingency 
        plans are in place for addressing delays, cancellations and 
        diversions. Over the next several months, at the airports we 
        visit, we will determine whether the (1) Airlines' customer 
        service contingency plans are in place, (2) Airlines' customer 
        service personnel are knowledgeable of contingency plan 
        procedures, and (3) contingency plans have been coordinated 
        with the local airport authorities and FAA.
      This provision also does not specify in any detail the efforts 
        that will be made to get passengers off the aircraft when 
        delayed for extended periods, either before departure or after 
        arrival. The provision uses general terms such as ``food,'' 
        ``every reasonable effort,'' ``for an extended period of 
        time,'' or ``emergency.'' These terms should be clearly defined 
        to provide the passenger with a clear understanding of what to 
        expect.
      We have found examples where Airlines have invested in air stairs 
        for deplaning passengers when an aircraft is delayed on the 
        ground but does not have access to a terminal gate; secured 
        additional food and beverage supplies for service at the 
        departure gates or on-board flights experiencing extended 
        delays; or made arrangements with medical consulting services 
        to resolve medical emergencies that occur on-board an aircraft.
  --Handle ``bumped'' passengers with fairness and consistency.--The 
        requirement that the Airlines establish and disclose to the 
        customer policies and procedures regarding denied boardings has 
        been in effect for over 17 years. One critical element of 
        disclosure is the Airlines' check-in time requirements that 
        passengers must meet in order to avoid being ``bumped.'' This 
        is important because the last passenger to check in is 
        generally the first to be denied a seat if a flight is 
        oversold.
      We found several inconsistencies and ambiguities between the 
        check-in times identified in the Airlines' Plans, and those 
        identified on the Airlines' contracts of carriage, ticket 
        jackets, or other written instruments, such as the customer's 
        receipt and itinerary for electronic tickets. For example, in 
        its contract of carriage, one Airline requires passengers to 
        check in 10 minutes prior to the flight's scheduled departure, 
        but on the customer's receipt and itinerary for electronic 
        tickets, the check-in time states 20 minutes prior to the 
        flight's scheduled departure, making it unclear to passengers 
        which check-in time must be met in order to avoid losing their 
        seats and being ``bumped'' from the flight without 
        compensation.
  --Be more responsive to customer complaints.--The provision requires 
        the Airlines to respond to complaints within 60 days; it does 
        not require resolution of the complaint within the 60-day 
        period, nor that when resolved, the disposition will be 
        satisfactory to the customer. Our testing of this provision 
        found the Airlines were responding to written complaints in 
        accordance with their internal policies, generally less than 60 
        days. In addition, the replies we reviewed were responsive to 
        the customer complaint and not merely an acknowledgement that 
        the complaint had been received.

Airline Performance Measurement Systems and Non-Airline-Employee 
        Training Are Needed
    A key to the success of the Plans is the need for each Airline to 
have a credible tracking system for compliance with its Plan, 
buttressed by performance goals and measures. The Airlines also need to 
train non-Airline employees on customer service issues contained in the 
Plans, since these individuals are often mistaken for Airline 
employees.
    The Airlines need to have performance measurement systems in place 
to ensure the success of the Commitment and Plans. Therefore, the 
success of the Customer Service Plans is dependent upon each Airline 
having a tracking system for compliance with each provision and the 
implementing Plan. We found that most of the Airlines originally did 
not have such a system in place, but we received assurances that the 
needed systems would be established.
    In our work between now and December, we intend to determine 
whether the Airlines have followed through on their assurances and 
these performance measurement systems are in place. The expectation, 
for example, is that each Airline will have in place a tracking system 
to ensure the lowest eligible fare is offered, that misrouted and 
delayed baggage is returned within 24 hours, that refunds are paid 
within the requisite timeframe, and that communication systems for 
advising passengers of flight status are working properly, and 
generating reliable and timely information. So far, however, our 
testing has shown that most of the Airlines have come up short in 
putting a tracking system in place to ensure that misrouted and delayed 
baggage is returned to the passenger within 24 hours.
    Another area the Airlines need to address to improve customer 
service is the training of non-Airline employees who interact with 
customers at the airport such as skycaps, security screeners or 
wheelchair providers. The Airlines must ensure non-Airline employees 
who interact with their passengers are adequately trained on the 
Airlines' Plans, policies and procedures for customer service.
    When these personnel perform customer service functions covered 
directly by the Airlines' Commitment, the public cannot reasonably be 
expected to differentiate between those who work for the Airlines and 
those who do not. Therefore, it is critical to the success of the 
Commitment and Plans for these personnel to be properly trained. 
However, 5 of the 14 Airlines told us they did not intend to train non-
airline personnel on their Plans' procedures. This is unfortunate. For 
example, it is critical that the Airlines ensure that non-Airline 
personnel performing passenger security screening service on behalf of 
the Airlines understand the Airlines' policies and procedures in their 
Plans for accommodating persons with disabilities.
The Terms in the Airlines' Contracts of Carriage Can Be More 
        Restrictive Than the Terms in Their Plans
    The Commitment and the Airlines' Plans, while conveying promises of 
customer service standards, do not necessarily translate into legally 
enforceable passenger rights. Rather, each air carrier has an 
underlying contract of carriage which, under Federal regulations, 
provides the terms and conditions of passenger rights and air carrier 
liabilities. The contract of carriage is legally binding between the 
air carrier and the passenger.
    Because of their clear enforceability, the Airlines' contracts of 
carriage have become an important issue in the customer service debate. 
Our results indicate that, in general, the Airlines have not modified 
their contracts of carriage to reflect all items in their Plans. 
Although 1 Airline incorporated its Plan in its entirety into the 
contract of carriage, 3 Airlines (as of April 20, 2000) have not 
changed their contracts of carriage at all since they agreed to the 
Commitment, and the remaining 10 Airlines have changed their contracts 
of carriage to some extent. This means, for example, that the 
provisions for returning misrouted baggage within 24 hours and holding 
a reservation for 24 hours without payment are not in some contracts of 
carriage.
    At present, it remains uncertain whether an Airline's Plan is 
binding and enforceable on the Airline. In fact, one Airline, in its 
Plan, has stated that the Plan does not create contractual or legal 
rights. To resolve this question, the Airlines could incorporate their 
Plans in their contracts of carriage. However, based on our results 
thus far, we are concerned that, without direction to the contrary, 
this would leave open the possibility that the contracts of carriage 
may be more restrictive to the consumer than envisioned in the 
Commitment or the Plans.
    In some cases, we found the modifications made to the contracts of 
carriage included restrictions not found in the Commitment or the 
Plans. For example:
  --One Airline, in its Plan, states that it would accommodate 
        passengers required to stay overnight for delays and 
        cancellations caused by the Airline's operations. However, in 
        its contract of carriage the terms are more limited--the 
        Airline provides accommodations if the passenger is diverted to 
        another airport and put in an overnight status at the other 
        airport.
  --One Airline, in modifying its contract of carriage to implement the 
        provision to hold a reservation without payment for 24 hours, 
        limited the benefit to passengers calling from the United 
        States for travel within the United States. However, the 
        Commitment does not make this distinction.
    Customer service is likely to become more of a competitive market 
force as air carriers strengthen and implement plans to provide better 
service. Over time, where there is competition in the air markets 
served, measures to improve customer service should serve as a catalyst 
for other Airlines to introduce initiatives to improve their customer 
service in order to remain competitive. However, inclusion of the 
Plans' provisions in the Airlines' contracts of carriage will become 
more important if an environment develops where there is less 
competitive pressure to maintain or improve customer service.

Implications for DOT's Capacity to Oversee and Enforce Air Carrier 
        Customers' Rights
    DOT is congressionally mandated to oversee and enforce air travel 
consumer protection requirements, some of which are covered by the 
Commitment, and the Airlines' Plans and contracts of carriage. These 
include compensation rules for bumped passengers, rules governing the 
accommodation of disabled air travelers, ticket refund provisions, and 
baggage liability requirements. The Office of the Assistant General 
Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, including its 
Aviation Consumer Protection Division, carries out this mission. This 
office is also responsible for enforcing other aviation economic 
requirements, such as legal issues that arise regarding air carrier 
fitness determinations and competition.
    DOT, in preparing and justifying budget requests for this office, 
and Congress, in reviewing those requests, should look closely at this 
office's capacity to fulfill its mission and be responsive in a timely 
way to consumer complaints. In 1985, this office had a staff of 40; in 
1995, it was down to 20; and by 2000, it had a staff of 17 to oversee 
and enforce aviation consumer protection rules as well as carry out its 
other responsibilities.
    In fact, staffing has declined during a period of air traffic 
growth, complaints have increased from 7,665 in 1997 to 20,495 \8\ in 
1999, additional requirements have been established (such as the Air 
Carrier Access Act and the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act), 
and recently, the Commitment emerged as an important element in 
protecting passenger rights. An issue that office will face soon is 
whether policies contained in the Commitment and the Airlines' Plans 
are enforceable if they are not also contained in the Airlines' 
contracts of carriage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Total aviation consumer complaints filed with DOT for the 
entire industry (U.S. airlines, foreign airlines, tour operators, 
etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We believe there is cause for concern whether the oversight and 
enforcement expectations for the Office of Aviation Enforcement and 
Proceedings significantly exceed the office's capacity to handle the 
workload in a responsive manner.
Although Actions Are Underway, Much Work Remains
    Partly in response to the increase in delays and cancellations as 
well as the number of complaints, FAA along with representatives of the 
airline industry conducted an extensive evaluation in 1999 aimed at 
improving its management of air traffic. As a result of the evaluation, 
FAA and the industry identified 165 near-term action items to relieve 
delays, including: (1) limiting locally initiated ground stops to 30 
minutes; (2) providing estimates to air carriers of the time a ground 
stop will end and the cause for this action; and (3) ensuring that 
local facilities coordinate miles-in-trail restrictions \9\ through the 
National Air Traffic Control System Command Center. According to FAA, 
most of the action items have been implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Miles-in-trail is an ATC tool that intentionally paces traffic 
by increasing spacing between aircraft to keep volume at manageable 
levels. This spacing between aircraft should not be confused with the 
FAA safety separation standards requirement of 5 nautical miles 
laterally or 2,000 feet in altitude, in sectors of high-altitude 
traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FAA's evaluation also spurred a number of other initiatives. For 
example, FAA is deploying several traffic management tools, including 
the Flight Schedule Monitor, Collaborative Convective Forecast Product, 
and Departure Spacing Program. FAA has also established a web site 
(www.fly.faa.gov) that provides consumers real-time information on air 
carrier delays at the Nation's 40 largest airports. The web site is 
also linked to other information sources, such as the status of the 
National Airspace System, which shows all the ground delays and stops 
FAA has in place across the Nation at that time.
    FAA also recognizes the need for a common system for tracking 
delays, cancellations, and their causes. As a result, the agency has 
been working with the major air carriers in developing the Aviation 
System Performance Metric (ASPM). ASPM, which became operational in 
April 2000, establishes a uniform set of metrics on which to measure 
delays during each flight segment, i.e., gate departure, taxi-out, en 
route, taxi-in, gate arrival, and overall flight time. ASPM also 
provides FAA and the participating air carriers with next day reports 
via the Internet on delays occurring at individual airports, on routes 
and flights, and within the overall system. FAA officials noted that 
ASPM will initially be used to help identify and track delays and 
cancellations as well as measure ATC performance. They also noted their 
intent to eventually include causal information in ASPM, which will be 
critical in helping FAA and the air carriers identify areas for 
improvement, such as changes in traffic management practices, funding 
for equipment and airport enhancements, and airspace redesign.
    Likewise, the need for good causal data was recently reinforced by 
Congress in The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for 
the 21st Century. This Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to 
modify existing regulations governing air carrier data submissions to 
DOT ``. . . to disclose more fully to the public the nature and source 
of delays and cancellations experienced by air travelers.'' The Act 
also requires the establishment of a task force (including officials of 
FAA, air carriers, and consumer groups) to develop categories for 
reporting causal information on flight delays and cancellations.
    Notwithstanding these efforts, much work remains to be done if 
delays and cancellations are to be addressed in a meaningful way. A 
good starting point is the development of a uniform system through 
which all components of DOT and the air carriers will be able to track 
flight delays and cancellations as well as measure ATC performance. In 
addition to this system, more comprehensive information is needed on 
the various causes of flight delays and cancellations not just those 
currently recorded by FAA or the air carriers. Finally, the Department 
needs to reassess the information it provides consumers, especially in 
the area of departure delays. The current emphasis on gate departure 
and arrival delays does not reflect the full extent of delays, much of 
which is occurring on the ground in the form of longer taxi-out times 
or is being underreported due to expanded flight schedules.
    The issues are complex and there are no easy or quick solutions. 
The long-term solutions for enhancing capacity and improving customer 
service involve a number of steps including getting better data for 
decision makers to use in improving the use of our airspace, making 
more efficient use of existing and new runways, and exploring 
alternative airline scheduling practices.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to 
answer any questions you might have.
                        NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESS

STATEMENT OF EDWARD KRAGH, NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
            AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER, SECRETARY, NEWARK 
            LOCAL, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS 
            ASSOCIATION
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Edward Kragh.
    Mr. Kragh. Good morning, Chairman Shelby, Senator 
Lautenberg, members of the Committee. Thanks for the 
opportunity to testify this morning.
    My name is Ed Kragh. And I am a controller at Newark 
Airport. I am also the Secretary of NATCA at Newark. And the 
NATCA is the exclusive representative of over 15,000 air 
traffic controllers serving the FAA, Department of Defense and 
the private sector.

                             AIRLINE DELAYS

    Airline delays, as we all know, are at an all-time high. 
Passenger frustration is over the top.
    And predictably when something goes wrong, the finger 
pointing, as you mentioned, blame game begins. To that end, the 
airlines have embarked on a well-financed campaign of 
misinformation blaming air traffic control for their delays.
    Everybody has said today, it is unproductive and unfair for 
one segment of the aviation industry to place responsibility 
entirely on another.
    It is simply untrue to say that air traffic control is 
primarily at fault for the hundreds of thousands of delays each 
year.
    Safety is the controller's sole function. This should not 
be compromised to accommodate more passengers, more flights, or 
more profits for the airlines.
    We go to enormous lengths to personally ensure uneventful 
passage for millions of flyers each year. Controllers do not 
have an incentive to delay or hinder air traffic. Our 
motivation is to move aircraft as safely and efficiently as 
possible.
    The longer a delayed aircraft is in our airspace, or for 
myself at the tower, occupies concrete on the ground, the more 
difficult our jobs become.
    The sole function of controllers is to ensure the safety of 
the flying public. And this should not be compromised to 
accommodate more passengers, more flights or more profits.
    We are talking about delays. And delays represent a multi-
faceted problem. They must be treated as a comprehensive, 
ongoing circumstance that offers no single or easy solution.
    For the obvious contributors to delays are heavy demands, 
which we see in the summer time increases; and scheduling 
decisions by airlines, which exceed airport capacity; bad 
weather; implementation of new controller equipment; and an 
antiquated system.

                             CROWDED SKIES

    Let us talk about our crowded skies. Our domestic air 
traffic control system is the largest, most complex and 
demanding in the world. It is also the safest. And this is no 
doubt due in large measure to the dedication and 
professionalism of the controllers workforce.
    Today, we are under extreme pressure to squeeze more planes 
into an already congested airspace.

                             AIRPORT DELAYS

    Newark Airport has had the dubious distinction, as Senator 
Lautenberg mentioned, of suffering the most air traffic delays 
of any airport--my figures show it was 6 of the last 7 years. I 
believe you--you stated that it was 9 of the last 12 years--
nothing that we are particularly proud of.
    Yet during the same period we speak of, Newark is only 
ranked from the 15th to the 20th busiest facility in the 
country. We will likely suffer more delays this year than 
Dallas/Fort Worth, Chicago O'Hare or Atlanta International, 
each of which will handle almost double the amount of 
operations at Newark.
    This begs the question, why is Newark number one? And the 
answer is simply airport capacity.
    Any airport's capacity to handle air traffic is a function 
of its size, the layout of the runways, the air traffic 
patterns for arrivals and departures and the time frame in 
which a surge of traffic or traffic peaks must be dealt with by 
controllers, due to airline scheduling.
    By comparison with other major airports, Newark is small. 
Chicago O'Hare has over 62,000 feet of available runway; 
Newark, only about 27,000 feet.
    Chicago has about 900,000 operations annually; Newark 
approximately 463,000. Newark is bound on all sides by major 
highways, railroads and the Newark Bay, making further airport 
expansion a daunting proposition.
    A second reason we are speaking about delays is unrealistic 
hub scheduling. The inefficient hub and spoke system used by 
airlines to schedule flights is a major source of delays.
    Flight departure and arrival scheduling is at the sole 
discretion and control of the airlines, not Congress, not the 
FAA, and certainly not air traffic controllers.
    Airlines want to reduce operating costs and maximize 
revenue, without regard for other airlines' schedules already 
slated for prime times, terminal air space or airport capacity.
    This past Sunday's the last shift that I worked before 
coming down here at Newark Airport was a beautiful, sunny day. 
And during the peak departure time of--between 6 and 7 p.m., 
there were about 25 departure delays.
    Weather conditions, as I mentioned, were perfect. There 
were no equipment problems. Yet the airline scheduling exceeded 
the airport capacity and thus delays resulted.
    As long as the airlines continue to overbook our runways, 
especially during peak hours, air traffic delays will continue. 
Passengers will wait.
    Cramming extra flights into an already taxed system only 
creates congestion in the terminal airspace, on the runways and 
at the gates.
    Even if controllers today had the most up-to-date 
equipment, air traffic delays would not be eliminated. 
Controllers would simply be able to keep better track of the 
aircraft.

                                WEATHER

    A third and truly primary cause of delays is weather. Now, 
Ms. Garvey mentioned, some weather data from June, about 12 
consecutive severe weather nights. I can tell you that I worked 
10 of the 12 of those, and it was not an enjoyable situation.
    Inclement weather has--and will continue to--play a 
significant role in air traffic delays, accounting for 
approximately 75 percent.
    Planes fly on a complex set of invisible highways in the 
sky, with intersections, speed limits, separation requirements, 
and so on. When storms or inclement weather cause blockage or 
closing of one or many of these unseen highways, air traffic 
bottlenecks just like it does on the interstate at rush hour.
    Controllers must then reroute this traffic. And it can take 
hours to recover from a brief shutdown of one air route.
    I might interject here something that Senator Reid 
mentioned I thought was an interesting idea. He had an idea 
about--and I am paraphrasing from his comments--but he 
mentioned information kiosks for passengers to--to see weather 
information that is current across the country.
    Often, airline complaints or any complaint that anyone has 
is often due to their misunderstanding of what is actually 
going on. It is certainly--maybe the airlines could be more 
forthcoming about that information, but if passengers could see 
for themselves the weather that they are going to need to fly 
through and around, that might help to keep complaints down
    Speaking about Newark and its airport capacity, the 
centerlines of our main parallel runways lie only 900 feet 
apart. When weather is reduced below 1,000 feet of cloud 
ceiling or less than 3 miles of visibility, we have to revert 
to air traffic rules that dictate that these two runways be 
treated as a single runway. And that reduces airport capacity 
significantly.
    Senator Shelby. How often is that?
    Mr. Kragh. That specific instance is not as frequent as the 
type of summer storm delays that we encounter--probably 2 or 3 
times a month is what we are talking about for reduced weather 
minimum.
    Senator Shelby. And what is the average period of time that 
you had to reduce two runways to one----
    Mr. Kragh. I do not have those specific figures.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Mr. Kragh. But if a storm moves right over the airport or 
fog or low cloud ceilings move in, however long the weather 
takes to move out.
    Senator Shelby. Yes. Okay.
    Mr. Kragh. That is usually not longer than a day or perhaps 
a shift, affecting possibly two or three departure pushes, as 
we call them.

                        ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES

    One of the significant inhibitors to capacity at Newark is 
the fact that both arrivals and departures use a single stream 
flow into and out of the airport.
    These patterns are necessary in the current airspace 
designation, because of the proximity of Newark, LaGuardia, 
Teterboro, and Kennedy Airports.
    Almost all of the arrivals from wherever they are coming 
from in the country, except for a handful of propeller 
aircraft, funnel into one line at Newark for the main landing 
runway.
    During heavy arrival push, each arrival clears the runway 
just as the next crosses the airport boundary. There is not a 
lot of room for error in our job at Newark. And I am sure my 
colleagues at other airports can attest to that.
    All the departures at Newark, except again for a few props, 
depart from one runway. And they fly the same heading, the same 
pattern.
    This prohibits us from using any of the reduced departure 
separation procedures, which are available, for instance, when 
two departures would take off on diverging endings.
    This is due again to airspace constraints, with the 
proximity of the other airports. But it is also done in the 
interest of noise abatement, and as Senator Lautenberg can 
attest to, noise abatement is a very----
    Senator Lautenberg. Testy issue.
    Mr. Kragh. And I am sure you receive just as many 
complaints about that as you do about other airline issues.

                             MODERNIZATION

    Finally, modernization, NATCA has strongly and has always 
advocated modernization of the air traffic control system.
    In fact, the union has been successful in making key points 
and today works with the agency on projects previously stalled 
or headed for failure.
    Collaboration and teamwork have been instrumental in 
ensuring the success of well-documented DSR, which is a center 
radar, and STARS, a terminal radar, modernization projects.
    It is no overstatement to say that NATCA has been 
instrumental in turning the agency around. We may now be 
assured the 21st century will see many viable, effective 
advances that work with controllers and pilots, not against 
them.
    Yet, while new equipment is a necessary step for ensuring 
safe, efficient travel in the future, it will not solve the 
problem of airline-created delays.

                                 DELAYS

    In summary, without expanding domestic airspace and airport 
capacity, delays will not only continue to increase, but they 
will reach the point of gridlock in the foreseeable future.
    Something must be done now to address the issue, because it 
is only going to get worse. It is time to stop pointing 
fingers, further dividing a splintered industry.
    Teamwork and collaboration are needed to develop and 
implement long-term solutions and procedural changes to 
alleviate air traffic delays. And I think everybody agrees on 
that point.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be pleased to 
respond to any questions you have.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Edward Kragh

    Good morning Chairman Shelby, Senator Lautenberg, and members of 
the Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the 
problems contributing to aviation delays. My name is Edward Kragh and I 
am a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic controller at 
Newark International Airport in New Jersey. I am also Secretary of the 
National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) local at Newark 
tower, NATCA is the exclusive representative of over 15,000 air traffic 
controllers serving the FAA, Department of Defense and private sector.
    Airline delays, as we all know, are at an all time high. Passenger 
frustration is over the top. And, predictably, when something goes 
wrong, the finger pointing and the blame game begins. To that end, the 
airlines have embarked on a well financed campaign of misinformation 
blaming air traffic control for their delays. It is unproductive and 
unfair for one segment of the aviation industry to place responsibility 
entirely on another. It is simply untrue to say that air traffic 
control is primarily at fault for the hundreds of thousands of delays 
each year.
    Safety is the controller's sole function and this should not be 
compromised to accommodate more passengers, more flights, or more 
profits for the airlines. We go to enormous lengths to personally 
ensure uneventful passage for millions of flyers each year. Controllers 
have no incentive to delay or hinder air traffic. Our motivation is to 
move aircraft as efficiently, safely and quickly as possible. The 
longer a delayed aircraft is in our airspace or occupies concrete on 
the ground, the more difficult our jobs become. However, the sole 
function of controllers is to ensure the safety of the flying public, 
and this should not be compromised to accommodate more passengers, more 
flights or more profits for the airlines.
    Delays represent a multi-faceted problem. They must be treated as a 
comprehensive, ongoing circumstance that offers no single or easy 
solution. The obvious contributors to delays are heavy demand by 
travelers, scheduling decisions by airlines, bad weather, 
implementation of new air traffic controller equipment, an antiquated 
system, plus policy and complex procedures.
    As you see, many delay factors are OUTSIDE our control.
    First, let's review our crowded skies.
    Our domestic air traffic control system is the largest, most 
complex and demanding in the world. It is also the safest. This is, no 
doubt, due in large measure to the dedication and professionalism of 
the controller workforce. Today, we are under extreme pressures to 
squeeze more planes into an already congested airspace.
    Newark has had the dubious distinction of suffering the most air 
traffic delays of any airport in the United States for 6 of the last 7 
years. Yet, during this same period Newark has only ranged from the 
15th to 20th busiest facility in the country. This year we will handle 
approximately 463,000 operations, yet we will most likely suffer more 
delays than either Dallas/Ft. Worth, Chicago O'Hare, or Atlanta 
International, each of which will handle almost double the amount of 
operations. This begs the question ``Why Newark?'' The answer is simply 
airport capacity.
    An airport's capacity to handle air traffic is a function of its 
size, the layout of its runways, the air traffic patterns, both 
arriving and departing, and the time frame in which a surge of traffic 
must be dealt with due to airline scheduling, By comparison with other 
major airports, Newark is small. Chicago O'Hare has over 62,000 feet of 
available runway, Newark only about 27,000 feet. Chicago has about 
900,000 operations annually, Newark has approximately 463,000 
operations. Newark is bound on all sides by major highways, railroads 
and the Newark Bay, making further expansion of the whole airport a 
daunting proposition.
    A second reason for delays is UNREALISTIC HUB SCHEDULING.
    The inefficient hub and spoke system used by airlines to schedule 
flights is a major source of delays. Flight departure and arrival 
scheduling is at the sole discretion and control of the individual 
airline--NOT Congress, NOT the FAA, and NOT the traffic controllers.
    To maximize profits, airlines intentionally overload the system. 
You show me a major HUB airport, and I'll show you over-scheduling. 
Airlines want to reduce operating costs and maximize revenue, without 
regard for other airlines' schedules already slated for prime times, 
terminal airspace or airport capacity.
    It is like trying to cram 10 pounds of sand into a 5-pound bag. All 
scheduled flights will not be able to depart or arrive on time.
    Yesterday, at Newark airport, during peak time between 6 p.m. and 7 
p.m., there were approximately 25 delayed departures. Weather 
conditions were perfect and there were no equipment problems. Yet, 
airline scheduling exceeded airport capacity and thus resulted in 
delays,
    As long as airlines continue to overbook runways, especially during 
peak hours, air traffic delays will continue and passengers will wait. 
Cramming extra flights into an already taxed system only creates 
congestion in the terminal airspace, on the runways and at the gates. 
Even if controllers TODAY had the most up-to-date equipment, air 
traffic delays would not be eliminated. Controllers would simply be 
able to keep better track of the planes.
    A third and truly primary cause of delays is WEATHER.
    Inclement weather has, and will continue, to play a significant 
role in air traffic delays--accounting for approximately 75 percent. 
Unfortunately, nobody but Mother Nature has any control here.
    Planes fly on a complex set of invisible ``highways in the sky'' 
with intersections, speed limits, separation requirements, and so on. 
When storms or inclement weather causes blockage or closing of one or 
many of these unseen highways, air traffic bottlenecks just like it 
does on the interstate at rush hour. Controllers must then reroute this 
traffic. It can take hours to recover from a brief shut down of one air 
route.
    At Newark, the centerlines of the main parallel runways lie only 
900 feet apart. When weather is reduced below 1000 feet of cloud 
ceiling or less than three miles of visibility, air traffic rules 
dictate that runways this close together must be treated as a single 
runway. Thus, airport capacity is severely reduced.
    Separation Procedures Affect Delays.
    One of the significant inhibitors to capacity at Newark is the fact 
that both arrivals and departures use a single stream flow into and out 
of the airport. These patterns are necessary in the current airspace 
designation because of the proximity of Newark, Teterboro, LaGuardia, 
and Kennedy airports. Almost all arrivals, except for a handful of 
props, funnel into one line for the main landing runway. During a heavy 
arrival push, each arrival clears the runway just as the next crosses 
the airport boundary. All departures, except again for a few props, 
depart from one runway, flying the same heading. This prohibits us from 
using any of the reduced departure separation which is available when 
two departures will fly diverging courses. This is due again to 
airspace constraints, but it is done also in the interest of noise 
abatement for the communities bordering the field.
    Finally, MODERNIZATION--A thinly veiled attempt by airlines to 
promote privatization of the FAA.
    NATCA has STRONGLY advocated modernization of the a traffic control 
system. In fact, the union has been successful in making key points 
and, today, works with the agency on projects previously stalled or 
headed for failure. Collaboration and teamwork have been instrumental 
in ensuring the success of well-documented DSR and STARS modernization 
projects. It is no over-statement to say NATCA has been instrumental in 
turning the agency around. We may now be assured the 21st century will 
see many viable, effective advances that work with controllers and 
pilots--not against them. Yet, while new equipment is a necessary step 
for ensuring safe, efficient travel in the future, it will not solve 
the problem of airline-created delays.
    In summary, without expanding domestic airspace and airport 
capacity, delays will not only continue to increase but they will reach 
the point of gridlock in the foreseeable future. Something must be done 
now to address the issue because it is only going to get worse. It is 
time to stop pointing fingers, further dividing a splintered industry.
    Teamwork and collaboration are needed to develop and implement 
long-term solutions and procedural changes to alleviate air traffic 
delays. On that point, I believe we all agree. Perhaps we can use it as 
the starting point for a longer, more fruitful examination, and 
ultimately to solutions.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to respond to your 
questions.

                           GROWTH IN CAPACITY

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, I note that total FAA aircraft 
operations, the work load of the air traffic control system, 
have grown only 8 percent in the past 5 years, yet 
cancellations are up over 60 percent; taxi times of over an 
hour and up, 130 percent; and delays are up over 50 percent. 
Those numbers seem to indicate that something is out of sync 
between the air traffic workload and the delay in cancellation 
problems we have been talking about here.
    Is it unreasonable, Mr. Mead, to expect that we should be 
able to increase the capacity in the air traffic control system 
by 8 percent over a 5-year period? Is it unreasonable?
    Mr. Mead. No, sir. If that was spread evenly throughout the 
ATC system, I think would be a----
    Senator Shelby. But that is your caveat right there, is it 
not?
    Mr. Mead. That is exactly right.
    Senator Shelby. If it is spread evenly?
    Mr. Mead. That is exactly right. That----
    Senator Shelby. It is not going to be spread evenly, so 
explain.

                           8.3 PERCENT GROWTH

    Mr. Mead. Yes, I think there are two factors at play here. 
One is this 8.3 percent growth, which just to translate it into 
numbers, from--about 122 million operations in 1990, about 125 
million in 1999.
    Now, in 1995, there were about 115 million, which meant it 
dropped. It actually dropped from between 1990 and 1995.
    Now, the 8.3 percent over that 5-year period is not spread 
evenly over the system. Some places it is much, much higher. 
And I think one factor here is the scheduling.
    And one of the points I was trying to make in the testimony 
is that that is why we have to sort through exactly what the 
causes are because going down the slope of trying to deal with 
scheduling and make scheduling adjustments, at least from a 
Federal Government point of view, is a very tough order.

                     AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT

    I believe a second factor is air traffic control equipment, 
sir. Air traffic control equipment, there is a lot of new 
equipment in the system, but it is not the new equipment that 
was promised, like the advanced automation system from some 
years ago, the wide-area augmentation system for satellites, 
the backroom software for the STARS acquisition. And you could 
go on.
    But there is a lot of new equipment in the system, but it 
is not exactly equipment that is going to enhance capacity.

                               DELAY DATA

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, is there any value to the 
consumer in the current delay reporting system that we have? We 
are all consumers. We all travel. But is there really any value 
to the consumer in the current delay reporting system we have 
been talking about. I do not see any.
    Mr. Mead. No. I think the arrival numbers are quite 
meaningful, but I do not believe the departure statistics are 
or the FAA system is. I think all these systems need to be 
married together and we have to come up with a common 
agreement. It is not only confusing to the consumer. It is 
somewhat misleading to the consumer.
    Senator Shelby. Somewhat misleading----
    Mr. Mead. It is not just----
    Senator Shelby. It is clearly misleading, is it not? I 
mean, we have been talking about how they report statistics up 
here earlier.
    They do not count different things. I do not know who wrote 
the rules, but we have got to go back to the truth. Basically, 
the consumer needs the truth. We need to know the truth about 
what the airlines are doing, how they report, how they game the 
system or do not game the system.
    And I think the FAA and you, as the Inspector General, 
working with us can really make a difference there.
    Ms. Garvey, do you want to comment on that?
    Ms. Garvey. Mr. Chairman, I would agree and in fact, I 
agree very much with the Inspector General's statement that 
really the information that we have right now is not helpful 
for consumers.
    Senator Shelby. It is really not truthful information, is 
it?
    Ms. Garvey. Well, it is certainly misleading.
    Senator Shelby. If it is misleading, it is not the truth.
    Ms. Garvey. I do want to speak to one effort that we began 
last winter and this is in cooperation with the airlines. And 
to their credit, they have come forward and said, ``Look, we 
have got to really understand the delay issue better than we do 
now.''
    We have been, since last winter, collecting data at the top 
20 airports that is going to serve as our baseline. The 
Inspector General has been very helpful in that effort as well. 
So we really will have at the end of this summer, I think, the 
beginnings of a baseline. We then need to develop a methodology 
so we can track the causes of those delays, which will be more 
challenging.
    But you are absolutely right. We have got to get a better 
handle on what really are the causes and what are the 
definitions.

                     TELLING THE CONSUMER THE TRUTH

    Senator Shelby. Ms. Garvey, you are the Administrator for 
the Federal Aviation Administration. You are right in the mix 
of this, because of your job. How difficult will it be for the 
FAA and the air carriers to agree, if you can, to a common set 
of delay causing categories?
    In other words, tell the American people the truth, the 
consumer the truth. I think that if we started out with the 
truth, then we will know what to build on, would we not?
    Ms. Garvey. Absolutely.
    Senator Shelby. How difficult is it going to be to get to 
the truth?
    Ms. Garvey. In all honesty, I think that is going to be a 
challenge.
    Senator Shelby. Why? You are the Administrator of FAA. Tell 
us how we can help you get to the truth.
    Ms. Garvey. Well, actually I think you have been very 
helpful.
    Senator Shelby. Yes.
    Ms. Garvey. And I will tell you that I do think the efforts 
that have been underway just in collecting the baseline 
information at the top 20 airports, that is the first step. And 
I think we are all in sync with that. I will tell you I think 
there is so much at stake. I think everyone recognizes that. So 
while I do not want to underestimate the challenge, I think it 
is absolutely a solvable challenge. And one we can meet. But we 
are going to have to do it together.

               REPORTING FLIGHT CANCELLATIONS AND DELAYS

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, the I.G. interim report indicates 
that flight cancellations and delays are the primary source of 
passenger dissatisfaction. The number of flight cancellations 
and delays has risen over the last 5 years. And the number of 
on-board--on-board flight delays of one hour or longer 
increased 130 percent at the 28 largest airports in the United 
States.
    Mr. Mead, what is causing the increases in extended delays 
here? How can you get your hand on this? How can we help you?
    Mr. Mead. I would like to first answer this and I imagine 
my colleague from Newark here has some observations on that 
too.
    One reason this is occurring is because we have a lot of 
flights scheduled to leave at peak hours. There is an incentive 
to push away from the gate, because that way you show up as 
leaving on time--and get into the queue.
    Senator Shelby. But that is misleading to the people.
    Mr. Mead Yes, it is. So you have these long lines of 
planes.
    And once you get in that line, you do not want to get out 
of it, because you lose your place in the queue.
    Senator Shelby. Sure.
    Mr. Mead. So there you are sitting in this aluminum tube 
for a couple of hours.
    And I do not want to discount the influence of weather, but 
I do think it is a very important phenomena to point to what is 
happening at peak hours in terms of scheduling----
    Senator Shelby. Sure.
    Mr. Mead [continuing]. And also the incentives to get that 
plane out into the ramp area.
    And I wanted to mention just one other example. I mentioned 
the BTS example about leaving----
    Senator Shelby. Yes.
    Mr. Mead [continuing]. Pushing back from the gate within 15 
minutes, but consider another scenario. You do not push back 
from the gate within 15 minutes. In other words, you sit there 
in the terminal for 2 hours because the airline decides not to 
leave.
    Then after a 2-hour delay, your plane backs away from the--
--
    Senator Shelby. The airline decides not to leave, now----
    Mr. Mead. Right. The airline decides not to leave.
    Senator Shelby. Why? Waiting on another flight maybe?
    Mr. Mead. They may wait on another flight. There could be 
any one of a number of reasons. But finally the plane backs 
away from the gate. So it will show up as a late departure, 
because it left more than 15 minutes after its scheduled 
departure. Now, assume further that the flight transits to the 
wheels up point on the runway within a normal time and then 
takes off. That flight will be recorded as on-time by FAA, even 
though there has been a 2-hour delay, and from the consumer's 
point of view, they are still 2 hours late.
    Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
    Senator Lautenberg.

                        SYSTEM CAPACITY--NEWARK

    Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
    As I listen to this very well-done testimony, I have got to 
ask the question. Is there a point at which we cannot increase 
the capacity of the system to go beyond a particular volume of 
traffic, or is it unlimited? Can we fill the skies with more 
airplanes?
    I often ride in the second seat in a smaller airplane. And 
I want to tell you we have TCAS in the airplane, a system that 
is even broader. I hear traffic, traffic, traffic constantly. 
And I travel in a fairly congested area.
    But is there a point in time and capacity that we can no 
longer satisfy the need? When you hear about planes leaving--I 
came down here for the Million Mom March the Saturday night 
before that Sunday. I got on a shuttle out of New York. And it 
was a 6:00 o'clock flight. We arrived here almost midnight.
    We--the flight--we flew two-thirds of the way down and then 
could not land. Weather came in, turned around and went back. 
After sitting in--on the runway for 2 hours, then on the second 
flight, another hour delay--6--almost 6 hours.
    So do any of you want to volunteer an opinion on that?
    Mr. Kragh. Yes, sir. To speak of Newark as a microcosm of 
the system as far as airports go, I spoke earlier about the 
expansion of the Newark Airport being an almost impossible task 
at this point. You would have to move major highways and major 
infrastructure. There is definitely a terminal capacity, so to 
speak, a place where you cannot go beyond. Because each airport 
would have--the surrounding communities would have to be dealt 
with. I mean, there is a fine balance between how much traffic 
we are going to fit in a certain departure pattern, or as I 
said we could fan the departures out and get a lot more planes 
out, but the surrounding communities would not stand for that.
    Now, we talk about a system at Newark where we are 
shoveling 10 pounds of sand into a 5-pound bag. That is the 
first hour. For the next 4 hours, we are only putting 2 pounds 
of sand in the 5-pound bags. We have got airline scheduling 
that is surrounding the peak hours, 7 a.m., 8 a.m., and for the 
rest of the morning shift, we have 20, 30 departures an hour, 
which can be dealt with very easily.
    How--of course, the airlines have to serve their customer 
and supposedly the customer wants to depart at those times, but 
does everybody want to be in a long line? I mean, it is the 
same thing with rush hour traffic in the morning. Mr. Mead 
suggested to me that there is a finite end to this. There is a 
point you come to where you cannot fit anymore planes into that 
type of a system. We need to spread the schedule out into the 
hours where there are no planes departing.

                            DEPARTING TIMES

    Senator Lautenberg. Well, it talks about a lot of creative 
thinking that can be done. I do not think that airplanes ought 
to be able to leave the gate and it is just like the 
supermarket. When you call into the tower or the flight service 
unit, you get a number and that number says you will be called 
upon when there is 20 minutes or less--if that is the 
appropriate time--before you take off.
    Meanwhile, the passengers can be treated like human beings, 
instead of stuck in there with no capacity to make phone calls, 
et cetera. And if I had not written a law that passed here in 
1987, smoking--you know--can you imagine what it would be like 
now, sitting there for 2 hours? The pilot says, ``Well, we are 
going to turn the smoking lamp on,'' right when----
    Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you.
    Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
    Senator Lautenberg [continuing]. And watching everybody gag 
and smoke and--so there is that fundamental question, what--why 
cannot we improve it? I think the insulting behavior--and, 
again, I think the airlines are great, but they are now at a 
point where having made over $10 billion pre-tax last year, 
they are motivated by profits and it is a business and so it 
should be.
    But the customer does not always come first. The profits 
come first. The shareholders--the stock price comes first. And 
you cannot operate a commodity like airlines in that way.
    And, frankly, I think you have made the case. The Chairman 
must be weary of hearing it from me, but----
    Senator Shelby. No. No. No.
    Mr. Kragh. Senator, the case is----
    Senator Shelby. Yes.
    Mr. Kragh There is such a time when the sort of a take a 
number system that you spoke of occurs and that is during 
winter operations. If Newark Airport or any airport had snow on 
the runways, everybody understands that the capacity of the 
airport is severely reduced. And at that time, the airports 
capitulate with air traffic and they say we are going to go 
into a slot-type of a system.
    Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
    Mr. Kragh. So during times like that, the airlines seem to 
understand there is a finite capacity.

                     USE OF HIGH SPEED RAIL SERVICE

    Senator Lautenberg. It could--it could be done. The problem 
is it would not enable or permit the airlines to flood the 
terminal and flood the concrete.
    I mean, maybe they ought to have the people get on line out 
in the concrete and get on the airplane when it is time to go. 
As bizarre as these systems sound, the situation presently is 
more bizarre.
    But it does say one thing, my friends. Everybody has to 
realize--and I am not--I did not grow up from a railroad 
family, but I am being railroaded here by our inability to face 
up to one way to solve part of the problem, and that is to take 
the inefficient legs that are 200 miles or 300 miles and say, 
wherever we can, have high-speed rail service at a considerably 
lower cost than just the $3 billion lost from--from delays and 
that says okay, you get on in New York and you are in 
Washington in less than 2 hours.
    Believe me, there would be--terrible news a Concorde just 
crashed into a hotel in Paris. Sorry to make that announcement. 
Do you know anything? That is awful.
    But getting back to the railroad system, we have a proposal 
to put $10 billion into railroads that could greatly relieve 
the aviation system. And while some of the airlines might not 
like the reduced revenue opportunity, they could do better more 
efficiently, I predict, make more money--bringing it down to 
the bottom line--by servicing the system in a way that has the 
customers happy about it.
    I love to fly. I fly a lot, as I said, in a second seat. I 
fly in big airplanes, little airplanes. And it--I marvel at 
man's capacity to have created this instrument, but we--we need 
help. And the only way to get real help, I think, is to try to 
relieve some of the capacity requirements that we have.

                           CONCORDE ACCIDENT

    Is there any other news on that Concorde?
    Senator Shelby. Ms. Garvey, do you know anything?
    Ms. Garvey. Just pretty much what you said, Senator, that 
an Air France Concorde crashed in Paris at 11 a.m. this 
morning. No further news at this point.
    Senator Shelby. 11 a.m. our time?
    Ms. Garvey. I believe it is our time.
    Senator Shelby. Our time.
    Ms. Garvey. 11:09, our time, I believe.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Campbell.

                       CAUSE AND IMPACT OF DELAYS

    Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is tragic 
news. I am sure we will be hearing more of it, if people have 
lost their lives in that crash.
    Let me talk a little bit about the delays too. I know that 
the most common are weather and mechanical, but certainly some 
that United Airlines is going through now apparently is from 
not training enough pilots to replace the ones that are 
retiring, as I understand it.
    And certainly, the limited capacity that Mr. Kragh spoke 
about, too many aircraft and one runway, I understand that.
    I come from a pretty tough country to fly in, the Rocky 
Mountains, as you know it, we get 100 mile-an-hour winds. My 
gosh, we get tornadoes and snow. We get ice that will build up 
an inch a minute, and certainly some high winds too.
    There is a saying among pilots--I am sure you have heard 
this--that sometimes even the birds will not fly. And I have to 
tell you that when weather is that bad, I have no problem with 
cancellations. I want to stay alive and if the birds will not 
fly, I do not want to either.
    But most of the time, the complaints we get are that the--
what the airlines tells people why they are cancelled is not 
always the truth. They are sometimes told that they are 
cancelling because of weather. And as I understand it, they 
have to reimburse if--or they have to make some compensation, 
buy them a meal or a room if they have to stay overnight, 
something of that nature if it is weather. But not if it is 
mechanical--or no, it is the other way around.
    If it is mechanical, they have to reimburse them. If it is 
weather, they are not. Is that correct?
    Mr. Mead, yes.
    Mr. Mead. Sir, yes, this is a gray area. As a matter of 
fact, one of the commitments--the one to notify customers of 
known delays--cancellations, and diversions--that has a sub 
element that you disclose to people what your policies will be 
relative to accommodating them, if they get delayed.
    And the contract of carriage, which is the legal document 
that governs your flight and what happens if you get delayed, 
that usually says that they will only put you up overnight if, 
in fact, you are diverted to another airport.
    The plans that the airlines have implemented pursuant to 
this voluntary commitment go further, and they say we will 
accommodate you overnight if the delay is occasioned by our own 
operation.
    But we do not know what ``our own operations'' means. It is 
not defined. And it is something that the airlines can define 
themselves.
    But one of the points we make in our report is we would 
like to see greater clarity brought to that, and we would like 
to see the contracts of carriage expanded to provide 
accommodations overnight.

                         PASSENGER RIGHTS BILLS

    Senator Campbell. Well, one of the complaints we get, of 
course, is people say that they were told they--the airline--
the aircraft was cancelled because of weather, and they were 
sure it was not, so that the carrier did not have to put them 
up for the night. I am sure you have heard that kind of 
complaint too.
    Let me ask Ms. Garvey, there--there is a bill in now, I 
understand, on the House side that basically says if the plane 
is on the runway for over an hour and half, it has to return to 
the gate. Have you seen that bill or----
    Ms. Garvey. I have not seen that bill specifically. I know 
there are a number of passenger rights bills that have been 
introduced, and I know that Mr. Mead has suggested and we would 
agree that the airlines have until December to implement the 
voluntary program. We think letting that run its course, 
letting the Inspector General do its report would be useful.
    But we certainly know there is great interest in these 
issues.
    Senator Campbell. Yes. Well, and certainly sitting out 
there 9 hours like one plane did, we saw that in the news, a 
number of lawsuits followed that, as you know.
    Ms. Garvey. Yes. Yes.

                            COSTS OF DELAYS

    Senator Campbell. There is also the cost of lost income to 
people. I have a letter here--in fact, Mr. Chairman. It is from 
Pacific Coast Beauty Products, into the record. This is an 
example of a man who spends $50,000 a year on airline tickets 
for his business, but has lost a considerable amount more than 
that because of the delayes--they delayed flights, and he was 
unable to get to a certain place to sign a timely contract, 
things of that nature.
    And do we have any statistics on the accumulated loss in 
terms of millions or billions from the delays in the last year?
    Ms. Garvey. We do not have that kind of information at the 
FAA, but----
    Senator Campbell. Mr. Mead, do you have any information 
like that?
    Mr. Mead. Yes, I do.
    Senator Campbell. Tell the Committee about it.
    Mr. Mead. Here is just some ballparks. It is an estimate of 
what it costs the air carriers first, $3.3 billion in 1999. 
When----
    Senator Campbell. This is the air carriers?
    Mr. Mead. That is the air carriers. And when you put in the 
passengers, you add--add another $4 billion.
    Senator Campbell. In----
    Mr. Mead. In 1999.
    Senator Campbell. Roughly $7 billion then you are saying?
    Mr. Mead. Yes. We estimate that the delays cost the 10 
major carriers about $3.3 billion in 1999, and I would say 
about another $4 billion for the consumers.
    Senator Campbell. Those consumers that lose that money, of 
course, have no recourse either, as I understand it, is that 
correct?
    Ms. Garvey. That is correct.
    Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no 
further questions.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Specter.

                     UNITED AND U.S. AIRWAYS MERGER

    Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The 
issue of airlines' delay is obviously a very important one for 
many reasons.
    There is a proposed merger acquisition, as everyone knows, 
with United and U.S. Airways. In a fairly exhaustive study 
revealed Sunday, July 16, 2000, the New York Times laid 
findings about delays in on-time arrivals, and among the 10 
major airlines listed, the line with the most delays, fewest 
on-time arrivals was United.
    And on a category of the most delayed regularly scheduled 
flights, of the four selected, D.C. to Seattle; Phoenix to Ft. 
Lauderdale; Denver to St. Louis; Chicago to Seattle. United had 
four of the most delayed flights.
    The question that I have posed to United officials, 
including their CEO in our hearings is why should there be a 
merger when the number one airline is going to take on the 
number six airline, when United's house is not in order.
    In addition to the matter of delays, which is the subject 
of this hearing, the New York Times survey also found that 
United lost the most baggage because their computers did not 
communicate with each other.
    I would be interested in your views, Ms. Garvey. You are 
not the antitrust division, but I would be interested in your 
views from your position as to whether you think it is 
advisable to have a merger of United and U.S. Airways when 
United's house is so badly out of order at the present time.
    Ms. Garvey. Senator, you are right. I mean, certainly the 
Justice Department and the Department of Transportation are 
very focused on that and are asking exactly the same questions 
that you have asked and are focused very much on what are the 
impacts to the consumer. And ultimately, that has to be the 
driving factor, are these benefits positive for the consumer?
    Senator Specter. Well, the----
    Ms. Garvey. From our perspective, from the FAA's 
perspective, what we focus on is the whole issue of safety. Are 
the elements of safety in place? Do they have the right kind of 
training? Do they have the right kind of maintenance systems 
and so forth? From our perspective, United and U.S. Airways 
certainly in the areas of safety, they have been very focused 
on that. They have some excellent people and I think have some 
very good standards.
    But I think certainly the consumer issues that you are 
raising are exactly the same question that the Department of 
Transportation and the Justice Department are focused on. You 
have the right questions.
    Senator Specter. Well, the Department of Justice is going 
to look at lessening of competition, which is----
    Ms. Garvey. Yes.
    Senator Specter [continuing]. A different subject than on-
time arrivals or consumer--customer complaints, et cetera.
    Ms. Garvey. Well, that is true--that is true.
    Senator Specter. To what extent will the Department of 
Transportation be involved in the ultimate decision by the 
Federal Government as to whether or not to oppose the merger?
    Ms. Garvey. I think the Department of Transportation, 
particularly the Secretary, will play a very key role. Although 
I am not part of those discussions--I do understand that both 
the Secretary's lawyers and his key staff people are in very 
close communication with Justice. Justice, as you said, is 
focused on the competition piece, which is important to the 
consumer. And we are bringing or the Department of 
Transportation is bringing their expertise around some of the 
consumer issues, as well. I think the Secretary will play a 
very key role in those discussions.

                   FACTORS IMPACTING AIRLINE MERGERS

    Senator Specter. So you are saying that the consumer issues 
like on-time arrivals will be a factor in the Federal 
Government's decision as to whether or not to oppose the 
merger?
    Ms. Garvey. Well, I certainly do not like to speak for the 
Secretary, but I would absolutely believe that all of those 
issues will be folded into this discussion and very much 
focused on. I think ultimately----
    Senator Specter. On-time--on-time arrivals, baggage, 
computers----
    Ms. Garvey. Just generally----
    Mr. Mead. I think you----
    Senator Specter. Let me finish the question. The computers 
communicating, the whole picture as part of the government's 
position on the merger, yes or no, Mr. Mead?
    Mr. Mead. I think you have raised an interesting question 
and frankly I think the answer will be that those factors have 
not been considered in the past, and that this is a kind of--
rather a de novo matter.
    Normally, in a merger, the issue you consider are more or 
less economic and competitive. Will this route be served? Will 
fares be oligopsonistic or monopolistic? Those types of 
considerations.
    I think you raise a very good question. This issue came up 
in the railroad mergers as a result of the declining service 
that went beyond just what their rates were.
    And I do not feel comfortable telling you that the 
Department will be considering these factors in their merger 
considerations, sir.
    Senator Specter. You say you do or you do not feel----
    Mr. Mead. I do not feel comfortable telling you that the 
Department will be considering these factors.
    Senator Specter. Well----
    Mr. Mead. Do I think they should, is another question.
    Senator Specter. Do you think they might? Do you think they 
should--de novo, maybe break a little ground here?
    Mr. Mead. Yes, sir, I do. Yes, sir, I do. I believe that 
the circumstances of the last 4 or 5 years have been 
instructive, that there are factors that are important here 
that go way beyond just how much you are going to pay for a 
ticket and whether there is going to be service from point A to 
destination B.
    Senator Specter. And certainly a factor in what you pay, if 
part of what you pay is lost time--or part of what you pay is 
lost time from your baggage non-arrival, or part of what you 
pay is all of the attendant inconveniences, which are a dollar 
and cents matter for loss of time and to do other things. If a 
professional is traveling, part of the pay is for the ticket. 
Another part of the pay is for his time lost if Senator 
Lautenberg loses 5 hours on a trip at the minimum rate, $5.15 
an hour, that is over $25 lost.
    If you are a high-priced lawyer, those 5 hours would be 
$1,000 an hour, $5,000. So Senators do not figure too highly on 
that scale, but that certainly is part of the pay factor.

                     STARS AT PHILADELPHIA AIRPORT

    Ms. Garvey, on the subject of delays and the STARS system 
coming into Philadelphia--something you and I have talked about 
on a number of occasions--I have become very concerned about 
air traffic controllers and have gone into that dark room. And 
I am sure Senator Shelby has, too.
    And you see those dots on the sky. And you think of 
yourself in one of those planes, which is a dot on the sky. And 
then suddenly it all turns black, and there is a loss of 
communication.
    And I appreciate the fact that you sent people to 
Philadelphia very promptly, but that whole system is antiquated 
at best, and I would be interested to know if we are going to 
meet that schedule of September 2002 or might possibly move it 
up to August 31?
    Ms. Garvey. Well, August 31 would be wonderful. Senator, 
let me--let me just----
    Senator Specter. Do you think you can do that?
    Ms. Garvey. We will certainly try. Let me----
    Senator Specter. How about August 30th? Senator--Senator 
Shelby taught me how to negotiate.
    Senator Shelby. No. No.
    Ms. Garvey. Right. That is very good negotiating.
    Senator Specter. He is a good lawyer. [Laughter.]
    Ms. Garvey. I do want to go back to something that that Ed 
mentioned a little bit earlier and that is the terrific role 
that the controllers have played with STARS. I think we have 
really turned that program around. Your help, both in working 
with the individual controllers in--in Philadelphia has been 
extraordinarily helpful. But we are on the right track with 
STARS. We have got the early displays in two of our facilities 
and working out a lot of the kinks there. And that is going 
very well. We have been able to put the full STARS into the--
into England for the Defense Department and that, too, we are 
learning a great deal from and is going well.
    So I am still confident that we are going to meet that 
schedule and we are working very hard with the controllers on 
it.
    Senator Specter. Well, I am glad to hear that. And I 
compliment you on your responsiveness in the past. Thank you 
very much.

                   MERGER IMPACT ON CUSTOMER SERVICE

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Specter.
    Mr. Mead, just to follow up on--on an area that Senator 
Specter was getting into. Do you have any thoughts right now 
about the--how the pending proposed mergers would affect 
customer service? It has got to in time.
    Mr. Mead. Well, I guess the best response to your question, 
sir, is to point to what the statistics show.
    Currently, if the two airlines merge, the merged entity 
would be rated last in the category of mishandled bags, 
involuntary denied boarding and customer complaints. And that 
is based on May 2000 data.

                    AIR TRAFFIC SLOWDOWN IN CHICAGO

    Senator Shelby. Ms. Garvey, I am going to refer to a July 
21 Chicago Tribune article, reporting that--and I will quote--
``The FFA, Thursday, July the 20th, broadened its investigation 
of an air traffic slowdown near O'Hare International Airport 
earlier this week and promised to severely punish agency 
employees suspected of intentionally forcing hundreds of 
airlines--airline flights nationwide to be delayed or 
cancelled.''
    I am still quoting from the article, ``FAA officials say 
they are trying to determine whether the slowdown was the 
result of a job action on the part of a disgruntled--of 
disgruntled controllers, or caused by unusual weather 
phenomena.
    ``Delays at O'Hare ran up to three hours and whether--and 
neither FAA nor airport officials could attribute the problem 
to bad weather.''
    I understand this is something that you have asked the 
Inspector General to look into, Ms. Garvey, is that right? Can 
you shed any light on this?
    Ms. Garvey. Well, let me first of all say that what 
happened at Chicago really made me heartsick.
    Senator Shelby. Yes.
    Ms. Garvey. I mean that just should not occur. And there 
are two groups of people I care a lot about in that incident.
    One, obviously, are the travelers, and they were 
inconvenienced if the facts bear out to be true.
    Senator Shelby. Yes. One of the busiest airports in the 
country.
    Ms. Garvey. Absolutely. But the second group of people is--
you know, we have got air traffic controllers that are the best 
in the world.
    Senator Shelby. I know.
    Ms. Garvey. I was really encouraged to----
    Senator Shelby. Well, we have been impressed with Mr. 
Kragh, with----
    Ms. Garvey. Right, very much so. And so I think anything 
that reflects on what is a whole organization in a negative way 
is obviously something of great concern, and----
    Senator Shelby. You got to get rid of those kind; they will 
ruin the whole group.
    Ms. Garvey. Because it is a great group. I will tell you 
that I called on Mr. Mead, and he was immediately responsive, 
asked if he would join with us in the investigation and add his 
good expertise and the force of his office to the 
investigation. We have a terrific team out there. They are 
doing the investigation. We want to get to the facts. I want to 
be fair to everybody involved. I certainly do not want to jump 
to conclusions without the facts.
    Senator Shelby. Yes.
    Ms. Garvey. We are getting an additional briefing on 
Wednesday of this week to know sort of exactly where we are. 
And we will certainly take the appropriate action, but----
    Senator Shelby. You keep the Committee informed.
    Ms. Garvey. We will absolutely keep the Committee informed. 
In fact, we will be calling folks on Thursday, just to let you 
know where we are, so----
    Mr. Mead. Mr. Chairman, there is something important that 
Administrator Garvey said that I do not think should be lost in 
the record.
    And that is that in this instance, a Committee of Congress, 
or the Office of Inspector General on its initiative, or some 
external complaint, is not what inspired our involvement in 
supporting the FAA in this review or investigation.
    It was the Administrator and her senior people that 
initiated the request. And we are joining with----
    Senator Shelby. That is good.
    Mr. Mead [continuing]. Some of her senior people. And I 
think that ties back into a point you made when you opened up 
the hearing about the Inspector General should not always have 
to initiate these things.
    And this is, I think, a good example of where we did not.
    Senator Shelby. Where the Administrator and her office 
initiated this?
    Mr. Mead. Yes, sir. I think that is a real credit to her.
    Senator Shelby. You are to be commended for that, Ms. 
Garvey.
    Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. You are hands-on. And this is an example of 
where you have to be hands-on. And we will look forward to see 
what happens on this.
    Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. We have a number of questions for the 
record by me and some other members that had other hearings 
this morning. And we look forward to your responses on that.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Shelby. The subcommittee is recessed.
    [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Tuesday, July 25, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2001

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2000

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Shelby, Domenici, Specter, Gorton, 
Lautenberg, Byrd, Mikulski, and Kohl.

  OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE FIRESTONE ATX AND WILDERNESS AT TIRE RECALL

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

    Senator Shelby. The hearing will come to order.
    Why are we here this morning? If we are here this morning 
to hear Ford say this is only a tire issue, then this is a 
waste of a lot of people's time. If we are here this morning to 
hear NHTSA say that they did their job under the controlling 
statutes, then this Senator is going to be disappointed in the 
job that they are doing. And if we are here this morning to 
hear Firestone tell us that there is not something wrong with 
these tires, then we step through the looking glass.
    I will tell you why we are here this morning. We are here 
this morning because in July 1998 a State Farm Insurance 
Company analyst notified NHTSA'S Office of Defects 
Investigation of a growing number of incidents of Firestone 
tire failure when mounted on 1991 through 1995 Ford Explorers, 
and nothing was done.
    We are here this morning because in 1998 a Saudi Arabian 
Ford-affiliated dealer wrote to Ford indicating that they had 
notified Ford of problems with the Wilderness AT tires, and no 
one notified NHTSA.
    We are here this morning because in March 1999 a Ford 
internal memorandum stated, and I quote, ``Firestone Legal has 
some major reservations about the plan to notify customers in 
the Middle East'', end quote, and expressed the concern that 
the U.S. Department of Transportation would have to be notified 
because the same tires were sold in the United States, yet no 
one told NHTSA.
    We are here because Firestone and Ford watched as the 
number of warranty claims escalated beginning in 1995. Again no 
one raised a red flag.
    And we are here because NHTSA received a growing number of 
consumer complaints of tread separation on these Firestone 
tires starting in 1998, yet NHTSA failed to initiate an 
investigation.
    We are also here because finally--yes, finally, the news 
media broke the story in Texas in February 2000. NHTSA consumer 
complaints shot through the roof and the problem could no 
longer be contained, or perhaps concealed.
    We are here because you can hardly read a newspaper or turn 
on the television without another shoe dropping on this story, 
and we are here because the process of identifying this 
substantial safety issue did not work quickly enough, even 
though, I submit, it should have.
    We are here because Ford and Firestone had at a minimum a 
moral obligation to make sure that the products they sell to 
the American public and other people in other countries are 
safe, and yet they both failed to bring this issue to the 
consumers' and the Federal Government's attention, at the cost 
of dozens of lives, I am afraid, and we are here to get some 
answers today.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    I trust our witnesses will help us understand how things 
could have gone so long without action, and how Government, 
industry, and consumers can make sure that this never happens 
again. I ask unanimous consent that my written statement be 
made part of the record.
    [The statement follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby

    This hearing is called to order. It's hard to spend more than a few 
minutes talking with my constituents, watching the television, or 
reading a paper without Firestone tires being mentioned. I hope the 
witnesses testifying before the Committee this morning will shed some 
light on how this could have happened and why it took so long for the 
problem to be identified. I believe that American consumers have a 
reasonable expectation that if tires are failing, the manufactures, the 
automobile companies, and the Federal Government will take every step 
to protect them from becoming another highway traffic fatality.
    I would like to know how it could take us 10 years, dozens of 
lives, numerous lawsuits, substantial consumer complaints, tire 
replacements overseas, and repeated expressions of concern by an 
insurance company before any action was taken to initiate an 
investigation into the safety of a product being used by millions of 
American families. Simply put--the American people deserve better.
    I would be disappointed if NHTSA claims that this issue was 
identified promptly. I would be disappointed if Firestone/Bridgestone 
representatives claim that there is not a problem with Firestone ATX, 
ATX II, or Wilderness AT tires after thousands of their products lie in 
tatters on our nation's highways. I would be disappointed Ford Motor 
Company representatives claim that this is solely a tire problem after 
they have been equipping Ford Explorer on virtually a sole source basis 
for the life of the vehicle, have heard repeatedly from their consumers 
about these tire problems, and have tacitly ignored the human cost 
caused by the combination of these tires on their sport utility 
vehicles.
    This is a brief summary of what we know:
  --Ford Explorers have been equipped with Firestone ATX, ATX II, or 
        Wilderness AT tires since the introduction of the vehicle.
  --Starting around 1996, lawsuits filed against Bridgestone/Firestone. 
        All cases settled, except for one which went to trial and in 
        which the jury sided with Firestone.
  --In 1998, a Saudi Arabian Ford-affiliated dealer wrote to Ford 
        indicating that they had notified Ford of problems with the 
        Wilderness AT tires.
  --From 1996 to 1999, Ford replaced Firestone tires in a dozen foreign 
        countries including Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
  --By May 2, 2000, NHTSA has received a number of complaints regarding 
        Firestone tread separation, especially after a Houston 
        television news story. NHTSA tallied a cumulative total of 90 
        consumer complaints and determined 4 deaths involved tire 
        failure. NHTSA Office of Defects Investigations opens a 
        preliminary evaluation of ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness tires.
    As of August 3, NHTSA has received 193 complaints regarding tread 
separation. Firestone offers free inspections of its tires.
  --Between August 3 and 7, Sears and other leading tire retailers 
        suspend the sale of tires covered under the scope of government 
        inquiry.
    On August 9, Firestone initiates voluntarily recalls of 15 inch 
ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness tires produced at its Decatur, IL plant. 
14.5 million tires are covered by the recall, although Firestone 
estimates that only 6.5 million of these tires are still in use. The 
company estimates that there are 3.8 million ATX or ATX II tires and 
2.7 million Wilderness tires that need to be removed from the road.
  --On August 9, Ford changes its PSI recommendation from 26 to a range 
        between 26 and 30. Firestone continues to insist that the 
        proper PSI is 30.
  --As of August 10, NHTSA has received 270 consumer complaints and 
        revised the number of deaths associated with tread separation 
        to 46 (double estimate of previous week.)
  --As of August 15, NHTSA has received over 750 complaints and is 
        aware of at least 62 fatalities and over 100 injuries alleged 
        to be related to a tire failure.
  --By August 31, NHTSA has received over 1,400 complaints, including 
        88 reported fatalities related to these tires.
    It seems to me that alarm bells were ringing, but that the people 
in a position to do something weren't listening. I don't know whether 
there is enough evidence to show who failed to respond first, but it 
sure looks like several critical players were, at the very least, 
covering their ears.
    Tires are literally where the rubber meets the road with regard to 
highway safety, and I believe more should have been done to inform and 
protect consumers. Consumers have a legitimate expectation that tires 
certified by NHTSA and manufactured by premier brand name tire 
manufacturers should not fail if properly maintained, pressurized, and 
repaired. Clearly, the incidence of failure with the Firestone ATX, ATX 
II and Wilderness AT tires leads me to believe that expectation has not 
been met and I fear that there may have even been a conscious effort to 
shield this failure.
    I trust our witnesses today will help us understand how things 
could have gone so long without action--and how government, industry, 
and consumers can make sure that this never happens again.

    Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd, do you have an opening 
statement?

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

    Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, last year the American people 
drove over 2.6 trillion miles on the Nation's 8.3 million miles 
of urban and rural highways. More than in any other country of 
the world the American public travels by automobile along a 
highway system that is the lifeblood of our economy. When our 
citizens get in their cars every morning they expect two 
things: (1) they expect the roads to be safe, and (2) they 
expect their vehicles to be safe. They do not view safety as a 
luxury. They view it as a necessity.
    So when the American people learn that safety may be 
compromised, they worry. When they learn further that companies 
may be knowingly endangering their safety, they become angry. 
This hearing this morning is not just about the topic of 
safety. It is also about the topic of honesty. It is about when 
certain companies knew about defective tires, and when those 
companies chose to do something about defective tires.
    This issue of timing is elemental to this inquiry. Eighty-
eight lives have already been lost due to the defects that have 
surfaced with these Firestone tires. Just this past weekend 
another Ford Explorer with a shredded tire rolled over on the 
highway, injuring six people and killing a 10-year-old boy. He 
may well have been the 89th fatality.
    The courts, not this subcommittee, will determine who is 
really at fault for all these deaths, but I am glad this 
subcommittee is meeting this morning to address the relevant 
issues to this matter that are in the jurisdiction of this 
subcommittee.
    I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. 
These hearings include issues like whether Ford and Bridgestone 
have been responsive and forthcoming with Federal safety 
officials, and whether those Federal officials have been 
proactive or reactive, or unactive or inactive when it has come 
to guaranteeing the safety of the traveling public.
    In my home State of West Virginia thousands of citizens are 
engaged in very dangerous professions each day, whether it is 
coal mining, one of the most dangerous professions anywhere, or 
working in our chemical plants or in our timber industry, or on 
our railroads.
    The citizens face danger from the moment they punch in in 
the morning to the moment they punch out in the evening, and we 
are responsible for seeing to it that they do not face 
additional danger when they get into their cars at the 
beginning of the day and when they get into their cars at the 
end of their shift and seek to return to their families.
    I hope that the inquiry this morning will point us on the 
path towards better ensuring the safety of our citizens.
    Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

    Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. My apologies for 
being late--I was dealing with another safety issue--but I am 
pleased that you have convened this subcommittee this morning 
to throw some additional light on this deadliest recall in 
American automotive history.
    The problems that have surfaced with Bridgestone/Firestone 
tires and the Ford Explorer vehicle have caused a great deal of 
anxiety and concern across the country, and I hear from my 
constituents in New Jersey as well as other people who just 
feel ill at ease knowing very well that a tire may give out in 
the vehicle that they are riding in, endangering themselves and 
their families.
    I am sure you have heard it already, but 88 lives have been 
lost. Over the course of the last month thousands of American 
households have discovered that their lives can be at risk for 
no reason of their own as they leave their driveway.
    There are a great many complex issues we should address 
this morning, but there are three particular questions that I 
think we have got to focus on at a minimum. First, we have got 
to ask whether both Bridgestone, Firestone, and Ford have acted 
responsibly through this ordeal.
    There is no question that both companies are now making 
grand efforts to satisfy consumers who are demanding safety 
replacement tires. However, we need to ask whether both 
companies were equally concerned for their consumers when they 
are settling dozens of lawsuits stemming from deaths and 
injuries due to defective tires and insisting as part of the 
settlements that no documents or information be made public.
    Even today, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration has identified 1.4 million additional tires that 
they believe Firestone ought to voluntarily recall. To date, 
Firestone has refused to do so, despite the fact that some of 
these tires have the worst record of tread separation than the 
6\1/2\ million tires that have already been recalled.
    Second, when reviewing this tire problem we have got to 
look at the related issue of vehicle roll-overs. Roll-overs 
caused nearly 10,000 deaths each year, roughly a quarter of all 
highway fatalities. Back in 1992, when I was chairman of this 
subcommittee, we aggressively encouraged NHTSA to move forward 
with its proposed regulation setting a standard to limit the 
propensity of vehicles to roll over.
    Since that time, consumers have purchased more and more 
sports utility vehicles, vehicles that are even more prone to 
roll over than conventional cars. Regrettably, NHTSA abandoned 
its effort to set a roll-over standard for these vehicles. 
Today, we read in the press that Ford may have deliberately 
recommended a lower tire inflation pressure so as to minimize 
propensity of its Ford Explorers to roll over. Some have 
speculated that this lower inflation pressure may be 
exacerbating the tread separation problem, and I think while I 
am not an automotive engineer, one need not be, I think we have 
got to use this occasion to refocus our attention to this roll-
over problem and ask whether the time has come for stronger 
Federal regulation to be published.
    And third, we must review whether NHTSA has had adequate 
legal authorities, funding, and the motivation to guarantee the 
safety of the driving public. We know from press accounts that 
the manufacturers knew of this tire problem well before it came 
to the attention of the regulators. Indeed, tires were being 
recalled in other countries without the knowledge of NHTSA 
officials.
    Under current law there is no requirement for manufacturers 
to pass along their record of complaints to NHTSA. The 
manufacturers are only required to alert NHTSA of a problem 
when they have determined themselves that a safety problem 
exists. Even today, Firestone has not conceded that the tires 
that have been recalled are defective, so clearly it is not an 
adequate situation to allow the manufacturers to make their own 
determination as to when NHTSA should be notified.
    I believe also, Mr. Chairman, we need to make measures to 
strengthen NHTSA's hand in gathering information from all 
available sources to identify defects earlier. Once press 
accounts came out regarding the problems with these tires the 
number of incidents reported to NHTSA skyrocketed. We have got 
to ask why NHTSA did not have access to these reports earlier, 
and what we need to do to compel a better reporting system on 
the part of the manufacturers to those Federal authorities that 
are responsible with ensuring our safety.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Gorton.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON

    Senator Gorton. Mr. Chairman, you and Senators Byrd and 
Lautenberg have properly focused attention on a number of 
questions before us at this time. The adequacy of oversight on 
this problem and the promptness of the response to this problem 
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is one 
the response of Ford Motor Company, particularly as the 
principal users of the tires and the way in which they dealt 
with consumer complaints and their own knowledge of danger 
related to them and the responsibilities of the manufacturer, 
Bridgestone/Firestone, each of those is vitally important.
    I would like to add two more considerations, however, to 
this hearing. One relates to my own constituents who are 
driving automobiles, SUV's particularly, with these tires on 
them and the fact that the manufacturer has set a staged recall 
under which those of us in less hot climates have to continue 
to drive on these tires for a considerable period of time and 
replace them on our own, rather than having this recall be 
prompt, immediate, and broadbased, even though that requires 
the manufacturers to supply tires manufactured by others rather 
than by themselves.
    Second, the confusion to all of the users of these tires 
Nation-wide as to how they deal with the tires for the 
hopefully very short period of time they are going to use them. 
Ford said the proper pressure was 26 pounds per square inch 
before the recall. Now it has given a range of 26 to 30. 
Bridgestone/Firestone continues to say it ought to be 30 pounds 
per square inch.
    We called Ford dealer Koons, College Park Ford, in College 
Park, Maryland. He said it should be 26 on the front tires and 
35 pounds per square inch on the rear tires. Now, that is a 
range from 26 to 35, with three different answers from three 
different groups.
    Consumers deserve better than that. There ought to be one 
answer to that question for what I hope is the relatively short 
period of time remaining before all of them are off the road 
and are dealt with more safely, so I think we not only have to 
look backwards at fault here, we have to look forward as to how 
prompt this response is for everyone and what people should be 
doing right now, today, to at least have the maximum degree of 
safety.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

    Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
would like to thank you and Senator Lautenberg and Senator Byrd 
for organizing this hearing. I know that the interest of 
security and safety have always been number one in your own 
priorities and, really, that is what the American people expect 
of us in a democracy. The safety and security of our people 
have always been a national priority.
    That is why we have a whole national security system. That 
is why we have the Center for Disease Control to be on alert if 
infection is making its way into our country, and we have our 
Border Patrol also to see about what other problems are coming 
into our country, and yet where has been the alerts right now 
for something as known internationally as the failure of these 
tires to perform?
    The American people have a right to know about risk. They 
have a right to know about danger. They have a right to know 
from both our Federal agencies and those who manufacture 
products where are the risks, and they have a right to be 
protected. How can we protect them from these dangers, or at 
least protect them with the information so that they can take 
their own action?
    That is why we are holding this hearing today. People have 
a right to know. They have a right to be protected. They have a 
right to expect from their elected officials that we are 
standing sentry on this, so as we proceed with this hearing, 
both listening to Firestone and Bridgestone and also to our 
Federal regulators and the advocacy groups who take this 
interest, I want to have the answers to the questions about 
what are the alerts that we should have been paying attention 
to, what are the early warning mechanisms, both here and around 
the world, that would alert us to this? Who knew about these 
dangers, when did they know it, and what the heck did they do 
about it?
    Now, our national security has a radar system that tells us 
when risk, or that we are facing risk in our own country. The 
Centers for Disease Control know when there is an international 
alert about an infectious disease so that we can notify every 
State health department to take the action to be able to alert 
people and protect them.
    Why, then, when internationally there was the collapse of 
these tires going on in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, 15 other 
countries taking action, the manufacturer chose not to notify 
the U.S. Government, and the U.S. Government did not have the 
same radar system we have for national security, or did not 
have the same kind of mechanisms in place to alert us to 
infectious disease?
    Now, we are as much at risk from faulty tires, and in fact 
I do not know when I am going to be exposed to Ebola, but I do 
know that I get in my car every day to travel here from 
Baltimore, so I want to be sure, then, that we have these 
mechanisms in place.
    We look forward to this testimony to really get at the 
facts and at the same time put the mechanisms in place, but I 
am deeply disturbed that something that is a manufactured 
product did not have the same early warning and alerts that we 
have for a foe penetrating America's borders, or an infectious 
disease.
    So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony, and the 
hearing.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Specter.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER

    Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I commend 
you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing so promptly. I 
know you returned late last night from oversight 
responsibilities you have as chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, and this is a very, very important hearing, with the 
first focus trying to see to it that safety is assured at this 
moment for all those who are in jeopardy because of these 
tires, and beyond that to prevent the recurrence of this 
situation for the future.
    To do that we are going to have to conduct some very 
incisive investigation to find out how we got here. Every day, 
all of us entrust our lives to our tires. Yesterday I was on 
the Pennsylvania turnpike going 65 miles an hour, relying on my 
tires, concerned about who might be coming in an opposite 
direction where they might have Bridgestone/Firestone tires, so 
the safety issue is one which affects absolutely all Americans.
    When you, Mr. Chairman, said that at a minimum there was a 
moral obligation on the part of Firestone, that states a very 
minimum obligation. Their obligation is to act responsibly and 
when corporate officials know there is a danger which might 
cause the loss of life or serious bodily injury and they permit 
that situation to continue, that is a reckless disregard for 
the life of another, and that is equated in the law with 
malice, and that rises to the level of second degree murder, 
where individuals knowingly allow a danger to exist which 
results in the death of another.
    This regrettably is not an infrequent occurrence in 
corporate America today as to what happens when there are 
dangerous products which are put up for public consumption, but 
with the number of deaths involved here, and with the 
automobiles being involved and the reliance that each of us 
places on our tires every day, it has been brought home with a 
very high level of drama to the American people, and the people 
of the world.
    So far most of what is known is from the media, and we need 
to get the hard evidence, but the media reports that in Saudi 
Arabia there was a recall of tires but it was kept secret from 
the American Government and from the American people. How in 
the world can corporate officials allow a danger to go forward 
in the United States when they are looking after the Saudis?
    We know from the media that Venezuela is considering 
criminal prosecution against the corporate officials who were 
involved in this matter on homicide charges. Well, Venezuela 
may have some problems on extradition, but the United States 
does not have any problems in terms of a Federal or State 
prosecution if, in fact, what we read about turns out to be 
true, and we have this reckless disregard for the lives of 
others.
    I do not know about the press reports, but it is worth 
commenting that the media reports have said that the president 
of Ford is not going to testify. We have another Ford executive 
here today. Well, it seems to me that we ought to hear in the 
Congress from the top officials who are responsible for what is 
going on.
    It is hard to turn on my television set these days without 
seeing the president of Ford on TV making a commercial 
announcement. It is pretty hard to squeeze in with all the 
other commercial announcements we have in the political 
campaign, but if any official of any company thinks that they 
are not going to appear before a congressional committee, they 
ought to check their rules about subpoenas, and we ought not to 
be reluctant at all to issue subpoenas to bring those people 
in.
    And today in the Washington Post I read about a document--
it is nice to read about documents in the Washington Post, 
contrasted with having the companies turn those matters over to 
the Appropriations Committee which is holding this hearing, but 
we have a duty to get the documents, and this is a long paper 
chase. The trial lawyers engage in it all the time, and I know 
the very high regard my colleagues, especially Senator 
Domenici, has for trial lawyers who undertake these paper 
chases to get these documents but we will not find out all the 
facts until we get all of the documents.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I think we have begun a very long, 
important, and difficult process here which has enormous 
implications for the American people and the people of the 
world. All of us rely on our automobiles and therefore on our 
tires, and in terms of what the manufacturers and corporate 
executives do to subject consumers to these kinds of risks, so 
I am delighted you have started these hearings just a few hours 
after your return to Andrews, and that we will conduct the kind 
of incisive investigation and hearings necessary to correct 
this very major problem.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Domenici.

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

    Senator Domenici. First, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
thanks for calling these hearings. I hope those that are going 
to testify today understand that each of us at the outset have 
to say a few words. They will soon find that we are really 
interested in finding out what they know and what happened.
    I agree with almost each statement as I hear it, that 
Senators would very much like to get to the bottom of how this 
happened, who was told, and when. I would like to know why were 
some told in advance of others. With that I will just tell you 
about my little State of New Mexico.
    Many of you know that New Mexico has pretty hot weather, 
yet I learned that we were not among the States for early 
recall because we were not hot enough. Somebody called to their 
attention the kind of weather we have, and then New Mexico did 
go back up into the list where they could perhaps get some 
tires into the hands of those people that were entitled to a 
recall.
    I will tell you, however, in the city of Santa Fe there are 
400 people waiting for replacement tires on the list at one 
dealership. Nobody knows how long that will take to get through 
the list. Can you imagine what the people are going through in 
terms of the mental anguish as they wait?
    I surmise that thousands of them are going to buy tires 
with their own money, and I think that leads to an interesting 
question. Should we ask whether or not they are going to 
recompense these people who, out of fear of waiting too long, 
have gone out and bought some other tires? Are they just going 
to be left there to have two sets of tires, or will something 
be done about that?
    I am interested in knowing how the companies intend to 
handle situations like the ones I am describing. As everyone 
knows, there is one thing we have not spoken of that we should 
all be concerned about, and that is, this is back-to-school 
time, right in the middle of parents getting all geared up to 
take their kids to soccer games, to take them to school. Here 
we have just put upon top of them this anguish about their car 
and tires, especially if it happens to be one of the cars we 
are talking about as being most susceptible to this problem.
    I do not know where this all ends, but I want to close by 
suggesting to all of those involved on the corporate side, the 
end will come quicker, smoother, and be better, the sooner you 
tell us what happened. The sooner you tell us how this all 
occurred in an honest, bona fide tones, in words that will not 
be disputed by someone else, the better off the companies are, 
and certainly from the standpoint of doing our job, the better 
off we will be and things will come to a conclusion. It has got 
to come to a conclusion, and we hope the best possible 
conclusion. If you start today by not fudging the facts, not 
putting them off on somebody else, but clearly telling us just 
exactly what happened.
    Now, I close by saying I do not know what Senator Specter 
had in mind when he spoke of trial lawyers, but I used to be 
one. I have not been doing that for a long, long time, and 
sometimes I feel very deficient sitting alongside of you, since 
you have been such a great prosecutor.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Senator Specter raised the point, and I think it is a valid 
one. The CEO of Ford is not here. They have sent, I understand, 
the executive vice president instead. I would rather have both 
of the most senior executives here, and I think it is the least 
they could do testifying here before the U.S. Senate.
    Our first panel this morning includes Joan Claybrook, 
president of Common Cause, and David Pittle, senior vice 
president and technical director, Consumers Union.
    Our second panel will include Dr. Sue Bailey, the 
Administrator of NHTSA, Mr. Masatoshi Ono, Chairman and CEO, 
and Mr. Gary Crigger, executive vice president of Bridgestone/
Firestone, and Helen Petrauskus, vice president of 
environmental and safety engineering for Ford Motor Company.
    Ms. Claybrook and Mr. Pittle, your written testimony will 
be made a part of the record in its entirety. You can proceed 
as you wish, Ms. Claybrook.

STATEMENT OF JOAN CLAYBROOK, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC CITIZEN

    Ms. Claybrook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to 
be here today. I am Joan Claybrook, president of Public 
Citizen, a national public interest organization founded by 
Ralph Nader in 1971, and I am pleased to accept your invitation 
to testify about the Firestone tire that has resulted in 88 
people being killed as of last week--the data from the 
Department of Transportation--and 250 people being injured.
    I was the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration when the Firestone 500 tire defect 
occurred, and I brought a picture just to show you that it is 
quite similar. This is not a problem that this company has not 
faced before.
    Much has been written in the last month about the lethal 
combination of Ford Explorers and Firestone tires. This is a 
design defect that is exacerbated by the fact that Ford 
required a low inflation pressure because of roll-over problems 
with these vehicles. Firestone tires inflated at 26 psi 
overheat with heavy highway use, causing the tread to separate 
and the SUV's to crash, not infrequently rolling over and 
causing catastrophic and fatal injuries.
    I would note that with the 500 tire, which also shredded, 
they were on cars and they did not tend to roll over. There is 
no margin of safety in the design here, where you have a bad 
tire and a vehicle vulnerable to roll-over, and that is a major 
reason why we are having so many injuries and deaths. The 
tragedy is teaching the public as well as policymakers a number 
of lessons, and I would like to comment on five issues, 
briefly, and make five recommendations for more effective 
enforcement of the Nation's motor vehicle safety defect laws.

                       SAFETY PROBLEMS COVERED UP

    First, Ford and Firestone covered up the safety problems 
with the tire/SUV combination for a decade. The coverups will 
continue without corrective action by the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration. Rather than go through a long 
chronology I will just say that----
    Senator Mikulski. Ms. Claybrook, there is a buzz in the 
room. Would you pull your microphone much closer?
    Ms. Claybrook. Can you hear me now?
    Senator Mikulski. Yes.
    Ms. Claybrook. Ford first offered this vehicle, the Ford 
Explorer with Firestone tires, for sale in March 1990, and Ford 
internal documents show that the engineers recommended changes 
to the vehicle design after it rolled over in company tests 
prior to production of the vehicle, and there were a few 
changes made, but the track width was not made wider, and the 
suspension was not corrected as recommended.
    Instead, Ford, which sets the specifications for the tires 
manufactured by Firestone, decided to remove the air from the 
tires, lowering it to 26 psi, and if you look, I brought some 
tires here which I will mention in a few minutes, but if you 
look at the psi molded into the side of the tire, the maximum 
load carried is 35 psi recommended by Firestone.
    The Firestone--excuse me. Within a year of introduction, 
lawsuits against Ford and Firestone were filed for tire 
failures that resulted in crashes and roll-overs. At last five 
cases were filed by 1993, and many others followed in the 
1990's. Almost all were settled, and they were settled with gag 
orders, orders prohibiting the lawyers and the families from 
disclosing information about the cases or documenting it to the 
public or the Department of Transportation.
    When lawsuits are filed against a company about a safety 
defect again and again, the company organizes an internal 
investigation to assemble the information and analysis of the 
information. Top company officials are kept informed about 
lawsuits against the company, particularly as they accumulate. 
There is no question that the companies knew they had a 
problem, but they kept it secret.
    Just one example has come to light through the press. In 
1996, several State agencies in Arizona began having problems 
with Firestone tires on Explorers and, according to news 
reports, these agencies demanded new tires. Firestone conducted 
an investigation, tested the tires, and asserted that the tires 
had been abused or underinflated, and this has been the mantra 
for the problem.
    In 1998, as many of you mentioned, Ford and Firestone were 
in discussions about tire failures abroad and did, in fact, 
conduct recalls, or Ford did conduct recalls abroad, and the 
memo that has just come out shows that at least Firestone 
believed that there was a legal obligation on behalf of the 
company if they did a recall abroad they had to notify the 
Department of Transportation, and I believe that that is 
accurate.
    There is a legal argument that the Department of 
Transportation has no extraterritorial authority, but this was 
a company in the United States, or two companies doing an 
action abroad with the identical tire and identical vehicle 
manufactured and sold here that they were recalling abroad.
    And as you mentioned also last week, Indecu, the Venezuelan 
regulatory agency, said that Firestone and Ford, quote, ``met 
to plan out ways of a situation that was affecting their 
commercial interest at the price of causing damage, 
destruction, and death'', and is recommending possible criminal 
enforcement for involuntary manslaughter.

              NHTSA NEEDS ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY

    Incidentally, there are a number of parallels between the 
1978 recall and Firestone 500. I would say that one of them is 
that the information was kept secret from the Department of 
Transportation for a long time. My second point is, NHTSA needs 
additional legislative authority to ensure the manufacturers 
obey the law, report safety defects, and recall unsafe 
products.
    The agency has sent forward some legislation which I think 
is excellent, but it needs to be improved. They want to 
increase civil penalties. Right now the maximum civil penalties 
for this agency is $925,000 for any company that refuses to 
recall a product. That is a joke. The maximum penalty for each 
violation is $1,000. It should be changed to $10,000, which it 
is at the Environmental Protection Agency.
    There is no violation for withholding documents per day. I 
am sure Senator Specter, as a former prosecutor, is aware that 
you do a per-day violation. At NHTSA it is per document, so if 
a document is withheld forever, there is just one penalty of 
$1,000.
    As in the Food and Drug Administration there should be 
criminal penalties for knowing and willful refusal to recall a 
defective part or withholding information. This was recommended 
after the 1978 recall.
    As recommended in NHTSA's proposed bill, the company should 
be required to test its products before self-certification. 
Right now, companies do not have to do a test before they self-
certify compliance with the agency standards.
    The statute of limitations right now is 8 years for a 
vehicle and 3 years for a tire, for NHTSA to be able to mandate 
a recall. It should be extended to 10 years for vehicles and 5 
years for tires. There has been a substantial change since the 
1970's when this was enacted in the length the tires are used 
on the highway.
    I have already mentioned the issue about sending notices to 
NHTSA for foreign recalls. The agency's budget needs to be 
larger. Ninety-four percent of the deaths occur on the highway, 
and yet NHTSA has a tiny percentage of the transportation 
budget. Although it has been increased substantially in recent 
years, for which I thank this subcommittee very much, it is 
still 30 percent below in real dollars what it was when I left 
the agency in 1980, and the enforcement budget is about one-
half of the 1980 budget. There are fewer than 20 engineer 
investigators who work on safety defects for the entire United 
States of America.

                   ATX TIRE RECALL SHOULD BE EXPANDED

    Third, Firestone and Ford should recall all of the ATX, ATX 
II and Wilderness tires to protect the public from this 
catastrophic defect, and all data and information should be 
made public to restore the public trust, and Senator Domenici 
has said this.
    By the way, Senator Domenici, in your State you have a huge 
number of deaths and injuries. Are you aware of that?
    Senator Domenici. Yes, I am.
    Ms. Claybrook. According to the Department of 
Transportation, 13 injuries and 9 deaths in your State, and I 
think that shows that you certainly should have been included 
in the recall early on. Much of the data that Ford has based 
its analysis of the claims data, which is how this recall was 
defined, is still not public, and for example, it does not--
there is no indication of how many tires were made at which 
plant.
    This seems to be a wear-related issue, that is that as the 
tires were on the road longer they are more likely to have the 
problem, and the data was as of the end of April 2000, so there 
is a lot of information that has developed since then that 
should be available for this analysis. It also only uses claims 
data that is for claims of injury, death, or property damage. 
It does not include warranty claims or adjustment data, and it 
does not include information that has come in since, now known 
by NHTSA.
    NHTSA has last week analyzed the data that it has from 
complaints and lawsuits and injuries from Firestone and Ford 
and determined that the recall should be extended to another 
1.4 million tires, and that additional ones are being 
investigated as well.
    There is every indication that this problem is a design 
defect that affects all the tire produced. In the Firestone 500 
case the company at first asserted that only 400,000 tires were 
defective from the Decatur plant, and then on further 
evaluation it was realized that there were 14 million tires 
that should be subject to the recall.
    Also, an analysis that was released last Friday of 90 
lawsuits that have been filed in this issue showed that about 
37 percent of them covered the nonrecalled tires, and I have 
here today two tires. This is the 15-inch tire and this is the 
16-inch tire, and you can see that the tread separation is 
about the same with both. The 16 is not being recalled, the 15 
is, and you can examine those for yourself to see how similar 
the tires are.
    There are also a number of documents that Senator Domenici 
mentioned. We should have all the information. There are a 
number of documents that are still secret. The companies asked 
for confidentiality at NHTSA on a number of documents that I 
think should be made public, and also the gag order documents 
protective order documents should be made available. The agency 
has subpoena power. It can get the information from the gag 
orders, and I would urge that that occur.

                 NHTSA'S DEFECTS INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

    Fourth, NHTSA has failed to discover this defect because it 
lacks a proactive program to discover safety defects. I believe 
the agency was caught flat-footed because it rarely pushes 
companies to do recalls in an aggressive way. The manufacturers 
rolled the dice in this case and covered it up. They usually 
win, and in this case they did not.
    NHTSA has no early warning system in place and has not been 
proactive in using available sources of information. They 
should routinely get information from auto repair facilities, 
which we did in the 1970's, complete owners and national State 
and local fleets, from lawyers representing deceased and 
injured family members who find out about defects in discovery 
through cross-examination of the manufacturers, from insurance 
company data, which the chairman has already mentioned comes in 
to them from time to time but is not aggressively sought, and 
you have already mentioned State Farm, which I will not 
elaborate on any more.
    The agency should require, as does the EPA, that a company 
notify the agency if it gets 25 complaints about a particular 
make or model defect, and it should require, as does the CPSC, 
that a company notify the agency if there are three or more 
lawsuits filed against it on the same subject. These efforts 
would give the agency an early warning system. They would have 
their finger on the pulse beat of what is happening out there 
on the highway.
    In short, NHTSA has not been the tough cop on the 
regulatory beat, and when it is the companies are more safety 
conscious, the public is protected and, in the end, there is 
less work for all parties. The Firestone/Ford case shows what 
happens when safety is not job 1 in this industry or in the 
Government.

                            SAFETY STANDARDS

    My fifth recommendation is that essential safety standards 
are severely out of date, were scrapped during the Reagan 
years, or prohibited because of industry lobbying to change the 
law.
    I will go through these very briefly. The tire safety 
standard is 32 years old, and is not effective for testing 
radial tires. It was written during the days of the bias ply 
tire. Both Ford and General Motors have recently stated they 
favor improving this standard.
    Number 2, the uniform tire quality grading standard is 
molded on the tire for tread wear traction and heat resistance 
does not apply to SUV tires. It only applies to car tires. It 
should be expanded to do so. The roof crush standard is 30 
years old. I do have an example from the morning paper which 
you probably have all read which shows what happens to the roof 
when one of these vehicles rolls over. The roof just crushes 
in, and I also have a picture of one that is not quite as 
crushed in. This is not necessary.
    Let me tell you what the standard says. It is a static 
standard, and it says that if you place weight on the roof of 
the vehicle that is one-and-a-half times the unloaded weight of 
the vehicle, it passes the test. There is no dynamic test. You 
do not have to roll the vehicle over in any way, and of course 
this has caused a number of the deaths. A dynamic roll-over 
standard should be adopted, a roof crush standard.
    A roll-over standard has not existed in this agency. It has 
been a topic for 15 years, since Representative Timothy Wirth 
submitted a petition in 1985, and others have followed. In 
1991, the Congress required NHTSA to conduct a roll-over 
prevention rulemaking. It made an initial effort to put in a 
consumer information requirement and a proposal, then the 
Appropriations Committee said there should be a study at the 
National Academy of Sciences. That study was finished in 1996.
    Finally, the agency a couple of months ago proposed another 
one, a static standard, which is a very simple standard. The 
auto companies say it is not adequate, so once again another 
study has been proposed. This bill is now in conference.
    Our coalition of consumer health and insurer groups and 
insurers favors dropping the study and letting NHTSA issue this 
test as a first effort. The consumers have said to the Harris 
Poll that 62 percent want such information, but we also want a 
rollover prevention standard. As has been mentioned, 25 percent 
of all highway deaths occur in rollovers, and SUV's have a 
particular susceptibility.
    The agency should issue a rule for a tire inflation 
indicator, as I proposed 22 years ago, on the dashboard that 
just alerts the consumer if their tires are low on inflation. 
The companies complain that people do not properly inflate 
their tires, but most people do not know, and those little 
measuring tools that people have are often inaccurate.
    Tire manufacturing information are molded into the 
blackwall inside of the tires. It should be on the outside 
whitewall of the tires so that the consumer does not have to 
crawl under the tire to find out if the tire has been recalled, 
and right now that is what they are having to do, and it is a 
simple thing to do.
    The tire reserve load consumer information requirement was 
eliminated in the eighties. It should be reestablished to 
inform consumers of the maximum rated low capacity of the 
vehicle so they can know when they should inflate their tires 
to the maximum load rating, which is molded into the side wall. 
The agency should be alert in this case as to whether its 
current requirement of 5 years for record retention is 
sufficient, given that this is a decade-long case.
    I have three minor pieces of legislation that I would also 
recommend. One is that independent tire dealers should have to 
report the names and addresses of buyers to the manufacturer. 
That was eliminated in 1982. Second, the current law requires 
tire owners to return their tires within 60 days of a recall or 
60 days of availability of the tire. It is not fair for car 
buyers. I think it should stay in the law. It is very 
confusing.
    And finally, the current prohibition in the law on the 
NHTSA rule requiring a continuous buzzer alert. It stops NHTSA 
from requiring a continuous buzzer. It can only be 4 to 8 
seconds. Ford Motor Company, I commend them, it has a longer 
buzzer for rollover crashes. That is critical.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for tolerating my long 
statement.
    [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Joan Claybrook

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to accept 
your invitation to testify today on the Firestone tire defect that has 
killed at least 88 and injured 250 people, most of them in Ford 
Explorers. I am President of Public Citizen, a national public interest 
organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971 with 150,000 members 
nationwide. I served as Administrator of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration from 1977 to 1981. This agency is responsible for 
administering the recall of the Firestone tires. The Firestone 500 
recall occurred when I was Administrator.
    Much has been written in the past month about the lethal 
combination of Ford Explorers and Firestone tires. This is a design 
defect exacerbated by the fact that Ford required a low inflation 
pressure because of rollover problems with these vehicles. Firestone 
tires inflated at 26 psi overheat with highway use, causing the tread 
to separate and the SUVs to crash, not infrequently rolling over and 
causing catastrophic and fatal injuries. This tragedy is teaching the 
public as well as policymakers a number of lessons. I would like to 
comment on five issues and make recommendations for more effective 
enforcement of the nation's motor vehicle safety defect laws.
Ford and Firestone covered up safety problems with the tire/SUV 
        combination for a decade. coverups will continue without 
        corrective action by nhtsa.

    The Ford Explorer was first offered for sale in March 1990. Ford 
internal documents show the company engineers recommended changes to 
the vehicle design after it rolled over in company tests prior to 
introduction, but other than a few minor changes, the suspension and 
track width were not changed. Instead, Ford, which sets the 
specifications for the manufacture of its tires, decided to remove air 
from the tires, lowering the recommended psi to 26. The Firestone 
recommended psi molded into the tire for maximum load is 35 psi.
    Within a year of introduction, lawsuits against Ford and Firestone 
were filed for tire failures that resulted in crashes and rollovers. At 
least five cases were filed by 1993, and many others followed in the 
early 1990s. Almost all were settled, and settled with gag orders 
prohibiting the attorneys and the families from disclosing information 
about the cases or their documentation to the public or DOT. When 
lawsuits are filed against a company about a safety defect, the company 
organizes an internal investigation to assemble information and 
analysis about the allegations. Top company officials are kept informed 
about all lawsuits against the company, particularly when they 
accumulate concerning one problem. There is no question the companies 
knew they had a problem. But they kept it secret.
    In 1996, several state agencies in Arizona began having major 
problems with Firestone tires on Explorers. According to news reports, 
various agencies demanded new tires, and Firestone conducted an 
investigation of the complaints, tested the tires and asserted that the 
tires had been abused or under-inflated.
    In 1998, Ford and Firestone were in discussions about tire failures 
with Middle Eastern, Asian and South American countries. Tires were 
tested and analyzed. Ford eventually decided to conduct its own recall 
without Firestone and replace the tires in the various countries in 
1999 and 2000. It also instructed Firestone to add a nylon ply to the 
tires it manufactured in Venezuela for additional strength and it made 
suspension changes to the Explorer. Ford did not specify adding the 
nylon ply for U.S.-made Firestone tires nor did it change the Explorer 
suspension at this time. In May, a top Ford official in Venezuela was 
quoted in the press as saying the company was replacing the tires 
because in Venezuela ``the highways allow drivers to travel at high 
speeds for a sustained period of time, leading to the loosening of the 
rolling surface of the tire, its consequent blowout and the accident.''
    Last week, the Venezuelan safety regulatory agency, Indecu, 
concluded after an investigation that Firestone and Ford ``met to plan 
ways out of a situation that was affecting their commercial interests, 
at the price of causing damage, destruction and death,'' and is 
recommending possible criminal enforcement for involuntary 
manslaughter. Neither Ford nor Firestone informed the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration of this recall, euphemistically labeled a 
``No Charge Service Program Award Notification.''
    Incidentally, there are a number of parallels between this recall 
in 2000 and the 1978 recall of the Firestone 500. Most particularly, 
there was a documented coverup by Firestone of the 500 defect, spurred 
by the lack of a Firestone replacement tire. When the coverup was 
disclosed, the top management of the company was replaced as Firestone 
was severely damaged in reputation and economically. But a key 
difference is that the Firestone 500 was used on passenger cars, which 
rarely rolled over with tire failure. NHTSA documented 41 deaths with 
the 500, a recall, involving seven million tires.
    Once again, when confronted with accusations about the performance 
of the tire, Firestone has misleadingly claimed owner abuse (i.e. 
under-inflation, rough use or improper repairs).
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration needs additional 
        legislative authority to assure that manufacturers obey the 
        law, report safety defects and recall unsafe products.
    To prevent coverups of safety defects in the future, the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act should be amended. In March 2000 
the agency sent legislation to the Congress which would make some 
improvements, but additional authority is needed. The Congress should:
    a. Increase civil penalties for failure to recall a defective 
vehicle or part or withholding information from the agency. Now the 
maximum penalty is $925,000, hardly a deterrent for multinational 
corporations. The penalty for each violation should be increased from 
$1,000 to $10,000 (as at the Environmental Protection Agency); the 
violation for withholding documents should be per day rather than per 
document as it is now (no matter how long it is withheld). There should 
be no maximum penalty.
    b. As in the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental 
Protection Agency laws, there should be criminal penalties for knowing 
and willful refusal to recall a defective vehicle or part or for 
withholding information that results in deaths and injuries. Chairman 
John Moss, after reviewing the Firestone 500 debacle, recommended 
criminal penalties be added to the NHTSA statute.
    c. As recommended by NHTSA's proposed bill, a company should be 
required by law to test its products before self-certifying for 
compliance with the agency's standards. Such testing is not now 
required by law.
    d. The statute of limitations for NHTSA to mandate a recall is now 
eight years for vehicles and three years for tires from the date of 
manufacture. It should be extended, as the agency recommends, to 10 
years for vehicles and five years for tires.
    e. There is disagreement about whether the current law requiring 
manufacturers to send NHTSA copies of all notices sent to dealers and 
owners about a defect is applicable in this case. Ford sent notices to 
foreign dealers about a defect in a product made and sold in the U.S. 
and also sold abroad. Does the fact that the notice was sent to foreign 
dealers negate Ford's responsibility to notify NHTSA? I don't think so, 
but certainly the law should be clarified that this is a company's 
responsibility in this age of globalization.
    f. NHTSA's budget needs to be larger, particularly for enforcement. 
Ninety-four percent of transportation deaths occur on the highway, yet 
NHTSA has only a tiny percentage of the Transportation budget. Although 
it has been increased in recent years, and I thank this Subcommittee 
for that, it is still 30 percent below, in real dollars, what it was 
when I left the agency at the beginning of 1981. Its enforcement budget 
is about one-half of the 1980 budget. It has fewer than 20 engineer/
investigators working on vehicle safety defects for the entire country.
The Firestone/Ford recall should be expanded to cover all ATX, ATX II 
        and Wilderness tires to protect the public from this 
        catastrophic defect, and all data and information should be 
        made public to restore public trust.
    Much of the data on which Ford based its analysis of Firestone 
claims data is still not public and subject to outside scrutiny (such 
as how many tires were made at each plant and when--an important factor 
since the defect appears to emerge after two to four years of use), and 
it is based on information through April 2000. None of the recent 
information that has been pouring into the companies and NHTSA as the 
public is getting informed about the problem is included. It also 
covers only claims data--claims for compensation for injury or property 
damage. It does not cover warranty claims or adjustment data for tire 
failures. It also does not cover any information known to Ford 
(although there will be duplication between Ford and Firestone data). 
It also does not cover new information now known by NHTSA about claims.
    NHTSA last week analyzed data (complaints, lawsuits, injuries, 
including information submitted to date from Ford and Firestone) and 
determined that the recall should be enlarged to cover another 1.4 
million tires. NHTSA said it is still investigating to determine if the 
recall should be enlarged further. It issued a consumer advisory 
because Firestone refused to enlarge the recall, an indication of 
Firestone's attitude toward a safety defect that gives the consumer no 
warning and can result in death and severe injury when the vehicle is 
operated normally. This same attitude was evident in Firestone's offer 
made on August 16 in public newspaper ads that it would reimburse 
owners who bought other tires, but the offer ended on August 16. Had it 
not been for a temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge in 
Louisville preventing the company from discontinuing the one-day offer, 
Firestone might have faced a massive consumer revolt, picket lines, 
more consumer lawsuits and more disputes with its largest customer, 
Ford Motor Company, which is pressing to get the tires replaced quickly 
with tires from other manufacturers as well as Firestone.
    There is every indication that this problem is a design defect that 
affects all the tires produced. In the Firestone 500 case, the company 
at first asserted that only 400,000 tires were defective, those 
produced in the Decatur plant. But during NHTSA's investigation, as 
more data was available and company documents were secured and 
analyzed, we found that the tread separation on the 500 was a design 
performance defect. The company knew about it for at least three years 
and never informed NHTSA, and it was at the same time making running 
changes on the production line to correct the problem in new tires.
    There are other indications that the companies should expand the 
recall. An analysis released last Friday of about 90 lawsuits or claims 
about to be filed showed that 37 percent covered non-recalled tires. In 
several of the foreign recalls, 16-inch tires were included (but are 
not recalled in the U.S.).
    There are a number of documents and data that are still secret, 
either in submissions by the companies to NHTSA or gag orders in 
lawsuits that should be made public. This may be painful for the 
companies, but it is essential given the broad public debate about this 
defect and the need for the companies to regain public trust. This 
information will probably leak out over time anyway, so it makes sense 
to release it now.
NHTSA failed to discover this defect because it lacks a proactive 
        program to discover safety defects.
    a. NHTSA was caught flatfooted because it rarely pushes companies 
to obey the law. The Department allowed GM to resist recalling its 5 
million defectively designed pickup trucks with side-saddle gas tanks 
that explode in side-impact crashes, and Ford to resist recalling its 
vehicles equipped with ignition modules that frequently failed, causing 
vehicles to stall. It allowed Chrysler to label its correction of its 
minivans with defective rear-door latches that pop open in rear 
crashes, (throwing occupants outside), a ``service campaign'' and not a 
safety recall. And it rarely imposes penalties when it learns companies 
have slithered around its request to produce documents.
    The auto manufacturers have rolled the dice in this coverup and 
usually win. This time they are the losers as the media spotlight 
forces the story of the sorry state of manufacturer compliance with the 
law and safety defect enforcement into the public consciousness.
    b. NHTSA also has no early warning system in place and has not been 
proactive in using sources of information that are on the pulse-beat of 
current information about vehicle performance. They can and should 
routinely get information from: auto repair facilities; fleet owners, 
including national, state and local fleets; lawyers representing 
deceased and injured family members who find out about defects through 
discovery and cross examination of manufacturers; insurance company 
data; and also from the companies themselves.
    In this case, State Farm Insurance Co., the nation's largest 
insurer, sent an E-mail and called NHTSA in 1998 about 21 cases of 
Firestone tire tread separations, but the agency ignored it. Another 30 
cases were sent in 1999, and the agency ignored them as well. How could 
this happen? How often does the agency check complaints dutifully filed 
by consumers through its hotline and in letters to spot trends? They 
are all on a computer list by make, model, and alleged defect. Even if 
this happens routinely, it's not enough--as this case illustrates, 
because most consumers don't bother contacting government agencies.
    The agency should require, as does EPA, that a company notify the 
agency if it gets 25 complaints about the same alleged defect, and 
require, as does CPSC, that the company notify the agency if three or 
more lawsuits alleging the same safety defect are filed.
    The agency has also used a highly inappropriate system for 
evaluating whether a safety defect exists, looking at statistical data 
which are rarely adequate. If it cannot establish a statistical basis, 
the agency does not find a defect. The courts have held in a number of 
cases that if a safety element of the vehicle fails and can kill or 
injure, there is a failure of safety performance sufficient to find a 
defect, and there is no need to find dead bodies on the highway first.
    In short, NHTSA has not been the tough cop on the regulatory beat. 
When it is, the companies are more safety-conscious, the public is 
protected, and in the end it is less work for all parties. The 
Firestone/Ford case shows what happens when safety is not Job 1 in the 
companies or in the government.
Essential safety standards are severely out of date, were scrapped or 
        delayed in the Reagan years, or are prohibited by law because 
        of industry lobbying.
    a. The tire safety standard is 32 years old and not fully effective 
for testing radial tires. Both Ford and GM have recently stated they 
favor an improved standard. The current standard tests for strength, 
endurance and how well the tire remains on the rim. Radial tires last 
much longer than bias ply tires and should be subjected to a tougher 
standard.
    b. The Uniform Tire Quality Grading standard applies only to car 
tires, not truck/SUV tires. It is a consumer information requirement 
rating tread wear, traction and heat resistance with the rating molded 
into the tire. It should be expanded to cover truck/SUV tires.
    c. The roof crush standard is 30 years old. It is a static standard 
requiring weight to be placed on the roof of the vehicle (applied to 
SUVs beginning in model year 1994) equal to 1.5 times the maximum 
unloaded weight of the vehicle. In many of the Ford Explorer/Firestone 
rollover cases, the roof crushes into the vehicle, severely enhancing 
the likelihood of injury and death. A dynamic rollover crash worthiness 
standard should be issued addressing roof crush, door lock and hinges, 
side glazing materials and head protection. Crash protection in 
rollovers must include effective safety belts with pretensioners.
    d. The first petition to NHTSA for a rollover prevention standard 
was filed by Representative Timothy Wirth 15 years ago. Others 
followed. In 1991 the Congress required NHTSA to conduct a rollover 
prevention rulemaking. The agency made an initial effort at developing 
a safety standard, but then dropped it and instead proposed a consumer 
information requirement. The auto industry then got the Appropriations 
Committee to prohibit issuance of a consumer information rule until 
after a study by the National Academy of Sciences about the usefulness 
and presentation of consumer information. Finally in May 2000 the 
agency proposed to conduct New Car Assessment tests for rollover based 
on a static measurement of track width and center of gravity height, 
but once again the manufacturers objected and the Appropriations 
Committee has placed a requirement for yet another study by the NAS 
before it could be issued. This bill is now in conference.
    Our coalition of consumer and health groups and insurers favors 
dropping the study and letting NHTSA issue the consumer information 
test. A 1998 Harris poll conducted for Advocates For Highway and Auto 
Safety show 62 percent of the public wants such information. But we 
also want a rollover prevention standard. It is long overdue. About 
9,500 highway deaths annually occur in rollover crashes--almost 25 
percent of all highway deaths. This problem must be addressed, 
particularly with the advent of SUVs with their susceptibility to 
rollover.
    e. The agency should issue a rule for a tire inflation indicator on 
the dashboard, as I proposed 22 years ago. It was eliminated by the 
Reagan administration. The companies complain that tires are not 
properly inflated but then lobby to undercut consumers' ability to 
properly maintain their tires with accurate information.
    f. The tire manufacturing information now molded into the blackwall 
of the tire should be placed on the whitewall or outside of the tire so 
a consumer doesn't have to crawl under the car to find it. This was 
part of my rulemaking plan more than 20 years ago, but it was never 
issued after I left.
    g. The tire reserve load consumer information requirement 
eliminated in the Reagan years should be reestablished to inform 
consumers of the maximum rated load capacity of the vehicle, so they 
know when they should inflate their tires for maximum load carrying.
    h. The agency should be alert in this case to whether its 
requirement for record retention of only five years should be extended, 
since the critical evidence in this case extends over a decade.
    i. Three elements of legislation are needed that are relevant to 
this case:
    First, the 1982 legislation eliminating the responsibility of 
independent tire dealers to report the names and addresses of tire 
purchasers to the manufacturer for notification in the event of a 
recall should be changed back to requiring such recordkeeping as during 
the period from 1970 until 1982. Independent dealers with computers 
today can readily supply such names to the manufacturer. The current 
law only requires the independent dealer to give the consumer a card to 
mail themselves. A 1986 NHTSA report showed only 11 percent responded. 
Thus, in this case, most buyers from independent dealers will not be 
notified by mail.
    Second, the current law requires tire owners to return the tire 
within 60 days of a recall notification (which, I presume means if a 
manufacturer has no contact information, a consumer would have to rely 
on news reports) or 60 days after tire availability. Car owners in 
recalls don't have this limitation. It is confusing enough to get tires 
replaced without this added complexity. It should be eliminated.
    Third, the current prohibition in the law on a NHTSA rule requiring 
a continuous buzzer to alert occupants to buckle up should be 
eliminated. Among car companies, only Ford, I believe, now has a 
continuous buzzer. The current law only permits NHTSA to require a four 
to eight second buzzer. Belt use is essential in rollovers. It should 
be encouraged in every way, including when the vehicle is in use.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify on this 
important subject today.

                  NEW MEXICO FIRESTONE TIRE ACCIDENTS

    Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I wonder since New Mexico 
was mentioned, if I could just give you the authentic totals, 
it takes just two paragraphs. According to the NHTSA the tires 
have been blamed for 10 accidents in my State, 9 deaths. That 
is in New Mexico, including a husband, wife, and her unborn 
child who died when their Ford utility vehicle flipped four 
times and crashed outside of the little town of San Antonio, 
New Mexico. Of these accidents, 9 out of 10 involved Ford 
Explorers, and 7 out of 10 resulted in the vehicle rolling over 
more than one time; 5 of 7 of the rollover accidents caused 
fatalities.
    So that is a State with a population of about 1.6 million. 
Clearly, if that occurred across this Nation it would be 
absolutely enormous.

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. PITTLE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND 
            TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, CONSUMERS UNION

ACCOMPANIED BY:
        DAVID CHAMPION, DIRECTOR, AUTO TEST CENTER, CONSUMERS UNION
        SALLY GREENBERG, SENIOR PRODUCT SAFETY COUNSEL, CONSUMERS UNION

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Pittle.
    Mr. Pittle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members 
of the committee. Good morning. My name is David Pittle, and I 
am the technical director of Consumers' Union, publisher of 
Consumer Reports magazine. We applaud you for holding this 
hearing to discuss two serious consumer issues, one being the 
recall of the Bridgestone/Firestone tires on Ford light trucks 
and other sports utility vehicles, and to discuss in some 
detail NHTSA's proposed information program for comparing the 
emergency handling and stability of SUV's.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Pittle, could you bring the mike a 
little closer to you?
    Mr. Pittle. Sure.
    With me today are David Champion, director of Consumers 
Union 327-acre auto test center in Connecticut, and Sally 
Greenberg, senior product safety counsel here in Washington.
    CU conducts comprehensive tests of more than 40 new motor 
vehicles each year and provides consumers with ratings about 
the performance, handling, efficiency, comfort, stability, and 
safety of these vehicles. CU also tests tires each year for 
their breaking, handling, cornering, and tractioning 
characteristics on new, wet, snow-covered and ice-covered 
surfaces. We do not conduct long-term durability tests of the 
kind done by NHTSA.
    Each month an estimated 17 million consumers read and 
consider our published test reports, ratings, and buying advice 
as they ponder their choices. Product safety has long been an 
overriding concern for CU and, in particular, roll-over 
stability, and over the past decade has become a top priority 
for the car-buying public as well.
    We have learned from more than six decades of conducting 
unbiased laboratory tests and consumer use tests that products 
that look alike do not always act alike. That principle 
certainly holds true for motor vehicles and automotive 
replacement parts. To make sound buying decisions the American 
consumer needs reliable objective information about product 
performance and quality to help him or her make a rational 
choice from among competing products.
    To many consumers, that also means buying safe products, 
ones that protect their families and do not present 
unreasonable risk. Here, the American consumer must be able to 
rely on NHTSA to set adequate safety standards and ensure their 
automotive products offered for sale meet those standards. 
Furthermore, if a product is found to be unsafe and defective 
it must be recalled promptly and effectively.
    In short, NHTSA is the only economically disinterested 
entity that stands between the consumer and injury from an 
unsafe auto product. As charged by Congress, it is uniquely and 
singularly dedicated to protecting the public from automotive 
hazards often not seen, not measured, and not understood by the 
average consumer, but in the end consumers ultimately rely on 
Congress first to ensure that NHTSA has the resources and 
authority it needs to protect the public, second to use its 
oversight power to ensure the agency is fulfilling its mandate, 
and third to allow the agency to set safety regulations without 
being derailed because industry voices objections.
    Against this background we would like to offer you several 
observations and recommendations this morning regarding the 
recall.

                      BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE RECALL

    CU, like motorists across the country, was chagrined to 
learn that since 1992 there have been more than 50 lawsuits and 
possibly as many as 100 lawsuits related to the Firestone tire 
subject to the current recall. Many of the lawsuits were 
settled with protective orders in place, with the effect that 
critical safety information has been kept from the public.
    The Senate has before it S. 957, Senator Kohl's bill, which 
requires courts to consider the impact on public health and 
safety before considering, or during consideration of the 
granting of such protective orders. CU believes that when a 
lawsuit is settled, information affecting public safety should 
never be allowed to be sealed and thereby kept from the public. 
If NHTSA does not now have the power to subpoena information 
affecting public safety within the confines of these protective 
orders, Congress should correct that shortcoming in their 
authority.
    Ms. Claybrook says that is in place. That ought to be 
clarified. There is a lot of finger-pointing in both 
directions, and in the meantime nothing happens. The ever-
increasing extent of the Firestone recall and allegations of 
previous protective orders shine a bright light on the charges 
and dangers that these orders have on the public health and 
safety. One cannot help but believe that if this information 
had been opened to NHTSA and the press earlier, many of the 
tragic deaths and injuries from these tires would have been 
avoided.

               LAW REGARDING FOREIGN NOTIFICATION UNCLEAR

    Second, car and tire manufacturers are required to report 
to NHTSA within a few days when they discover an auto safety 
problem, but the law may be unclear for safety recalls that 
involve vehicles outside the United States. I do not know, but 
if there is an ambiguity in the way the statute can be read, 
that ambiguity should be clarified as soon as possible by 
Congress.
    American consumers were understandably angered upon 
learning that the same vehicles they were driving and similar 
tires to the ones they were driving on were previously and 
quietly subject to safety recalls in other countries. We 
believe manufacturers must be required to share such recall 
information with NHTSA. Congress should either make changes to 
the statute, or direct NHTSA to amend its regulations to ensure 
that recalls in foreign countries are brought to NHTSA's 
attention promptly.
    Third, Congress should take the opportunity to ensure that 
there are adequate deterrents to nonreporting of safety 
information by passing the administration's legislation calling 
for heavier fines for failure to report. We urge the committee 
to evaluate what level of fine will serve as a realistic 
deterrent to companies that manufacture products falling 
underneath its jurisdiction and that fail to report safety 
defects, recognizing that many of them are multibillion 
corporations.
    CU believes NHTSA's legislation filed last year to increase 
the fines for failure to report is a step in the right 
direction. We are concerned that the levels are still too low 
to be an effective deterrent.

                            ROLLOVER TESTING

    I would like to address the NHTSA proposal on roll-over 
information. That is a very important thing. CU has been 
involved in the roll-over testing and the controversy for many 
years. It is no surprise that these tire failures occurring on 
an SUV ultimately wind up in a crash that is a roll-over and 
the number of deaths is quite high, and that is unacceptably 
high.
    While members of this committee may be aware that sports 
utility vehicles tend to roll over at a much higher rate than 
passenger cars, the motoring public does not sufficiently 
understand the full impact of this problem. Since 1973, CU has 
been conducting emergency avoidance maneuver testing of all 
vehicles, and since 1988 has been running avoidance maneuver 
tests to evaluate the stability of SUV's and other light 
trucks.
    Both involve dynamic testing. That is, driving a vehicle 
through emergency maneuvers to evaluate its performance. In 
1988, CU petitioned NHTSA to use a dynamic or driving test to 
set a safety standard for vehicle stability. NHTSA granted our 
petition, but gave up in 1994, stating that the resulting tests 
would impose too high a cost on SUV design.
    In 1996, CU once again petitioned NHTSA, this time asking 
the agency to develop a dynamic test to evaluate the emergency 
handling of SUV's, require that all SUV's be put through that 
test, and to make the test results available to consumers. 
NHTSA granted our petition in 1997, and thereby raised 
expectations that it would develop a dynamic test. Sadly, it 
did not.
    CU's comments to NHTSA's proposal, submitted just 2 weeks 
ago, notes that after conducting a series of dynamic tests on 
just 12 vehicles NHTSA backed away from dynamic tests. Instead, 
it is proposing the use of a static measure known as the static 
stability factor as the basis on which to rate vehicles.
    In our comments CU said, quote, ``While we believe any 
information that helps educate consumers about roll-over has 
merit, after a thorough analysis of NHTSA's proposal we cannot, 
unfortunately, endorse NHTSA's decision to use only the static 
stability factor to measure rollover propensity,'' close quote, 
and we continued, quote, ``CU believes that the value of the 
static stability factor to consumers is preferable to consumers 
having no information at all.
    At the very least, it clarifies the fundamental differences 
between categories of vehicles, but it is not a satisfactory 
regulatory response to an important issue of auto safety. It is 
too crude a measure to reliably distinguish among models within 
the same class of vehicles,'' close quote.
    Ladies and gentlemen, consumers are crying out for this 
kind of information. They are being promoted to buy these cars, 
and yet they cannot distinguish the unseen roll-over propensity 
of them. We urge NHTSA to continue to try to develop a dynamic 
test, and we have submitted a full copy of our comments to 
NHTSA to committee staff and ask that it be included in the 
record.
    We have always been concerned about Congress preventing 
NHTSA from taking action that the agency deems necessary to 
promote highway safety. Nonetheless, when Senator Shelby 
introduced an amendment to the transportation appropriations 
bill to delay NHTSA's action until the National Academy of 
Sciences studied whether static stability factor is the best 
stability measure, we were at least pleased that the amendment 
also directed the NAS to study the benefits of dynamic testing, 
which we consider to be the most important factor, and to 
include consumer representatives in the NAS study.
    Our own view is that dynamic test is the proper path to 
take, and we would only hope that any trip to the National 
Academy of Sciences is a short one.
    In summary, CU believes that we are at a crossroads, and we 
need a change in direction. We are pleased that NHTSA finally 
has an Administrator. Dr. Bailey brings fresh leadership and an 
impressive set of credentials with a spirit of service to the 
consumer back at the agency.
    We are also pleased that the committee, and particularly 
the chairman, has expressed a sincere interest in setting the 
agency back on a proper course, and no matter what you hear 
about public confidence in Government, consumers need and 
deserve a strong auto safety agency that has the will to act on 
their behalf. They need stronger standards, more vigorous 
attention to injury data, and a relentless commitment to 
recalling defective products.
    Consumers Union stands ready to work with you and the 
committee members to bring about the sorely needed changes. 
Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of R. David Pittle

    Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee, good morning. 
My name is David Pittle, and I am the Technical Director and Senior 
Vice-President of Consumers Union (CU), publisher of Consumer Reports. 
We applaud you for holding this hearing to discuss two very important 
consumer safety issues: (1) the recall of Bridgestone/Firestone tires 
on Ford light trucks and other sport utility vehicles (SUVs), and (2) 
NHTSA's proposed information program for comparing the emergency 
handling and stability of SUVs. With me are David Champion, Director of 
Consumers Union's 327-acre Auto Test Center in Connecticut, and Sally 
Greenberg, CU's Senior Product Safety Counsel here in Washington.
    CU conducts comprehensive tests of more than 40 new vehicles each 
year and provides consumers with ratings about the performance, 
handling, efficiency, comfort, stability, and safety of these vehicles. 
CU also tests tires each year for their braking, handling, cornering, 
and traction characteristics on dry, wet, snow-covered, and ice-covered 
surfaces. We do not conduct long-term durability tests of the kind done 
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Each month, an 
estimated seventeen million consumers read and consider our published 
test reports, product ratings and buying advice as they ponder their 
choices.
    Product safety has long been an overriding concern for CU, and over 
the past decade, has become a top priority for the car-buying public as 
well. We have learned from more than six decades of conducting unbiased 
laboratory tests and consumer use tests that products that look alike 
don't always act alike. This principle certainly holds true for motor 
vehicles and automotive replacement parts.
    To make sound buying decisions, the American consumer needs 
reliable, objective information about product performance and quality 
to help him or her make a rational choice from among competing 
products. To many consumers, that also means buying safe products, ones 
that protect their families and do not present unreasonable risks. 
Here, the American car-buying public must be able to rely on NHTSA to 
set adequate safety standards and insure that automotive products 
offered for sale meet those safety standards. Furthermore, if a product 
is found to be unsafe, it must be recalled promptly and effectively. In 
short, NHTSA is the only economically disinterested entity that stands 
between the consumer and an unsafe product. As charged by Congress, it 
is uniquely and singularly dedicated to protecting the public from 
automotive hazards often not seen, not measured, and not understood by 
the average consumer.
    But in the end, consumers ultimately rely on Congress, first, to 
insure that NHTSA has the resources and the authority it needs to 
protect the public; second, to use its oversight power to insure that 
the agency is fulfilling its mandate; and third, to allow the agency to 
set safety regulations without being derailed because industry voices 
objections. Against this background, we offer the following 
observations and recommendations.

                      BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE RECALL

    1. CU, like motorists across the country, was chagrined to learn 
that since 1992 there have been more than 50 lawsuits, and possibly as 
many as 100 lawsuits, related to the Firestone tires subject to the 
current recall. Many of those lawsuits were settled with protective 
orders in place, with the effect that critical safety information has 
been kept from the public. The Senate has had before it S. 957, Senator 
Kohl's bill, which requires courts to consider the impact on public 
health and safety before granting such protective orders. CU believes 
that when a lawsuit is settled, information affecting public safety 
should never be allowed to be sealed and thereby kept from the public. 
If NHTSA doesn't now have the power to subpoena information affecting 
public safety within the confines of these protective orders, Congress 
should correct that shortcoming in their authority. The ever-increasing 
extent of the Firestone recall and allegations of previous protective 
orders shine a bright light on the dangers of these orders to the 
public's health and safety. One cannot help believing that if this 
information had been open to NHTSA and the press, many of the tragic 
deaths and injuries from these tires would have been avoided.
    2. Car and tire manufacturers are required to report to NHTSA 
within a few days of when they discover an automotive safety problem. 
But the law may be unclear for safety recalls that involve vehicles 
outside the United States. If there is ambiguity in the way the statute 
can be read, that ambiguity should be clarified by Congress. American 
consumers were understandably angered upon learning that the same 
vehicles they were driving, and similar tires to those they were 
driving on, were previously--and quietly--subject to safety recalls in 
other countries. We believe manufacturers must be required to share 
such recall information with NHTSA. Congress should either make changes 
to the statute or direct NHTSA to amend its regulations to insure that 
recalls in foreign countries are brought to NHTSA's attention.
    3. Congress should take this opportunity to insure there are 
adequate deterrents to nonreporting of safety information by passing 
the Administration's legislation calling for heavier fines for failure 
to report. We urge the Committee to evaluate what level of fine would 
serve as a realistic deterrent to companies that manufacture products 
falling under NHTSA's jurisdiction and fall to report safety defects--
recognizing that many of them are multi-billion-dollar corporations. CU 
believes NHTSA's legislation filed last year to increase fines for 
failure to report a safety defect, raising the penalty from $1,000 to 
$5,000 for each violation, and raising the maximum penalty from 
$800,000 to $1 million, is a step in the right direction. We are 
concerned, however, that these levels are still too low to be effective 
as a deterrent to non-reporting of defects.
    4. There are valuable lessons to be learned from the Firestone 
recall, and now is the time to put those lessons to use in preventing 
future problems. We urge Congress to direct NHTSA to establish a far 
more proactive and coordinated outreach program to acquire available 
injury information.
    a. NHTSA should reach out to repair shops to learn about problems 
with motor vehicles and automotive products.
    b. NHTSA should better track information that comes in through its 
Auto Safety Hotline.
    c. NHTSA's staff should vigorously track private lawsuits to 
determine whether there is a disproportionate number of suits filed on 
certain products.
    d. NHTSA should improve its data collecting capabilities related to 
dangerous or defective products; State Farm Insurance reported that it 
had informed NHTSA that it had received 21 damage reports on Firestone 
tires. Yet, NHTSA has said in media reports that it has no record of 
receiving that information. NHTSA needs gather the kind of data State 
Farm provided in a far more systematic fashion.
    e. NHTSA should upgrade the requirements of its durability testing 
of tires.
                 NHTSA PROPOSAL ON ROLLOVER INFORMATION

    CU notes that the vast majority of the Firestone tire failures have 
occurred on the Ford Explorer, a sport utility vehicle, and that many 
crashes reportedly involve the vehicle rolling over after tire failure. 
While members of this Committee may be aware that sport utility 
vehicles tend to roll over at a much higher rate than passenger cars, 
the motoring public does not sufficiently understand the full impact of 
this problem. Since 1973, CU has been conducting emergency avoidance 
maneuver testing of all vehicles, and, since 1988, we have been running 
stability tests for all SUVs and other light trucks we evaluate. Both 
involve dynamic testing; i.e., driving a vehicle through emergency 
maneuvers to evaluate its performance.
    In 1988, CU petitioned NHTSA to use a dynamic or driving test to 
set a safety standard for vehicle stability. NHTSA granted CU's 
petition, but gave up in 1994, stating that the resulting tests would 
impose significant costs to SUV design. In 1996, CU once again 
petitioned NHTSA, this time asking the agency to (1) develop a dynamic 
test to evaluate the emergency handling of SUVs, (2) require that all 
SUVs be put through that test, and (3) make the test results available 
to consumers.
    NHTSA granted our petition in 1997 and thereby raised expectations 
that it would develop a dynamic test. CU's comments to NHTSA's 
proposal, submitted just two weeks ago, notes that after conducting a 
series of dynamic tests on just 12 vehicles, NHTSA backed away from 
dynamic testing, instead recommending the use of a static measure known 
as SSF, as the basis on which to rate vehicles. In our comments, CU 
said:

          While we believe any information that helps educate consumers 
        about rollover has merit, after a thorough analysis of NHTSA's 
        proposal, we cannot, unfortunately, endorse NHTSA's decision to 
        use only the Static Stability Factor (SSF) to measure vehicle 
        rollover propensity

    And continued:

          CU believes that the value of SSF to consumers is preferable 
        to consumers having no information at all. At the very least, 
        it clarifies the fundamental differences among categories of 
        vehicles. But it is not a satisfactory regulatory response to 
        an important issue of auto safety. It is too crude a measure to 
        reliably distinguish among models within the same class of 
        vehicles.

    We urged NHTSA to continue trying to develop a dynamic test. We 
have submitted a full copy of our comments to NHTSA to the Committee 
staff and ask that it be included in the record.
    We always have concerns about Congress preventing NHTSA from taking 
action that the agency deems necessary to promote highway safety. 
Nevertheless, when Senator Shelby introduced his amendment in the 
Transportation Appropriations bill to delay NHTSA's action until the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) studied whether SSF is the best 
stability measure, with Senator Hollings joining him, we were pleased 
that the amendment also directed the NAS to study the benefits of 
dynamic testing and to include consumer representatives in the NAS 
study.
    In summary, CU believes we are all at a crossroads, and we need a 
change of direction. We feel pleased that NHTSA finally has an 
administrator. Dr. Bailey brings fresh leadership and an impressive set 
of credentials to put the spirit of service to the consumer back in the 
agency. We are also pleased that the Committee, and in particular the 
chairman, has expressed a sincere interest in setting the agency back 
on a proper course. And no matter what you hear about public confidence 
in government, consumers need and deserve a strong auto safety agency 
that has the will to act on their behalf. They need stronger standards, 
more vigorous attention to injury data, and a relentless commitment to 
recalling defective products. Consumers Union stands ready to work with 
you to bring about these sorely needed changes.

                      POSSIBLE PREVENTIVE MEASURES

    Senator Shelby. Ms. Claybrook, I will try to be brief to 
give other people a chance to question.
    How could this have been prevented. What we have in front 
of us today is loss of life, the loss of property, but lives 
more than anything and, obvious to me, a concealment of 
information that should have been brought out to the public, 
who ultimately are the consumers, and that is all of us and our 
families. How could that be prevented?
    Ms. Claybrook. Well, first of all I believe the regulatory 
agency does need to be more proactive. I think it needs much 
tougher penalties. I think if it has criminal penalties, the 
executives of these companies are going to think twice before 
they allow this to happen again. That is my view. Criminal 
penalties are a very harsh penalty. They are better not used in 
most cases, I think, but if they are there to be used I think 
that they are a real deterrent.
    And then finally I think that the American Bar Association 
and the courts of this country ought to prohibit gag orders, 
because the trial lawyers are put in a terribly awkward 
position. They are trying to service their client. An offer for 
settlement is made. The client is ill, desperate, harmed, and 
they want a settlement, and so there has to be an acceptance of 
that by the trial lawyer in most cases when it is offered, so 
the public is not served by that, and I believe it ought to be.

                 PATTERN OF INJURY DATA NOT RECOGNIZED

    Mr. Pittle. Prior to coming to Consumers Union I was a 
commissioner at the Consumer Products Safety Commission for 9 
years and we, when we set the agency up in 1973, did our best 
to inspire our staff to take an aggressive search for injury 
data. You do not wait for it to trickle in and come in the 
mailbox or over the transom.
    I think that is what has been happening to NHTSA over the 
last few years. I have observed an agency that has lost its 
will and lost its way. It needs strong leadership at the top to 
demand that they go out and look for this information, go to 
auto repair shops, go to tire repair shops. Insurance agencies 
use the information that the trial lawyers have available. You 
have to go looking for it. If you wait for it to come you will 
wait until you find 88 deaths and 1,400 incidents. This should 
have been picked up a long time ago if the agency was more 
aggressive.
    Senator Shelby. But the real dynamic here was brought out 
by this young analyst with State Farm Insurance who was keeping 
tabs of all this information, was it not?
    Ms. Claybrook. He was not keeping tabs. He happened upon 
it. He happened upon it, and as he processed his paper every 
day he saw another one, and then another one, and he realized 
that, but he not only contacted the agency by sending an e-mail 
with this, he called them up, and he did it--in 1978 he sent 
them 21 cases--I am sorry, in 1998 he sent them 21 cases. In 
1999 he sent them 30 cases, so now they have 51 cases as of 
1999 in the agency, sent from the largest insurance company in 
America for autos.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Pittle, what did NHTSA do with this 
information that this gentleman sent them?
    Mr. Pittle. I only know what I read in the press. They say 
they never got it.
    Ms. Claybrook. They got it. They just did not analyze it.
    Mr. Pittle. Whatever they did, nothing got out.
    Senator Shelby. They did not act on it, anyway.
    Mr. Pittle. They did not act on it, and that is what--I am 
going to go back to the point, you are in the role, and you 
have the position to speak to the head of the agency to say, we 
want this agency to be sitting here with the consumer talking 
about safety problems. I am sorry that she is not here at the 
table with us, because that is where I would see a 
disinterested auto safety agency, here with the consumers.
    Senator Shelby. Proactive means they will protect the lives 
of Americans, does it not?
    Mr. Pittle. Yes. That is the best chance we have.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Claybrook, you in your little demonstration here showed 
that tire size has little to do with separation, at least in 
the example that you have presented.

                        IS RECALL BROAD ENOUGH?

    Why would NHTSA not, or why would the company not want to 
participate as long as they are doing it actively in a recall 
to call in the larger tires, or whatever size it is that is off 
the recall, the present recall list, and why would not, should 
not NHTSA--I do not know whether we are going to hear about 
that a little bit later--insist that that take place?
    Ms. Claybrook. Well, first of all NHTSA is doing a further 
investigation of all the data. They first asked for information 
from the companies in May 2000, and they are only just getting 
the information in. It has now been 3\1/2\ months, so they have 
to look at the data.
    They also have due process requirements. They have to 
analyze it. They have to make an initial determination of a 
defect. They have to have a public hearing. The company has to 
be able to respond and then make a final determination of the 
defects, so they have a due process burden that they have to 
carry, and that is appropriate. I agree with that.
    So what the agency did last week I applaud. They asked 
Firestone to recall another 1.4 million tires beyond the 6.5 
million. Firestone refused, and so the agency put out a 
consumer advisory.
    Now, this is the first consumer advisory I know of issued 
by the agency in 15 or 20 years, and consumer advisories are a 
very effective way of both alerting the public as well as 
getting more information, and so I applaud them for doing that.
    The reason the company did not do a larger recall, you will 
have to ask Ford and Firestone. My understanding is that Ford 
took the Firestone claims data, the injury and property damage 
data, and analyzed it and defined the recall that is now 
underway, the 6.5 million recall, by the correlation of the 
injuries and claims to particular tire sizes, but that claims 
data was as of the May 1. A lot of information has come in 
since, but also, importantly, it did not include warranty and 
adjustment data.
    Adjustments are when somebody complains, they bring in a 
bad tire and there is an adjustment made at the dealership. You 
get half-price off, or whatever it is, and I believe that 
looking at other data is important to coming to a conclusion, 
but to me the basic issue is that it is a design defect, and 
when it is a design defect it covers all the tires.
    Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Pittle, do other vehicle owners 
with nonrecalled Firestone tires, have you seen any evidence 
that there may be some concerns about other brands, or other 
models besides the ones----
    Mr. Pittle. I have not seen it expressed either through 
injury data or through our testing, which of course the brand, 
that would not show up.

                      DYNAMIC ROLLOVER TEST NEEDED

    I have seen a continued concern about being able to 
evaluate the roll-over propensity of vehicles sitting in the 
showroom. I want to go back to that, because this is really the 
combination of two unfortunate situations coming together. We 
have a vehicle that has a high center of gravity that is linked 
up with a tire that has a tendency to blow out, and when a tire 
with a high center of gravity blows out it is going to have a 
greater tendency to roll over and cause serious injury or 
death.
    And what consumers really want to know is, how do you 
separate--they know that--I mean, I can tell you that whether 
you are testing refrigerators, automobiles, or televisions, 
they all can look alike, very similar, but they act 
differently, and they each have different characteristics, and 
the ones that are more prone to roll over, have less competent 
handling characteristics, you cannot tell by looking at it. You 
have to test it dynamically to see how it will perform.
    It is much akin to trying to decide how something will 
taste by reading the ingredient list. You really cannot do 
that. You have got to put it to the test, and that is what 
NHTSA has to get back on track to do, get back to dynamic 
testing development.
    Senator Lautenberg. I wonder whether we are at a point in 
time when after seeing this disagreement between Ford and 
Firestone about whether or not--pointing fingers at one 
another, whether or not there should be a receipt, some kind of 
an alert or an alarm that goes out pointing out what the risk 
is with tire inflation.

                  PUBLIC INFORMATION ABOUT TIRE SAFETY

    I can bet you anything that even this day, with all the 
publicity we have seen, including Mr. Nasser's appearances on 
television, plenty of people do not just know what to do, do 
not know about the problem that their families may be facing. 
How do we get that information out there in a sensible way now 
and prospectively? Should there be warning labels just like you 
might see on cigarettes, or the right to know about chemical 
factories in the neighborhood? The right to know ought to be an 
integral part of what it is that these products represent by 
way of a threat to safety.
    Ms. Claybrook. Well, I would certainly suggest anyone who 
has these tires drive more slowly. One of the issues here is 
that the speed limit has gone up from 55 miles an hour to 65 
and 70 miles an hour, so people are going faster. They buy 
these vehicles to go on vacations and trips often, so they are 
driving 4, 5, 6 hours at a time. The tires get very hot, and 
when the tires get hot, that is when the tread separation is 
likely to occur.
    And this heat build-up, that is the reason this issue of 
the climate was first mentioned, because in colder weather the 
heat is dissipated faster. In hot weather it is not dissipated 
faster. In addition, these are truck tires. Truck tires were 
really designed for pick-up trucks, and these are tires that 
are now on vehicles that people use in the same way they use 
cars.
    I would say Ford Motor Company does put the specifications 
for these tires on paper, and require certain specifications 
for the tires and the tire manufacturer then manufactures them, 
so there is not a disconnect in the sense of not knowing what 
this tire is when it is bought by the vehicle manufacturer, and 
the vehicle manufacturer tests them and so do the tire 
manufacturers, and the vehicle manufacturer tests them on the 
vehicle.
    That is the reason that they decided to lower it to 26 psi, 
because they tested it with a higher psi and the vehicle rolled 
over, so then they decided to lower the psi, the pounds per 
square inch inflation of the tires.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Specter.
    Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

           FOREIGN COUNTRIES' RESPONSE TO DEFECTS AND RECALL

    Ms. Claybrook, you testified that the Venezuelan 
authorities are considering prosecution for involuntary 
manslaughter. That, in my judgment, would be grossly 
insufficient.
    Involuntary manslaughter is an offense where there is gross 
negligence. That does not comprehend conduct where there is 
knowledge that there is a defect which could cause the death of 
another. Where that knowledge is present in advance, that is 
equated in common law with malice, which is sufficient to 
constitute a charge of second degree murder.
    I know you are not responsible for what Venezuela does, but 
I think that point ought to be emphasized, that this is not a 
matter of negligence or gross negligence, which would give rise 
to a charge of involuntary manslaughter.
    Ms. Claybrook. Senator Specter, I would just say there is a 
question, and of course with translation it is somewhat 
difficult for us to be sure of exactly what the authority is 
under Venezuelan law, so my feeling is, although I do not know 
this for a fact, is that that is probably what they thought 
they had the authority to do.
    Senator Specter. Ms. Claybrook, you testified that criminal 
penalties ought not to be ordinarily used in matters of 
defective products. How about this case, where key Ford 
officials and key Firestone officials knew about the defect, 
evident by having products recalled from Saudi Arabia? Is this 
the kind of a matter, in your judgment, that a criminal penalty 
would be appropriate?
    Ms. Claybrook. I think that it is. I think there should be 
a full investigation, of course, and complete documentation, 
which there certainly is not at this time, but I certainly 
think that it should be the subject of consideration.
    Senator Specter. Mr. Pittle, I note you nodding in the 
affirmative.
    Mr. Pittle. Well, I am just thinking----
    Senator Specter. Excuse me, I have not come to my question, 
but I do not want to take an affirmative nod into the record 
without giving you a chance to answer.

                          EFFECTIVE DETERRANTS

    You testified that a fine on a failure to report is not an 
effective deterrent. I think that is pretty obvious. Do you 
think a second degree murder prosecution against the officials 
at Ford and Firestone who were shown to have known that these 
defects were present and failed to act to recall these 
defective products would be an effective deterrent?
    Mr. Pittle. I think that would be an effective deterrent, 
yes.
    Senator Specter. I note an affirmative nod on what Ms. 
Claybrook was testifying to, when I asked her the question as 
to whether she thought this was an appropriate case for 
criminal prosecution. Do you agree with her?
    Mr. Pittle. I was nodding to my own memory of my own 
experience in this area, and I was not nodding specifically to 
her response.
    Senator Specter. Good. We will give you a chance to answer 
the question verbally and vocally.
    Mr. Pittle. When I was at the Product Safety Commission we 
found on a number of occasions in which we had the authority to 
impose criminal penalties, when there was evidence that a 
manufacturer knew about and did not recall a serious hazard, we 
ran into situations where when the rubber meets the road--not a 
good analogy in this case--it would find that the U.S. Attorney 
might say, this is not a very strong, exciting, big enough 
case, I think I am not going to bring it, or you would find----
    Senator Specter. Well, never mind those cases. How about 
this case?
    Mr. Pittle. I think this case is clearly big enough, 
serious enough, broad enough and, depending upon what the 
investigation brings out about the facts leading up to where we 
are now, that it would go forward.
    Senator Specter. There is a very heated debate in the 
Congress about the issue of punitive damages, and my experience 
both as a civil defense lawyer and as a representing 
plaintiff's, and before that as a district attorney in 
Philadelphia, where you have the criminal sanctions, but my 
experience has shown that punitive damages do not amount to 
much because the awards, which look gigantic in the newspapers, 
do not hold up.
    I know of a case where Ford Motor Company had a defective 
brake mechanism which they knew existed and did not recall, and 
a 3-year-old child was killed when a truck backed over the 
child and the verdict was $153 million, since reduced to $69 
million, and on appeal that--it doubtless will be reduced 
further, and it takes the most extraordinary kind of litigation 
effort to carry one of those cases forward, and there is no 
doubt that when you talk about punitive damages it is cost 
effective for the company not to fix the product.

                          CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

    You have the famous Pinto case, where the documents which 
were finally discovered and disclosed, that here again Ford 
calculated that it was cheaper to pay the damages than it was 
to repair the vehicle.
    That sort of a situation, it seems to me, just cries out 
for criminal prosecution with cases established of knowing what 
has happened.
    Ms. Claybrook. Senator Specter, if I could comment on the 
Pinto case, there was actually a criminal prosecution in that 
case by a local prosecutor in Indiana who lost the case, and I 
think for lack of resources, utter lack of resources, because 
that was the only way a criminal prosecution could be brought 
in the case, because there was no Federal authority to bring a 
criminal prosection for refusal and failure to recall.
    Senator Specter. Ms. Claybrook, do you think that, in your 
list of recommendations for legislative changes, that there 
ought to be Federal legislation establishing criminal 
liability, homicide, or murder in the second degree, for 
reckless disregard of the safety of others on products which 
move in interstate commerce?
    Ms. Claybrook. I do.
    Senator Specter. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.
    Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Claybrook, I 
have known you for many years. Sometimes we have been in 
adversarial positions, but I compliment you on your statement 
today and on your recommendations. You have been very helpful 
to me when we were acting on the zero-tolerance, under-age 
drinking and driving amendment, and I want to publicly thank 
you for that.
    You were the NHTSA Administrator during the largest tire 
recall, the Firestone 500 recall. You stated that in both cases 
Firestone has withheld information. Do you believe this is a 
problem that is peculiar to Firestone, or is it shared by other 
tire manufacturers?
    Ms. Claybrook. I do not think it is peculiar to Firestone. 
I certainly think that it occurs with some frequency at the 
Department of Transportation as to other manufacturers. There 
has been clearly withholding of information by companies, and I 
think the reasons why are that they have not had sufficient 
penalties. They have not had civil penalties. They have not had 
criminal penalties. They have not had penalties of withholding 
documents per day as opposed to just for each document.
    If you look at a comparison of a case developed by the 
Department of Transportation, NHTSA on a particular recall, and 
then you look at the file of a really first class trial 
attorney who has gone after documents in a similar case, you 
will see that the trial attorney has many more documents and 
understanding of the case and the internal decisionmaking 
process of the company than does the Department of 
Transportation, and the reason why is because the court can 
sanction the company and the agency cannot, and often does not.
    Senator Byrd. What about the auto manufacturers?
    Ms. Claybrook. I was including them in that statement.

                             SAFETY OF SUVS

    Senator Byrd. Do you believe that sports utility vehicles 
can be reengineered to be safer for the occupants, or are they 
inherently unsafe because of the gravity problem?
    Ms. Claybrook. I think they can be reengineered, and I 
understand that the Ford Explorer is being reengineered for the 
year 2002. The chairman of Ford has said that--he acknowledged 
about 3 or 4 months ago that these vehicles did have to be 
redesigned, and I compliment him and the company on being up 
front about that.
    These are cash cows for these companies. They bring in huge 
profits, and generally the auto companies' view is that what 
sold yesterday will sell tomorrow until we know it does not, 
and then we will change it, and I think much of their 
resistance to not changing the vehicle design is because they 
have been so popular, but I think this case in many ways has 
informed the American public that they are susceptible to roll-
over and they need to be redesigned, and I think it is going to 
push every company to do that.
    And if there is any solace for the families of the people 
who have died and been injured, it is that I think it is going 
to spur some major change, but I do not think it ought to just 
be within the companies. I think the Department of 
Transportation ought to issue a roll-over standard that is a 
dynamic testing standard that makes it clear that these 
vehicles are not going to be these unknown killers 
unnecessarily.
    Senator Byrd. Ms. Claybrook, your testimony is very 
forthright. You are very knowledgeable, and I want to 
compliment you and thank you for your statement, and also thank 
you, Mr. Pittle.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Domenici.
    Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I very much would like to 
hear from some of the company witnesses, and I want to thank 
both of the witnesses.

                 PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS TO BE STRENGTHENED

    From my standpoint it was not only the companies you have 
told us here today that need to do some fixing up, but our own 
agency obviously is very weak. Either that, or we do not 
understand the situation, but it would seem to me that safety--
trying to protect the public in terms of automobiles and 
tires--from what you have told us, seems not to be a very 
important part of the life of this agency in charge of safety.
    Now, maybe the companies do a great job. Perhaps they do, I 
think considering how many vehicles are made every year and how 
many are bought and how many are on the roads. I am not 
suggesting we take over the companies one iota, but we must 
have--this has to be a case of indicating we have got to 
strengthen the agency, and we have got to focus in on this 
particular one and see what we can do to get it repaired and to 
move on from there.
    So I thank both of you. It has been a very enlightening 
morning.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
    Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know the time 
is moving along. I really am going to ask Ms. Claybrook one 
question, acknowledging the wonderful role that Mr. Pittle has 
played in both his role at the Consumer Products Safety 
Commission, which I am an appropriator of, as well as now.
    Ms. Claybrook, we really had an unfortunate historic 
situation here. In 1970 Ralph Nader wrote his book, Unsafe at 
Any Speed. And 30 years later, people driving these vehicles 
and on these tires continue to be unsafe at any speed, and 
there have been 15 accidents in Maryland, no deaths, but every 
accident is a tragedy or a death waiting to happen.

        NEED FOR EFFECTIVE QUALITY INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

    Let me go to my question. First, thank you, because of 
telling me about the early warning. It is an issue I want to 
take up with Dr. Bailey, but here is the question. Right now in 
my home State of Maryland, to protect the food supply of the 
American people we have inspectors at the chicken factory right 
now who are getting ready the wonderful delicacies that come 
out of Maryland to feed the Nation. The fact is that we have 
inspectors in the factory, on the line, worried about 
salmonella and all the other kinds of things, and they are 
there to protect the American people.
    My question, then, goes to this. What are the inspectors at 
an automobile car manufacturing plant? Do we have mandatory 
inspection? Do we have mandatory reporting that comes out of 
that? Do we have this? If we can bring inspectors to look at 
our chicken parts, should we bring in inspectors to look at our 
auto parts?
    Ms. Claybrook. The way that the National Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act is constructed, the companies self-certify they are 
in compliance with the standards. If the agency has reason to 
believe, or is concerned, it can send inspectors. It has 
authority to send inspectors, but there are no routine, regular 
inspectors out there on the line, but what the agency does is, 
it takes the product and it randomly buys them from dealers, so 
the companies do not know where they are buying it, and they 
test them to assure that they are, in fact, in compliance with 
the standards, and I will have to say that most of the time 
they are.
    Part of the problem in this case is the standard is so old 
and insufficient that it passed the standard. This tire passed 
the standard in 1997, and so the standards are out of date. 
They need to be updated.
    I would not necessarily change the system. The one 
recommendation the Department has made and I endorse is that 
there be a statutory requirement that before they can self-
certify they have to have tested, and they have to have test 
results that show that they have complied, and the Department 
can then ask for those tests any time they want.
    Senator Mikulski. So you would not put in inspectors in the 
factories?
    Ms. Claybrook. I do not think so.
    Senator Mikulski. Again, would you have mandatory 
submission of quality control reports and then spot inspection 
other than retail sampling?
    Ms. Claybrook. I think the Department would be completely 
overwhelmed. As I said, there are only about 20 people in the 
agency who work on defects, I think or engineers or 
investigators, and the agency would have to be vastly enlarged 
in order to have that capacity. I think the better way to do it 
is to have the statutory requirement that they must do tests to 
certify their compliance, so any time the agency----
    Senator Mikulski. And severe penalties if they submit 
deceptive or faulty----
    Ms. Claybrook. And any time the agency wants they can ask 
for these tests and look at these tests, and if there is 
falsification of the tests, then they are in real trouble, and 
I do not think there would be in most cases anyway.
    Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Byrd. And with new and updated standards.
    Ms. Claybrook. A new and updated standard for tire safety, 
right.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Kohl.
    Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement 
and a question for both of you. In the wake of these reports 
about faulty tires and the accidents that they have most 
certainly caused, there has been a great deal of blame-laying 
about why this information took so long to get out into the 
public domain.

                          EFFECT OF GAG ORDERS

    One thing I believe is abundantly clear. Many of these 
cases were settled in and out of court with confidentiality 
agreements, which agreements kept information, crucial 
information about millions of defective tires, behind closed 
doors and away from the public.
    The question is, first, is there any doubt in your minds 
that the secrecy orders led to more injuries, accidents, and 
deaths, and second, I have a bill with bipartisan support that 
would make the secrecy orders much tougher to get when health 
and safety issues are at stake.
    In the wake of these tragedies, do you believe that this 
bill should be unanimously supported and voted upon?
    Ms. Claybrook. Well, first of all I do believe that gag 
orders kept this information secret inappropriately, and 
resulted in the death and injury of lots of people. I think 
these orders are unethical. I think among other things the 
American Bar Association ought to declare them as unethical.
    As you know, we supported your legislation. My only concern 
is that I do not favor the Federal Government telling State 
courts what to do, and I am very concerned about that.
    The other issue is that every time your bill starts to come 
up they want to put a whole bunch of other things that undercut 
the tort system on top of your bill, so there is some 
complexity there, as you know, but certainly I do not believe 
that these protective orders ought to be allowed.
    Senator Kohl. Mr. Pittle.
    Mr. Pittle. That is Consumers Union's view as well. We 
think that these gag orders have clearly led to the withholding 
of information that if it had been made public this hearing 
would have occurred months ago, maybe years ago, and the 
injuries and deaths that have occurred during the interim would 
not have occurred, and Consumers Union does support the 
abolition of gag orders and agreements where public safety 
information is sealed away and left to be out of view while the 
product goes on and injures or kills more people.
    Senator Kohl. Well, we are committed to getting this 
legislation passed if not this year, next, and I trust we will 
have your full support and cooperation in this effort, and I 
thank you so much.
    Senator Shelby. I want to thank both of you for appearing 
here and giving your testimony, and I appreciate having been 
able to work with both of you on it.
    On our second panel, we will have Mr. Ono, the chief 
executive officer of Bridgestone/Firestone, and he will be 
making the opening statement and then will be replaced by Gary 
Crigger, the executive vice president of Bridgestone/Firestone.
    We also have Helen Petrauskus, vice president, 
environmental and safety engineering, who will be testifying 
for Ford Motor Company, and Dr. Sue Bailey, the Administrator 
of NHTSA will testify on behalf of the Federal Government.
    We welcome all of you to the hearing. Mr. Ono, if you will 
take the mike closer to you, people will be able to hear you. 
If you will, sir. It is not too sensitive. Mr. Ono, your 
written statement will be made a part of the record, and you 
can proceed as you wish. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF MASATOSHI ONO, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF 
            EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, 
            INC.

ACCOMPANIED BY:
        GARY CRIGGER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS AND PLANNING, 
            BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC.
        BOB WYANT, VICE PRESIDENT, QUALITY ASSURANCE, BRIDGESTONE/
            FIRESTONE, INC.

    Mr. Ono. Chairman Shelby and members of the subcommittee, 
thank you for providing me with this opportunity to appear 
before you here today. I have my speech so that I may deliver 
in English. However, I must use a translator, and two of my 
senior executives will respond to your questions. I have never 
made a public appearance like this before, so I am more than a 
little bit nervous.
    As the chief executive officer, I come before you to 
apologize to you and especially the American people, especially 
the families who have lost loved ones in these terrible roll-
over accidents. Also, I come to accept full and personal 
responsibility on behalf of Bridgestone/Firestone for the 
events that led to this hearing.
    Whenever people are hurt or fatally injured in automobile 
accidents it is tragic. Whenever people are injured while 
riding on Firestone tires, it is cause for great concern among 
Bridgestone/Firestone management and our 35,000 American 
employees.
    On August 8 we met with the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. We reviewed what we knew at that time about the 
performance of the tires which are associated with the tread 
separation and accidents primarily on the Ford Explorer 
vehicles. On the following day, August 9, Bridgestone/Firestone 
announced a voluntary safety recall of 6.5 million tires. Since 
that time, our highest priorities have been to complete the 
recall as quickly as possible and to determine the root cause 
of the tire failures.
    At this time, we have replaced nearly 2 million of the 
tires. We have been maximizing worldwide production of 
replacements for tires that have been recalled. To speed up the 
process we are using our competitors' tires and airlifting 
additional replacement tires, and these shipments will continue 
as long as necessary.
    We have a team working around the clock, using all our 
available resources to try and determine the root causes for 
the tire problem. We are reviewing every aspect of our 
manufacturing and quality control processes. This includes 
microscopic examination of many recalled tires.
    In addition, we are working with Ford Motor Company and 
their experts to thoroughly examine every possible cause. 
Unfortunately, I am not able to give you a conclusive cause at 
this time. However, you have my word that we will continue 
until we find the cause.
    While we search for the root cause we are also undertaking 
the following actions. First, we will appoint an outside, 
independent investigator to assist in tire analysis and 
determine the root cause of the tire problem we have 
experienced. We are taking this action to help assure you and 
the public that the Firestone tires are reliable now and in the 
future.
    Second, we will fully cooperate with this committee about 
the safety as well as problems that have occurred with our 
tires. We will release data and information in order to assure 
consumer safety with our products.
    Third, we are accelerating the roll-out of a Nation-wide 
consumer education program. The program will be run through 
more than 7,000 company stores and Firestone dealers. It will 
provide consumers with information on proper tire maintenance 
through the use of in-store videos, showroom displays, 
brochures, windshield tags, and tire pressure gauges.
    Fourth, we pledge to continue working with the NHTSA 
towards developing early understanding and complete reporting 
of accidents, and developing approaches that make it easier for 
drivers to determine tire pressure.
    With your permission, I would now like to ask two of my 
senior executives to join me so that we can more efficiently 
respond to your questions. Mr. Gary Crigger is executive vice 
president, business planning, and Mr. Bob Wyant, vice president 
of quality assurance.
    Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                  PREPARED STATEMENT OF MASATOSHI ONO

    Chairman Shelby and members of the subcommittee: as chief executive 
officer, I come before you to apologize to you, the American people and 
especially to the families who have lost loved ones in these terrible 
rollover accidents. I also come to accept full and personal 
responsibility on behalf of Bridgestone/Firestone for the events that 
led to this hearing. Whenever people are hurt or fatally injured in 
automobile accidents, it is tragic. Whenever people are injured while 
riding on Firestone tires, it is cause for great concern among 
Bridgestone/Firestone management and our 35,000 American employees.
    On August 8, we met with the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. We reviewed what we knew--at that time--about the 
performance of the tires which are associated with tread separations 
and accidents primarily on the Ford Explorer vehicle. On the following 
day, August 9, Bridgestone/Firestone announced a voluntary safety 
recall of 6.5 million tires.
    Since that time, our highest priorities have been to complete the 
recall as quickly as possible and to determine the root cause of the 
tire failures.
    At this time we have replaced nearly two million of the recalled 
tires. We have maximized worldwide production of replacements for tires 
that have been recalled. To speed up the process, we are using our 
competitors' tires and air lifting additional replacement tires and 
these shipments will continue as long as necessary.
    We have a team working around the clock using all our available 
resources to try and determine the root causes for the tire problem. We 
are reviewing every aspect of our manufacturing and quality control 
processes. This includes microscopic examination of many recalled 
tires. In addition, we are working with Ford Motor Company and experts 
to thoroughly examine every possible cause.
    Unfortunately, I am not able to give you a conclusive cause at this 
time. However, you have my word that we will continue until we find the 
cause.
    While we search for the root cause, we are also undertaking the 
following actions:
    First, we will appoint an outside independent investigator to 
assist in tire analysis and determine the root cause of the tire 
problem we have experienced. We are taking this action to help assure 
you and the public that Firestone tires are reliable now and in the 
future.
    Second, we will fully cooperate with this committee about the 
safety as well as problems that have occurred with our tires. We will 
release data and information in order to assure consumer safety with 
our products.
    Third, we are accelerating the rollout of a nationwide consumer 
education program. The program will be run through more than 7,000 
company stores and Firestone dealers. It will provide consumers with 
information on proper tire maintenance through the use of in-store 
videos, showroom displays, brochures, windshield tags and tire pressure 
gauges.
    Fourth, we pledge to continue working with NHTSA toward developing 
early understandings and complete reporting of accidents and developing 
approaches that make it easier for drivers to determine tire pressure.
    In closing, this year Firestone is observing its 100th anniversary. 
It is a proud history. Henry Ford used Firestone tires on the original 
model-T. For 100 years, millions of families have placed their trust 
and faith in the good people of Firestone. We feel a heavy 
responsibility to make certain that we are worthy still of your 
continued trust and confidence.
    With your permission, I would now like to ask two of my senior 
executives to join me so that we can more efficiently respond to your 
questions. Mr. Gary Crigger is executive vice president, business 
planning and Mr. Bob Wyant is vice president, quality assurance.
    Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HELEN PETRAUSKU, VICE PRESIDENT, 
            ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ENGINEERING, FORD 
            MOTOR COMPANY

    Senator Shelby. Ms. Petrauskus, you are appearing on behalf 
of Ford, right?
    Ms. Petrauskus. Yes, I am.
    Senator Shelby. You may proceed.
    Ms. Petrauskus. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the 
committee. Since we at Ford first found out about the problem 
of tread separation we have been guided by three principles. 
First, we will do whatever we can to guarantee our customer 
safety. We are committed not only to their physical safety but 
to their feelings of security when they are driving their 
vehicles. We, too, are deeply troubled by the fact that there 
are defective tires on some of our vehicles.
    Second, we are working hard to replace bad tires with good 
tires, and that includes making sure we understand the scope of 
the problem and finding the specific cause of the problem, and 
then finally we will continue to be open about any data, 
statistics, information that we have, and we will share it with 
you as soon as we know it.
    Mr. Chairman, you chastised me not to come in here and tell 
you that this is a tire issue, and I am not going to do that, 
but I do want to talk about the safety of the Explorer, and the 
first chart I have shows the Explorer safety record, and it is 
a safety record that is based on the best and the only Federal 
safety data base for serious accidents, or in this case 
fatalities. Literally every fatality that occurs on the 
Nation's highways is reflected on that data base, and I wish 
those fatalities could be zero, but they are not.
    What I want to show you is for the 10-year history of the 
Explorer since it was first introduced it is safer in all 
accident types, compared to other sport utility vehicles, by a 
substantial amount, and what is most important in the issues we 
have been talking about today, it is safer from a roll-over 
standpoint by a substantial amount compared to other sport 
utility vehicles.
    Jerry, if I could have the next slide just quickly.
    So if we compare based on this best data base that our 
country has, the safety performance of the Explorer, and we 
find ourselves looking at it in kind of a cold-blooded way, the 
number of fatalities that take place per 100 million miles of 
driving, what we find is there are 1.6 fatalities per 100 
million miles driven for the average passenger car, and we find 
for the average SUV that number is 1.3, and for the Explorer 
that number is 1.0, and we want to do everything we can to make 
it lower. It is a very safe vehicle.
    Let me just add to that, that of the Explorers we produced 
we have millions, probably 2\1/2\, between 2\1/2\ and 3 million 
Goodyear tires installed on these Explorers over this period of 
time, and they have the same specification as the Firestone 
tire, including the same specification for recommended tire 
pressure, and they have not experienced problems and, indeed, 
Explorers equipped with nonrecalled tires have not exhibited 
those problems.
    Having said all that, the most important thing now is that 
we strongly support Firestone's decision to recall the 15-inch 
ATX and the Decatur, Illinois-built Wilderness AT tires. Based 
on the Firestone data that we have, we believe these are the 
problem tires, and in our written statement we have submitted a 
more detailed analysis.
    In terms of customer focus, our top priority is to replace 
faulty tires as fast as possible. As of September 1 over 1\1/2\ 
million tires have been replaced.
    We have worked with the entire tire industry, the worldwide 
tire industry, not just Bridgestone/Firestone but all the other 
tire producers around the world, to increase their production 
of 15-inch tires, and they will do so at the rate of about 
250,000 tires a month by the end of this month, and we have 
suspended production at three of our assembly plants so that 
those trucks with new tires that were headed for our plants 
could head for our dealerships and bring tires to our customers 
faster. In this regard, we have engaged about 3,300 Ford and 
Lincoln Mercury dealers to participate in this.
    Let me turn to the overseas action. When reports of tread 
separations in Saudi Arabia first came to our attention we 
asked Firestone to investigate. They concluded that the tire 
failures were due to external causes such as poor repairs, road 
hazard damage, and extreme operating conditions. Given the 
problems our customers were having, we, Ford, decided to 
replace the tires with a more puncture-resistant tire.
    Another market in which we have experienced tire problems 
is Venezuela. Our ability to understand that situation is 
complicated by the fact that about three-quarters of the tires 
that we used in Venezuela were locally produced, as opposed to 
shipped from the United States. Again, Firestone concluded that 
the tread separations were caused by poor repairs, road hazard 
damage, and operating conditions. In May, we, Ford, began 
replacing all these Firestone tires.
    Concern about the safety of all of our customers, including 
our U.S. customers, drove us to look aggressively for evidence 
of a defect in the United States at the very same time we were 
taking actions overseas. As early as April of last year, we 
were searching all of the available data files available to us, 
and by that I mean all of our own complaint records, all of our 
own warranty records as well as the Government records.
    We asked Firestone to check all of their records, and we 
had new tires tested under three separate, very severe test 
conditions to try to cause the tread separation to happen, and 
then I think very importantly last fall we kicked off a tire 
evaluation program in Texas, Nevada, and Arizona.
    In all of this we found no defect. Our first evidence of a 
defect came when NHTSA opened its investigation and required 
Firestone to assemble and provide data on property damage, 
personal injury, and lawsuits, and Ford insisted on obtaining 
that data as well. When we received that data on July 27, we 
quickly analyzed it and identified the problem tires that were 
recalled on August 9.
    The chart we have there shows you and summarizes our 
analysis, and what that analysis shows is, if we look at 
property damage claims, injury claims on a per-tire basis and 
adjust it for the volume of tires that are in use, we see very 
significant differences in the performance of the tires that 
were recalled as opposed to the ones that were not recalled.
    In conclusion, our mission remains to replace bad tires 
with good tires as quickly as possible. The safety, the trust, 
the peace of mind of our customers is paramount to Ford Motor 
Company.
    Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Helen Petrauskas


    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I am Helen 
Petrauskas, Vice President of Environmental and Safety Engineering. I 
have been with Ford Motor Company for almost 30 years.
    I am deeply troubled by the fact that there are defective tires on 
some of our vehicles. As you know, Firestone manufactured and warranted 
these tires. However, because so many of these tires were used as 
original equipment on Ford products, we have taken extraordinary steps 
to support this recall and ensure the safety of our customers. Ford 
Motor Company is absolutely committed to doing the right thing to 
protect our customers and to maintain their trust.
    Throughout this period, we have been guided by three principles. 
First, we will do whatever we can to guarantee our customers' safety. 
We are committed not only to their physical safety, but also their 
feelings of security when driving our vehicles. Second, we are working 
hard to find and replace bad tires with good tires. That includes 
making sure that we understand the scope of the problem and finding the 
cause of the problem. Third, we will continue to be open about any 
data, statistics or information that we have, and will share anything 
new as soon as we know it.

                         ACTIONS WE HAVE TAKEN

    Now, let's talk about the actions Ford has taken to support the 
recall and why we believe these are the right actions.
    First, this is a tire issue, not a vehicle issue. We have millions 
of Goodyear tires on 1995 through 1997 Explorers--the same 
specification tire operating under the same conditions--and they 
haven't experienced these problems.
    Furthermore, the Explorer is one of the safest SUVs on the road. 
Proof of this is our exemplary safety record over the last decade. The 
most recent data from the Department of Transportation show that the 
Explorer has a lower fatality rate than both the average passenger car 
and competitive SUV, as shown in Attachment 1. Additionally, Explorer's 
fatality rate in rollover accidents is 26 percent lower than other 
compact SUVs (Attachment 2).
    Second, we strongly support Firestone's decision to recall 15 inch 
ATX and Decatur-built Wilderness AT tires. Based on the Firestone data 
we have, we've determined that these tires are problem tires. We have 
made a detailed analysis of the Firestone claims data (which is the 
only comprehensive data covering this matter). We have made our 
analysis available to our customers, to the public, to Firestone, to 
the media and to NHTSA. The chart in attachment 3 clearly shows the 
problem tires. As you can see, they are the Firestone ATX and ATXII 
tires, and the Decatur, Illinois-built Wilderness AT tires, all in the 
size P235/75 R15--the 15 inch size.
    A more detailed explanation of our analysis of Firestone's claims 
data is included in our attachments. As you can see in Attachment 4, 
the P235/75R15 clearly had a significantly higher number of claims than 
other tire sizes, at 2,030 claims, compared to the next highest tire 
size, with 137 claims. The claims were broken out by complaint, as 
shown in attachments 5 and 6. Of the total 2,030 claims, 1,424 claims 
were related to tread separation.
    We looked at the claims rate for the 15 inch ATX and Wilderness 
tires in the 1996 production year--the only year both products were 
produced in significant volumes. The ATX claims rate for tread 
separation was eleven times higher than the Wilderness claims rate 
(Attachment 7).
    To better understand the population of bad Wilderness tires, we 
looked at the tread separation claims rate by plant and production 
year, as shown in Attachment 8. The Decatur, Illinois plant clearly 
showed a different pattern than other Firestone plants. For example, in 
the 1996 production year, the Decatur plant had a 66.3 claims rate (per 
million tires) compared with a 6.6 claims rate for other plants.
    We looked at the data in even more detail, analyzing claims by time 
in service at claim date, tire production year, and plant. Again, the 
P235/75R15 ATX and Wilderness tires produced at the Decatur plant 
showed a clear defect trend (Attachments 9 through 11). And, we did 
look at both 15 inch and 16 inch tires for tread separation claims 
between 1995 and 1999 (Attachment 3). Again, the 15 inch ATX and 
Wilderness tires manufactured at Decatur showed significantly higher 
claims rates than other Firestone plants. As you can see from the 
chart, the claims rate for the Wilderness AT 16 inch tire has been 
extremely low--0 for Decatur and 2.3 at other plants.
    This is how we isolated the bad tires. What we still don't know is 
why these tires fail. We are working hard on that.

                             CUSTOMER FOCUS

    As I said, our top priority is to replace faulty tires as fast as 
possible. I'd like to highlight a few of the many things we have done 
to support Firestone's recall and speed replacement. As of September 1, 
2000, about 1.5 million tires have been replaced--about 23 percent of 
the total population of affected tires. We worked with the tire 
industry to increase production of 15-inch tires by more than 250,000 
tires per month by the end of September. We have suspended production 
at three assembly plants, adding approximately 70,000 tires to the 
replacement population. We have engaged 3,100 Ford and Lincoln-Mercury 
dealers to perform tire replacements.
    We've also made a major effort to communicate information about the 
Firestone recall to our customers. For example, we have opened an 
additional call center to deal specifically with inquiries on the tire 
recall. We are using our website to provide detailed information on the 
recall action. And we are running national and local newspaper and 
television ads to alert customers to the recall and show them how to 
tell if their vehicles are affected.

                            OVERSEAS ACTIONS
 
   I would also like to comment on our actions overseas. When reports 
of tread separation in Gulf Coast Countries came to our attention, we 
asked Firestone to investigate. They concluded that the tire failures 
were due to external causes, such as poor repairs, road hazard damage, 
and extreme operating conditions. Given the problems our customers were 
having, we decided to replace the tires with a more puncture resistant 
tire.
    Another market where we have experienced tire problems is 
Venezuela. The situation in Venezuela is complicated by the fact that 
about three-quarters of the tires were locally produced. Again, 
Firestone concluded that the tread separations were caused by poor 
repairs, road hazard damage, and extreme operating conditions. In May, 
we began replacing all the Firestone tires on Ford Explorers and 
certain light trucks in Venezuela.
    Concern about the safety of all of our customers, including our 
U.S. customers, drove us to look aggressively for evidence of a defect 
in the U.S. at the same time we were taking actions overseas. I share 
this with you, not to finger point at Firestone, but simply to tell you 
what we did. As early as April of 1999, we were searching all available 
data bases--our own and the government's. We asked Firestone to check 
its records. And we had new tires tested under three separate, severe 
test conditions to try to cause tread separation to happen. Last Fall, 
we kicked off a tire inspection test program in the Southwest of the 
U.S. No defect trend was found.
    When NHTSA opened their investigation, and required Firestone to 
assemble and provide data on property damage, personal injury, and 
lawsuits, Ford insisted on obtaining the data as well. When we received 
the data late in July, we quickly analyzed it and identified the 
problem tires that were recalled August 9.
    It has been standard practice in the automotive industry that tires 
are the only part of the vehicle not warranted by the vehicle 
manufacturer. They are the only part for which vehicle manufacturers do 
not receive field performance data.
    Through all this, we were always open and sought only to find the 
facts and do the right thing for our customers.
                               conclusion
    Our mission remains to replace bad tires with good tires as quickly 
as possible. The safety, trust and peace of mind of our consumers are 
paramount to Ford Motor Company.

                              Attachment 1



                              Attachment 2


                              Attachment 3


                              Attachment 4


                              Attachment 5


                              Attachment 6


                              Attachment 7


                              Attachment 8


                              Attachment 9


                             Attachment 10


                             Attachment 11


STATEMENT OF HON. SUE BAILEY, M.D., ADMINISTRATOR, 
            NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 
            ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF 
            TRANSPORTATION
    Senator Shelby. Dr. Bailey.
    Dr. Bailey. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am 
pleased to appear before you this morning----
    Senator Shelby. Would you bring the mike towards you a 
little more?
    Dr. Bailey [continuing]. To address the investigation of 
Firestone ATX, ATX-2, and Wilderness tires. Secretary Slater 
refers to safety as the North Star of the Department of 
Transportation, and under his leadership we are committed to 
preventing deaths and injuries in motor vehicle crashes. Our 
program to investigate safety defects is the key part of that 
mission. I will give you a quick overview of the agency's 
authority to investigate safety defects and describe the 
procedures that the agency follows and outline the Firestone 
investigation.
    First, our authority. Congress passed the basic motor 
vehicle safety law 34 years ago in 1966 and amended the law in 
1974 to establish the current notification and remedy 
provisions. In brief, the law provides that if a manufacturer 
decides one of its products contains a defect that relates to 
safety, the manufacturer must notify the agency and owners to 
provide a remedy at no cost to the owners.
    When the agency's screening process identifies a possible 
safety defect, the Office of Defects Investigation takes steps 
to open an investigation as a preliminary evaluation (PE). We 
inform the manufacturer and the public at this time.
    If our review at the end of a PE suggests that further 
investigation is warranted, we move the investigation to a 
second stage. That is the engineering analysis (EA) stage, and 
that is where we are at this point. In that phase we do 
appropriate test surveys and obtain additional information from 
the manufacturer. After the EA phase of the investigation, 
additional steps may ultimately be taken, which would lead the 
administrator to decide that a defect exists and order the 
manufacturer to recall. If necessary, we could go to court to 
enforce that action.
    Our investigation of Firestone has reached the engineering 
analysis stage. Firestone originally began producing the tires 
under investigation in 1991 and by the end of 1999 
approximately 47 million have been produced. It is important to 
see this in context, because by that time NHTSA had received 46 
reports scattered over a 9-year period involving just these 
tires. The tires were on a variety of vehicles, primarily on 
Ford Explorers.
    In view of the large number of tires that had been 
produced, a variety of possible causes of tire failure and the 
fact that all types of tires can and do fail in use, the 
reports that we received did not warrant opening a defect 
investigation regarding these tires at that time, again nearly 
a 10-year period, 46 complaints. Furthermore, the informal 
submission by State Farm in 1998 of 21 claims also was over a 
period of several years and included a population of 40-million 
plus tires, so that also did not trigger an investigation.
    The situation changed rapidly following the airing of a 
news story at KHOU in Houston on February 7 that dramatized the 
question of tire safety. In addition to highlighting two 
fatalities, the story alluded to a number of other crashes and 
fatalities. Upon learning of the story, we contacted the 
station to obtain more details about the incidents. They have 
not given us at this time the information that we had 
requested, but the growing publicity generated other reports to 
us, including several provided by other media outlets and 
plaintiffs' attorneys.
    Over the next few weeks we were able to verify many of the 
reports and opened a preliminary evaluation on May 2. At that 
time, the agency was aware of 90 complaints, including reports 
of 33 crashes and four fatalities.
    Information accumulated rapidly as a result of the 
investigation and the attendant publicity. By August 1 we had 
193 complaints alleging tread separations on these tires with 
21 reported fatalities.
    In a meeting of August 4 we suggested that Firestone 
consider recalling the tires. On August 9, Firestone announced 
that it would recall 14.4 million tires. As of August 31 we 
have 1,400 complaints with reports of 88 fatalities and 250 
injuries.
    NHTSA is continuing its investigation to determine whether 
additional tires need to be recalled. If we discover 
information that indicates a problem in any other tires we will 
move promptly to urge Firestone to expand its recall. We are 
closely monitoring the recall to ensure that Ford and Firestone 
promptly replace all defective tires.
    Our review of data from Firestone has already disclosed 
that other tire models and sizes of tires under investigation 
have rates of tread separation as high or higher than the tires 
that Firestone is recalling. For that reason, on August 30 we 
recommended to Firestone that it expand its recall to include 
these additional tires. When Firestone declined to expand the 
recall, we issued a consumer advisory on September 1 to advise 
owners of these tires and to take actions to assure their 
safety.
    We now know that in September 1999 Ford asked Firestone to 
replace Wilderness tires mounted on Explorers that had been 
sold in the States around the Arabian Gulf, primarily Saudi 
Arabia. Similar actions were taken in the year 2000 in 
Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia, and Thailand.
    Ford would have been required to notify NHTSA of such an 
action if it had occurred in the United States, but our 
regulations do not apply to actions taken outside the United 
States. Ford thus had no obligation to advise NHTSA when it 
took these actions. If we find that we need additional 
legislative authority to require manufacturers to provide such 
information we will seek to obtain it.
    A number of claims and several lawsuits have been filed 
against Ford and Firestone before we became aware of any trend 
that would indicate a potential defect. Our current regulations 
do not require the manufacturers to give us information about 
claims or litigation, and we are also exploring, therefore, 
measures that will allow us to track claims and litigation 
information routinely.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you this investigation is 
the highest priority at NHTSA. We will remain focused on the 
investigation and closely monitor the current recall campaign. 
We will also seek any expansion of the campaign that may be 
necessary. I want to conclude by expressing my thanks for your 
holding this hearing, and I will be willing to answer any 
questions.
    [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Sue Bailey

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear 
before you this morning to address the investigation and recall of 
Firestone ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires. This is the first 
subject on which I have appeared before Congress as Administrator of 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and I 
welcome the opportunity to address this important issue.
    The agency's mission is to prevent deaths and injuries in motor 
vehicle crashes. Our program to investigate safety defects is a key 
part of that mission. I will give you a quick overview of the agency's 
authority to investigate safety defects, describe the procedures that 
the agency follows in its investigations, outline the Firestone 
investigation in that context, and share with you some of my 
observations about the investigative process.

                                OVERVIEW

    First, our authority: Congress passed the basic motor vehicle 
safety law 34 years ago, in 1966, and amended the law in 1974 to 
establish the current notification and remedy provisions. In brief, the 
law provides that if a manufacturer decides that one of its products 
contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety, the 
manufacturer must notify the agency and owners and provide a remedy at 
no cost to the owners. When the defect is in a tire sold as original 
equipment on a new vehicle, the tire manufacturer is the responsible 
manufacturer, as opposed to the vehicle manufacturer, and the remedy 
may either be to repair or replace the tire.
    The law gives us authority to investigate possible defects, to 
decide whether a defect exists, and to order a manufacturer to provide 
a remedy for any defect. If a manufacturer refuses to provide a remedy, 
the law authorizes us to go to court to compel it to do so. This is 
seldom necessary. In all but very rare cases, manufacturers agree to 
remedy the defect without our having to reach a final decision. In a 
typical year, we open between 80 and 100 defect investigations, of 
which more than half result in recalls. In addition, manufacturers 
conduct an average of 200 defect recalls each year that are not 
influenced by NHTSA investigations.

                        INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES

    We receive complaints from a wide variety of sources about possible 
defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The sources 
include our toll-free consumer hotline, our web page, e-mail, phone 
calls, and letters. We enter all complaints into a database which is 
continuously screened by a team of five investigators in the agency's 
Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) to identify potential defect 
trends. In an average year, we receive between 40,000 and 50,000 
complaints from these sources.
    When the screening process identifies a potential problem, ODI 
takes steps to open an investigation as a ``Preliminary Evaluation'' 
(PE). We inform the manufacturer and the public at this time, and begin 
the process of gathering information from the manufacturer and other 
appropriate sources. We give the manufacturer an opportunity to present 
its views. Preliminary Evaluations are generally resolved within four 
months from the date of their opening. They may be closed if we 
determine that further information is not warranted, or if the 
manufacturer decides to conduct a recall.
    If our review of information at the end of a PE suggests that 
further investigation is warranted, we move the investigation to a 
second stage, the Engineering Analysis (EA), in which we conduct a more 
detailed and complete analysis of the character and scope of the 
alleged defect. The EA supplements the information collected during the 
preliminary evaluation with appropriate inspections, tests, surveys, 
and additional information from the manufacturer. ODI attempts to 
resolve all EAs within one year from the date they are opened.
    At the conclusion of the EA, we may close an investigation because 
the additional information does not support a finding that a defect 
exists or because the manufacturer decides to conduct a recall. If ODI 
continues to believe that the data indicate a defect, the Associate 
Administrator for Safety Assurance may convene a panel of experts from 
the agency to review the information. The manufacturer is notified that 
a panel is being convened and of the panel's result, and is given an 
opportunity to present new analysis or new data.
    If the panel concurs with ODI, the next step is to send a ``recall 
request letter'' to the manufacturer. If the manufacturer declines to 
conduct a recall in response to this letter, the Associate 
Administrator may issue an ``Initial Decision'' that a safety-related 
defect exists. An Initial Decision is followed by a public meeting, at 
which the manufacturer and interested members of the public can present 
information and arguments on the issue, as well as written materials. 
The entire investigative record is then presented to the NHTSA 
Administrator, who may issue a ``Final Decision'' that a safety defect 
exists and order the manufacturer to conduct a recall. If necessary, 
the agency will then go to court to enforce such an order.

                  THE FIRESTONE ATX/WILDERNESS RECALL

    With this description of our investigative procedures as context, I 
will turn now to the Firestone investigation.
    Firestone originally began producing the tires under investigation 
in 1991. By the end of 1999, approximately 47 million had been 
produced. By that time, NHTSA had received 46 reports scattered over 9 
years about incidents involving these tires. The tires were on a 
variety of vehicles, primarily on Ford Explorer sport utility vehicles. 
In view of the large number of tires that had been produced, the 
variety of possible causes of tire failure (road hazards, excessive 
wear, etc.), and the fact that all types of tires can fail in use, the 
reports that we received did not indicate a problem that would warrant 
opening a defect investigation regarding these tires. The informal 
submission by State Farm in 1998 of 21 claims over an eight-year period 
also did not provide such an indication.
    The situation changed rapidly following the airing of a news story 
by KHOU in Houston on February 7, 2000, that dramatized the question of 
the tires' safety. In addition to highlighting two fatalities, the KHOU 
story alluded to a number of other crashes and fatalities.
    Upon learning of the KHOU story, we contacted the station to obtain 
more details about the incidents. They have not given us the 
information we requested, but the growing publicity generated other 
reports to us, including several provided by other media outlets and by 
plaintiffs' attorneys. Over the next few weeks, we were able to verify 
many of these reports. We opened a Preliminary Evaluation on May 2. At 
that time, the agency was aware of 90 complaints, including reports of 
33 crashes, and 4 fatalities. On May 8 and 10, we sent Ford and 
Firestone extensive Information Requests asking for information about 
the tires. At that point NHTSA began a constant communication with both 
companies, which continues today.
    Information accumulated rapidly as a result of the investigation 
and attendant publicity. By August 1, we had 193 complaints alleging 
tread separations on these tires, with 21 reported fatalities. In a 
meeting on August 4, we suggested that Firestone consider recalling the 
tires. By August 9, when Firestone announced that it was recalling the 
ATX and ATX II tires, and Wilderness AT tires produced at its Decatur, 
Illinois, plant, we had over 300 complaints, with 46 reported 
fatalities. The number has continued to grow. As of August 31, we have 
1,400 complaints with reports of 88 fatalities and 250 injuries .
    Firestone has recalled all of the ATX and ATX II tires of the P235/
75R15 size manufactured since 1991. It has also recalled Wilderness AT 
tires of that size made at its Decatur, Illinois, plant, for a total of 
14.4 million tires out of the 47 million tires covered by our 
investigation. Firestone estimates that approximately 6.5 million of 
the 14.4 million tires included in the recall are still on the road. 
Ford and Firestone are taking a number of measures to provide 
replacement tires.
    NHTSA is continuing its investigation to ensure that the scope of 
the recall is proper and that all unsafe tires are recalled. At our 
request, Firestone and Ford have given us voluminous information about 
the tires, and we have sent follow-up requests for additional 
information to both companies and to Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 
for a peer comparison. We are continuing to monitor the recall to 
ensure that all defective tires are replaced promptly.
    Our review of data from Firestone has already disclosed that other 
tire models and sizes of the tires under investigation have rates of 
tread separation as high or higher than the tires that Firestone is 
recalling. On August 30, we recommended to Firestone that it expand its 
recall to include these tires. When Firestone declined to expand the 
recall, we issued a consumer advisory on September 1 to advise owners 
of these tires to take actions to assure their safety.

                              OBSERVATIONS

    We now know that in September 1999 Ford conducted a campaign 
(referred to by Ford as an ``Owner Notification Program'') to replace 
Wilderness tires mounted on Ford Explorers that had been sold in the 
states around the Arabian Gulf (primarily Saudi Arabia). Similar 
actions were taken in Venezuela in May 2000 and in Columbia, Ecuador, 
Malaysia, and Thailand. Ford would have been required to notify NHTSA 
of such an owner notification program if it had occurred in the United 
States, but our regulations do not apply to actions taken outside the 
United States. Ford thus had no obligation to advise NHTSA when it took 
these actions. If we find that we need additional legislative authority 
to require manufacturers to provide such information, we will seek to 
obtain it.
    A number of claims, and several lawsuits, had been filed against 
Ford and Firestone before we became aware of any trend that would 
indicate a potential defect. We received no information about those 
events from the companies or from the plaintiffs' attorneys. Our 
current regulations do not require the manufacturers to give us 
information about claims or litigation. The existing law gives us broad 
authority to seek information from vehicle and equipment manufacturers 
during the course of an investigation. We are exploring measures that 
would allow us to track claims and litigation information routinely.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that this investigation is the 
highest priority in NHTSA. We will remain focused on the investigation, 
closely monitor the current recall campaign, and seek any expansion of 
the campaign that may be necessary.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by expressing my thanks to you for 
holding this hearing. I will be glad to answer any questions you may 
have.

              WAS BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE AWARE OF DEFECTS?


    Senator Shelby. Mr. Crigger, do you want to join Mr. Ono, 
and is there someone else you want to bring up?
    I would pose this question to Bridgestone/Firestone. You 
settled several lawsuits involving Firestone tires, the ones we 
have been talking about, as early as 1996. Did that not make 
you aware that there were issues with the tires, problems with 
the tires and if not, why not? And did that cause you in any 
way to review the failure rate of the tires, the design, or the 
manufacturer of the tires?
    Mr. Crigger. Senator, those individual cases, those 
individual lawsuits were all individually investigated by our 
tire engineers doing forensic analysis on the tire, and in 
those cases we found in the preponderance of outcomes that the 
tires were failed because of punctures, improper repairs, 
overloads, or other kinds of outside influences. As you know, 
the tire operates on the road all the time and is subject to 
all of that kind of impact and other trauma, so nothing we 
learned there led us to believe there was a defect of any kind 
with the tire.
    Senator Shelby. Did you not have reason to believe that the 
Firestone tire problems that we have been talking about could 
have been a defect in the manufacture?
    Mr. Crigger. Sir, I am not saying there is never a defect 
in the manufacture. I am not saying that at all. I am saying 
that in the individual cases that were reviewed one by one as 
they came to us, or became apparent, that is not what we found. 
I wish there had been some indication from that, that we could 
have done something that would have been different from where 
we are today.
    Senator Shelby. What does it take to put someone, a company 
like Bridgestone/Firestone or any other big company on notice 
that perhaps they have got a defective product out there? You 
have got lawsuits, you have got people killed, injured and so 
forth, not one, not two, but a lot of them. You settled those 
lawsuits, or most of them, and you put a gag order on them. It 
is a sealed settlement with a gag order. Does that not tell you 
something, that something is probably wrong with your product? 
What does it take?
    Mr. Crigger. Sir, my understanding is that the 
confidentiality orders applied only to trade secret and 
formulations and these kinds of matters and, of course, the 
judge had to agree that those were trade secrets, or industry 
trade secrets. In reviewing the cases, there was nothing to 
indicate that there was a tire defect.
    We understood that we have millions of these tires on the 
road, over 40 million of this particular Wilderness type, ATX 
type tire, and individual cases do occur and, as tragic as they 
are and, believe me, each one affects the members of the 
Firestone family dealer----
    Senator Shelby. But Mr. Crigger, this is not just a random 
situation. This is a pattern, is it not, tied to this 
particular tire and tied to this vehicle, and so forth, not 
one, not two, but dozens or hundreds.
    Mr. Crigger. Sir, that pattern only became apparent this 
year, when we were looking particularly in the July and August 
time period doing the analysis, some of which has been referred 
to here by Ford. We were doing that joint analysis with them on 
data that would not normally have been used to evaluate tire 
performance.

                      PROVIDING DOCUMENTS TO NHTSA


    Senator Shelby. Has there been a request by NHTSA for all 
your internal documents related to the problems with this tire?
    Mr. Crigger. Yes. We have complied with NHTSA's request for 
such documents.
    Senator Shelby. When was this?
    Mr. Crigger. During the preliminary evaluation.
    Senator Shelby. But that has not been made public in any 
way. This is just between you and the governmental agency, is 
that right, Dr. Bailey?
    Dr. Bailey. At this time, right.
    Senator Shelby. Have you received all of those documents?
    Dr. Bailey. Yes. They have been forthcoming. We have 
received virtually all of the documents.
    Senator Shelby. Have those documents been evaluated?
    Dr. Bailey. That is part of the evaluation that is ongoing.
    Senator Shelby. So there has not been yet.
    Dr. Bailey. Many of them have been. That is why we have 
information that encouraged us to do the advisory to the 
consumers.
    Senator Shelby. Dr. Bailey have you also requested from 
Ford documents and memos dealing with this issue?
    Dr. Bailey. Absolutely.
    Senator Shelby. Have they complied?
    Dr. Bailey. They have complied as well.
    Senator Shelby. And is this investigation going on now to 
evaluate these documents?
    Dr. Bailey. Yes. The evaluation is going on. We are in the 
engineering analysis phase of the evaluation, so there is 
additional work that we continue to evaluate the data.
    Senator Shelby. Dr. Bailey, does it concern you in your 
capacity as head of NHTSA that Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford, 
I believe, concealed a lot of this information rather than tell 
the public?
    Dr. Bailey. The manufacturer has a responsibility, once 
they detect a defect, to notify us. We will also be looking at 
the timing of that notification and other aspects of the case 
that are undergoing investigation now, so yes, of course it is 
a concern.

            FIRESTONE TIRES ON FORD VEHICLES IN SAUDI ARABIA

    Senator Shelby. I think it was in the paper today, one of 
the papers if not all of them, about the Ford internal memo--I 
am sure you are familiar with that--that said Ford Legal has 
some major reservations about the plan to notify customers in 
the Middle East. Now, on your own volition, did someone at Ford 
notify NHTSA regarding this problem that they had?
    Ms. Petrauskus. We did not.
    Senator Shelby. Yes or no?
    Ms. Petrauskus. No, we did not notify NHTSA at the time. We 
sent letters to our dealers announcing that we would replace 
the Firestone tires our customers had with Goodyear tires. Our 
decision--and I might add, if I may, Mr. Chairman, by 
coincidence the day before, the day before the memorandum you 
referred to we received a letter from Bridgestone/Firestone 
telling us that in their view there was nothing defective about 
the tires we had in the Mideast, nothing defective, and that 
the U.S. performance of those tires was very good.
    The reason they had sent us the letter is because we asked 
for it. We wanted, as we were taking the action in the Middle 
East we wanted to be sure that there was no application of this 
issue to the United States, so we looked at our own 
information, we looked at the Government's information, and we 
asked Firestone for their information. Ultimately, what we 
decided to do, because Firestone declined to cover these tires 
under their warranty, and I am talking about the Middle East 
now, for the very reasons that Mr. Crigger has mentioned, we 
had unhappy customers. We went to Goodyear and used their 
tires.
    Mr. Crigger. I would just like to add that we had a joint 
survey of the tires in question in Saudi Arabia with Ford, and 
the investigation of those tires showed that the majority of 
them had been run underinflated. I believe Ms. Petrauskus has 
talked about that anecdotally as well. There were instances of 
them being deflated, run in the sand, and there were punctures. 
There was nothing for us to believe the tire itself was 
defective.

                     TIRE MANUFACTURING DIFFERENCES

    Senator Shelby. Let me ask you this, Mr. Crigger. Are your 
tires, these two tires we are talking about, are they designed 
and manufactured differently, drastically or in some ways 
differently, say, from Michelin or Goodyear or any of the other 
tires manufactured? In other words, is that a different 
engineering process, or is the tire manufactured the same?
    Mr. Crigger. That would be a question that would be better 
for me if I could have our quality assurance person----
    Senator Shelby. Is the manufacturing of the Firestone tires 
that are in question here basically different from the 
manufacturer of similar tires by other companies, and if so, 
how, and why?
    Mr. Wyant. There would be certain generic relationships 
between the manufacturer of the tire, such as the molding 
process and parts of the tire assembly process, but within the 
tire industry there are many, many trade secrets.
    Senator Shelby. I understand that. I am talking about the 
basic manufacturing, though.
    Mr. Wyant. Basic, basic would be very similar, of course.
    Dr. Bailey. Mr. Chairman, could I just add that NHTSA does 
what we call a peer analysis, and we have requested information 
from Goodyear, for instance, so that we can look at the 
comparables that I think you are discussing.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Crigger, when the number of claims of a 
product is out of line in your tire or other products you make 
at Bridgestone/Firestone, does that alert you that something is 
wrong? Let us say you are making these tires, and you make 
other tires, and I am sure you do, and you are having 
complaints with, say, two product lines, a lot more as compared 
to seven others, does that not alert you that something is 
wrong there?
    Mr. Crigger. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately here in hindsight 
I wish it did, and we now are indeed looking at claims, and 
some of these other factors in the evaluation of tire 
performance, but prior to this case tires were evaluated in 
performance based on testing that was done prior to their 
release, and on a continuing basis based on adjustment data, 
which is warranty claims data that is reviewed on the basis of 
customer comebacks and field research, looking at tires that 
are coming back from the field, and none of those indicators 
pointed to any kind of a problem with the tire line we are 
talking about here.
    After we did additional work, indeed, in conjunction with 
the preliminary evaluation and pulled in information that would 
not normally be part of tire performance evaluation, because 
claims and lawsuits are not considered to be representative 
throughout a line, they are considered to be individual cases 
that occur for a variety of reasons, so they have never been 
part of performance evaluation. As I said earlier, I wish they 
had here, because that is a part of the analysis that turned us 
into looking at this particular problem and taking the action 
that we did.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

             SUV'S AND OTHER PASSENGER CARS RELATIVE SAFETY

    Ms. Petrauskus, in your comparison of fatality rates, the 
chart that had passenger cars and Explorers, the Explorer 
fatality rate was on the same measure significantly lower than 
passenger cars. I wonder if you have got any information, any 
data that tells you how many people died in cars as a result of 
collisions with SUV's.
    Ms. Petrauskus. That data are available, because one of the 
things that NHTSA does in the way they maintain the data--and I 
do not happen to have it with me, but it provides detail both 
on multiple collisions and has pretty good information in terms 
of the various sizes of vehicles involved.
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, we are going to get to the 
principal tire question, but one of the things that is raised 
about the Explorer is the fact that the bumper heights and 
other factors, weight, et cetera, are less likely to produce a 
fatality in a collision with a passenger car than you would 
normally get between two passenger cars.
    Ms. Petrauskus. Senator, I think the issue you raise is, 
while not related to the subject of this hearing is an 
important one, and that is the whole question of compatibility 
and how--what is it that we can do, while still giving 
customers a choice of vehicles, to help assure, when different 
kinds of vehicles strike one another, when vehicles weighing 
different weights--what can we do to improve or reduce the risk 
to people in both vehicles involved in the accident.
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, it also could relate to tire 
problems if there is a separation and a crash occurs between a 
passenger car and an SUV that has been rendered somewhat 
disabled by the loss of the tire tread, so if you could help 
us, if that information is available--Dr. Bailey, does NHTSA 
have that?
    Dr. Bailey. I would take that for the record and provide 
you that information.
    [The information follows:]

    NHTSA does not have complete information on the outcome of crashes 
between passenger vehicles and SUV's where the SUV was disabled by the 
loss of tire tread. The following the information from the Fatality 
Analysis Reporting System lists the number of occupant fatalities in 
two-vehicle crashes by vehicle type.

               OCCUPANTS FATALITIES IN TWO-VEHICLE CRASHES
                            [FARS 1995-1999]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         OCCUPANTS VEHICLE            OCCUPANTS VEHICLE
 YEAR          TYPE          KILLED         TYPE         KILLED   TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1995 PASSENGER CAR      .......  PASSENGER CAR.....  ......    4,277
  1995 UTILITY VEHICLES   .......  UTILITY VEHICLES..  ......       29
  1995 PASSENGER CAR          762  UTILITY VEHICLES..     193      955
  1996 PASSENGER CAR      .......  PASSENGER CAR.....  ......    4,209
  1996 UTILITY VEHICLES   .......  UTILITY VEHICLES..  ......       29
  1996 PASSENGER CAR          892  UTILITY VEHICLES..     241    1,133
  1997 PASSENGER CAR      .......  PASSENGER CAR.....  ......    4,146
  1997 UTILITY VEHICLES   .......  UTILITY VEHICLES..  ......       39
  1997 PASSENGER CAR          966  UTILITY VEHICLES..     246    1,212
  1998 PASSENGER CAR      .......  PASSENGER CAR.....  ......    3,800
  1998 UTILITY VEHICLES   .......  UTILITY VEHICLES..  ......       47
  1998 PASSENGER CAR        1,049  UTILITY VEHICLES..     254    1,303
  1999 PASSENGER CAR      .......  PASSENGER CAR.....  ......    3,585
  1999 UTILITY VEHICLES   .......  UTILITY VEHICLES..  ......       68
  1999 PASSENGER CAR        1,025  UTILITY VEHICLES..     275    1,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.

                CAR MANUFACTURER'S SAFETY RESPONSIBILITY

    Dr. Bailey, you said in your statement whether it is just 
reporting a fact or whether it was an editorial comment, the 
fact is that the automobile manufacturer is not responsible for 
tire problems, the car manufacturer. Am I correct, the fact 
that that is in your testimony?
    Dr. Bailey. Yes, sir, that is correct.
    Senator Lautenberg. Now, what do you think about that? Are 
you simply stating a fact, or is that an opinion of NHTSA's and 
yours?
    Dr. Bailey. It is a fact that at the time there was no 
obligation to report that. That is something we are looking at 
today.
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, it goes deeper than reporting. It 
says, when the defect is in the tire sold as original equipment 
in a vehicle, a new manufacturer, the tire manufacturer is 
responsible as opposed to a vehicle manufacturer, and thusly 
the remedy may be either to repair or replace the tire.
    But that absolves the automobile manufacturer of selling a 
product that they may have information about that represents a 
danger, and I wonder whether, in your judgment, that is a good 
way to do it, or is there something in overriding law that 
says, listen, you cannot--even if you are not responsible for 
wear and tear on the product, which is often the disclaimer 
when tires are sold, you know, normal wear and tear, et cetera. 
But when a product is sold that is known to be dangerous, I 
wonder if that does not change the condition of the 
manufacturer's responsibility.
    Dr. Bailey. Senator, are you referring to the overseas 
information or to their responsibility to notify NHTSA of a 
defect?
    Senator Lautenberg. Well, there are two parts of this. One 
is to notify NHTSA, the other is to clearly notify the public 
and protect the public, and I am looking for what it is we can 
do. We will get to NHTSA's responsibility, but what can we do 
to protect the public?
    Dr. Bailey. Well, again I want to clarify that if a defect 
is known by a manufacturer, they have 5 days in which to notify 
NHTSA.
    Senator Lautenberg. Maybe we will have to ask Ms. 
Petrauskus.
    Ms. Petrauskus. Just using our experience in Saudi Arabia 
as an example, at the time we took the action to replace the 
Firestone tire with Goodyear tires we did not believe there was 
any defect in the Firestone tires, but let me just say we did 
not want those tires--the reason we did it was, we had unhappy 
customers, so putting aside our legal obligation to our 
customers under some warranty, we felt we needed to give them 
different tires because they were unhappy with the ones they 
had and, again, we took the action, even though we believed and 
saw with our own eyes the same things that Mr. Crigger 
reported.
    Senator Lautenberg. I want to get to a more generic review, 
and that is, does the Ford Motor Company feel no obligation if 
it is selling the car even though it does not--and correct me 
if I am wrong, by the way, about what the representation is 
about the tires. Does the Ford Company remain removed from any 
responsibility for what happens to the tires?
    Ms. Petrauskus. Absolutely not. A customer comes in and 
buys a Ford vehicle, a Ford-branded vehicle, it expects that 
vehicle to have tires, and he chose our vehicle, so I really 
feel we have a responsibility for the overall performance of 
the vehicle, even though if you go into your glove box and you 
pull out the warranty manuals you will find one warranty manual 
from the car manufacturer and one warranty manual for the tire 
manufacturer, and there are long historical reasons for that, 
but our whole approach in this arena has been that at the end 
of the day we have to be responsible and responsive to our 
customers, and that is why we took the actions we did overseas.
    We had unhappy customers. We were going to take care of 
them, and we were not going to spend a lot of time worrying 
about who had warranty responsibility.
    Senator Lautenberg. I think it goes beyond that, and this 
question gets resolved at some later date, and that is, what is 
the responsibility? I normally ask Senator Specter. He is 
pretty much our resident expert on the law, but is there not a 
responsibility, when a product is sold, regardless of who 
manufactures the various parts, to represent, or to take the 
responsibility for the safety of the product?
    Senator Specter. The answer, Senator Lautenberg, is in fact 
yes, there are express warranties which arise here and the 
documents refer to them. They are implied warranties of 
merchantability and fitness for purpose. Under the Uniform 
Commercial Code they are obligated under the laws of warranties 
to provide products of merchantable quality, which these were 
not fit for the purpose.
    Dr. Bailey. Senator, can I add there is a statute in effect 
here. Tires are treated differently than other components of 
vehicles. All the other components of a vehicle are the 
responsibility of the automobile manufacturer, but the tires 
are treated separately under that statute, and that is the 
responsibility of the tire manufacturer.
    Senator Lautenberg. We cannot get away from the answer that 
Senator Specter just gave us. The fact is that they can define 
it as you would like, but you cannot sell a product that may be 
faulty without--and disown the responsibility that you inherit 
when you sell the product. That is pretty clear, and I think 
that probably in a court of law that would be the case.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Specter.
    Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                  OBLIGATION TO EVALUATE ACCIDENT DATA

    It may be harsh, but candidly the testimony of the 
Firestone and Ford witnesses here today strains credulity. It 
is very difficult, really impossible to accept statements with 
all of the incidents which had occurred that Firestone and Ford 
did not know that there was a substantial defect, design defect 
in the manufacture in the face of the chronology and the 
numerous reports about tread separation.
    When you parse and dissect the testimony which is presented 
here, you have Mr. Crigger testifying that finally there was an 
analysis on data not ordinarily used. Well, in 5 minutes I 
cannot question you, Mr Crigger, on data which is not 
ordinarily used, but it would seem to me that in the face of 
what you have here, that every effort would have been made for 
every conceivable kind of analysis to have been made as opposed 
to somewhere in the long process you come to, quote, ``an 
analysis on data not ordinarily used'', and then you testified 
that in the majority of the situations they were underinflated.
    Well, that does not tell us very much. How about the rest 
of the cases? The majority leaves a great many other 
situations, so it is not helpful to attribute underinflation if 
there are many incidents where underinflation was not a factor.
    And Mr. Crigger, you testified that lawsuits are not a part 
of performance evaluation. That testimony candidly to me is 
shocking. When you have a lawsuit and you have a defective 
tire, as a matter of defense, these tires are submitted to your 
forensic experts to prepare for the litigation where you are 
being sued, and to ignore those instances is candidly 
incredible. As you testified, lawsuits are not a part of 
performance evaluation.
    Mr. Crigger. Could I address that point, sir?
    Senator Specter. You may.
    Mr. Crigger. I think you may have misinterpreted. I was 
talking about performance evaluation of the line. It is clearly 
an investigation of the performance evaluation of the tire 
involved in that lawsuit, absolutely.
    Senator Specter. Well, Mr. Crigger, did I misquote you? I 
wrote down, quote, ``lawsuits are not a part of performance 
evaluation'', close quote. Did I misquote you?
    Mr. Crigger. No, sir, but the context was meant to be 
talking about the evaluation of the entire line of tires, like 
the 40 million tires that were made.
    Senator Specter. Well, let us take it your way, the entire 
line of tires. Why not utilize that kind of information in 
evaluating the entire line of tires? After all, what we are 
looking for here is what is happening with all the rest of the 
tires. Do these defects which come up in a lawsuit not put you 
on alert that you have got a problem here which may exist in 
some other tire?
    Mr. Crigger. Yes, sir. We said in hindsight we wish we were 
looking at lawsuits and all of these other things in 
conjunction with----
    Senator Specter. We are not concerned about hindsight. Why 
did you not look at it at the time you had this tangible 
evidence of the problem?
    Mr. Crigger. Normally it is the tangible evidence of indeed 
a problem, and the point of the lawsuit is to discover what was 
that problem, and as I indicated, it did not indicate a defect 
in the tire. The lawsuits, or many--I do not have the specific 
number for you now--indicated that there were improper repairs 
that were at fault, there were punctures at fault----
    Senator Specter. Well, you can attribute a number of 
factors to a number of cases, but you had such an overwhelming 
number of reports on tread separation.
    Well, let me move on here to Ford. Ms. Petrauskus, you 
testified that it was only on July 27, when you got the data as 
to what had been turned over to NHTSA, that Ford began to 
understand the nature of the problem, the design defect on 
tread separation.
    Well, how about all of these other indicators? Didn't Ford 
have an obligation to make an independent evaluation, look 
here, as between Firestone and Ford the litigation may never 
end, and my legal judgment is that Ford is responsible for that 
total vehicle?
    You may have a very good claim over against Firestone so 
that they will be obligated to indemnify you if there is 
anything left of Firestone, but with all the indicators that 
Ford had, why didn't Ford make an independent evaluation here 
very early in the process, instead of coming here today and 
saying, we did not know what happened until Firestone turned 
the materials over to NHTSA?
    Ms. Petrauskus. Senator, I believe we did have an 
obligation to make an independent inquiry, and I believe we can 
demonstrate that we made that independent inquiry. We looked at 
every single data base that was available to us, beginning in 
1999, and we looked at NHTSA's data, we looked at our lawsuits 
that we were aware of, we looked at our claims data, we looked 
at our owner reports, and we looked at our warranty reports, 
and none of those, none of those, sir, showed the kind of 
dramatic difference in claims performance that we saw with 
regard to the Firestone data.
    Throughout this period, sir, we asked Firestone to review 
their U.S. data base. The data base we saw on July 28 we had 
never seen before, and traditionally in the tire industry has 
been kept proprietary.

               request for Internal defect documentation

    Senator Specter. Well, my red light is on and I will not 
use too much more time, Mr. Chairman, but I would start with 
asking Ford and Firestone officials if you would be willing to 
make available to this subcommittee all, every last one of the 
documents which relate to the kinds of defects which you saw 
around the world.
    Ms. Petrauskus. Just to make sure I understand, we have 
provided all claims, all complaints, all warranty data to 
NHTSA. We have provided that data without asking for any 
confidential treatment for it. Is that the data you wish to 
have, sir?
    Senator Shelby. I think his question is, would you provide 
all information.
    Senator Specter. We are going to have to go through these 
documents with a fine tooth comb to see what has been done 
here, and the problems about concealed documents are legendary 
in this kind of a situation.
    Mr. Chairman, I asked a question on a voluntary basis, but 
it seems to me this subcommittee really would be best advised 
to issue subpoenas here, because when subpoenas are issued 
there is a legal obligation to produce and failure to do so 
constitutes obstruction of justice. If it is just voluntary it 
does not happen. But this is the kind of a chronology which 
just strains credulity. That is the nicest way I know of how to 
put it.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Dr. Bailey just one or 
two questions, if I may.
    Senator Shelby. Go ahead.

            NHTSA REQUESTS ADDITIONAL MOTOR SAFETY AUTHORITY

    Senator Specter. Dr. Bailey, we heard Ms. Claybrook testify 
about your need for much more authority and ways to impose 
fines and to get documents on a daily basis. Would you take a 
look at what Ms. Claybrook has testified to and inform this 
subcommittee as soon as you can what you would like to have to 
have more teeth in your operation?
    Dr. Bailey. In fact, those are all on the record with 
Congress today. Those are four of the issues we would like to 
see come into law. That is, to increase our ability for 
penalties, compliance, and extend the recall years.
    Senator Specter. You have already made recommendations on 
everything you would like?
    Dr. Bailey. Yes, sir, we have, in March.
    Senator Shelby. Would you reiterate that list for the 
record?
    Dr. Bailey. On March 24 NHTSA sent Congress legislation to 
amend the motor vehicle safety statutes. To date, no one has 
introduced legislation, but conversations are ongoing. It is 
possible we may have to address it as introduced by a request, 
because we feel they are very essential, particularly to the 
discussion we are having here today and to this investigation.
    One is the modification of civil penalties as to increased 
penalties, which you heard at this point are at a rate at--
$925,000 is the max. We want to go up to at least $4 million.
    We want to improve our recall compliance. That means taxi 
companies, fleets would have to comply.
    We would want to extend the recall limits up to 10 years.
    And finally strengthen the compliance testing. You heard 
that we asked for certification for compliance, but we now want 
testing prior to that certification, to self-certification on 
the part of the manufacturers. Those are the four main points.
    Senator Specter. Dr. Bailey, would you like to see the 
testimony which was reported this morning by our first panel, 
by Ms. Claybrook and also by Mr. Pittle, which would authorize 
Federal prosecutions for willful failure to inform the public, 
reckless disregard for the safety, such as has arisen in 
situations like this?
    Dr. Bailey. That is a legal question that I think I would 
like to take for the record, but I think clearly we would like 
to see information in the public domain, and particularly 
available to the Government, that would allow us to know when 
to do an investigation that could protect the American public.
    Senator Specter. Well, that is a legal question, but you 
are the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. I would like you to give some thought to it and 
to give the subcommittee an answer.
    Dr. Bailey. I will provide you that.
    [The information follows:]

    As Secretary Slater has stated, for egregious circumstances the 
Department of Transportation supports criminal penalty authority, 
appropriately placed in the motor vehicle safety statute, for those who 
knowingly and willfully violate the law.

    Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
    Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
would just like to say to my colleagues what a wonderful, 
robust hearing, and the way we are working on a bipartisan 
basis is really what the American people expect of us, and I 
look forward to doing more like this.
    Mr. Ono, let me first of all welcome you to the committee, 
and number one I would like to express my respect to you for 
being here. I would also like to express my appreciation for 
your very earnest effort to speak in English and to communicate 
to the committee. It is appreciated, and also the respect that 
you, yourself showed to the committee by even being willing to 
appear.

               CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY TO PUBLIC SAFETY

    I have no doubt, sir, that your apology is sincere, yet 
however I think you would acknowledge that this is a very 
disturbing timetable and situation that we are finding. My 
questions to the Bridgestone/Firestone team that you brought, 
first of all I must say, in keeping with the testimony of the 
committee and the line of questioning by Senator Specter, the 
fact that you did not meet with NHTSA until August 8, and did 
not issue a recall until August 9, after years of problems 
internationally really do bother me.
    I do not know about the legal definitions of failure to 
inform and failure to alert, but I know that there is an 
obligation of every human being to help one another if they see 
a sign of distress.
    If I walked into a hotel room and found a prescription drug 
that somebody had left, and I would be worried that he was 
either a diabetic, or heart medication, I would be calling lost 
and found so that I could help them. If I am walking down the 
street and I see a vehicle coming towards a child or an adult, 
I am going to yell, look out, danger is coming.
    Where was your sense of concern as a human being, and as 
well as a corporate entity, to yell, look out, America, these 
tires are coming apart? So I do not know about all of the legal 
definitions, but I do know you had a moral obligation, and I 
know that the committee will be pursuing it, and I fully 
support the line of direction that Senator Specter is 
recommending to the committee.
    Now, Mr. Crigger, I am not going into repeating that, but 
Mr. Wyant, I have a question for you. So much of this seems to 
be at Decatur. You are Mr. Quality Control. What the hell was 
going on at that Decatur plant? What did you know? Who was 
standing sentry, and what kind of mechanisms did you have in 
place to observe this?
    The problem begins at the point of manufacture. It then 
goes on to the vehicle. What goes on at Decatur? Is Decatur the 
only factory, and what did you have in place to prevent this?
    Mr. Wyant. In the case of Decatur, I have to explain a 
little bit of background to make it understandable, and I am 
actually supporting what Mr. Crigger has said, so if you will 
bear with me for a moment. Our normal measures of measuring 
tire quality within the industry and within NHTSA and as 
occasionally reported to our customers like OEM's is the 
warranty adjustment data, and the reason for that is, you can 
see trends over time, because there is volume there and it is 
statistically significant.
    Senator Mikulski. I appreciate that, sir, but I only have 
10 minutes to ask questions. Do you have inspectors on the 
line?
    Mr. Wyant. Pardon?
    Senator Mikulski. Do you have inspectors on the line?
    Mr. Wyant. Yes, we do. In the case of Decatur it is the 
same as in all our other plants. We inspect the products all 
the way from the raw materials through the quality control 
systems, through the product going out at the end of the plant, 
yes.
    Senator Mikulski. Is this a defect in manufacturing or 
design?
    Mr. Wyant. That is not determined. We made the recall 
without knowing that issue, and it is a key issue, and it is 
being investigated by the best minds in the country, if not the 
world.
    Senator Mikulski. When did you start this investigation of 
best minds in the country?
    Mr. Wyant. Pardon?
    Senator Mikulski. When did you start the investigation of 
best minds in the country?
    Mr. Wyant. I am going on memory here. It probably started 
somewhere around the end of July time period, I believe.
    Senator Mikulski. Now, when these tires were coming apart 
in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, didn't best minds--did you not 
want to mobilize the best minds in the country then?
    Mr. Wyant. As I believe it was explained, that was a local 
circumstance, a performance issue within Saudi Arabia, 
including extremely--very high speeds, and that was deemed to 
be a customer satisfaction issue by the Ford Motor Company.
    Senator Mikulski. Well, I am deeply concerned about, 
obviously there are defects that best minds in the country did 
not--the so-called best minds in the country did not go to work 
until July, after all of this began to unravel around the world 
much sooner. For whatever reasons, best minds in the country, I 
do not get the feeling that there was a sense of urgency over 
really standing sentry here.
    Now, we are going to follow the lines of investigation that 
Senator Specter said, and I see my little yellow light is on so 
I am not going to pursue this at this minute, but I urge the 
committee to pursue this further.

                   NHTSA'S BUDGET AND AUTHORITY NEEDS

    Dr. Bailey, if I could turn to you, please, and thank you 
for actually your work. I am going to ask you first about your 
budget. As I understand it, what we were able to move through 
the Senate floor because of our own constraints, your budget is 
$105 million below the President's request. As we look forward 
to conference, putting us aside and putting even OMB aside, 
could I ask you to tell us, what is it that you need to really 
do the job of the mission of the agency for this 21st Century?
    The number of vehicles are increasing, speed on the road is 
increasing, the variety of vehicles is increasing. What will it 
take in terms of both money and staff for you to do your job?
    Dr. Bailey. As you know, we requested $100 million more for 
the budget than what we are looking at today, which is about 
$400 million. In fact, for safety assurance about $12 million 
was requested in the President's budget. Specifically, we are 
hoping that we will be funded at that level, because as you 
heard, here today we are going to be required to complete this 
investigation in a timely manner, and I think considering the 
effort that is being expended at this time and it is on this 
investigation, we have to imagine our ability to control an 
investigation at this level, or if we were required to expand 
that.
    Senator Mikulski. Well, what I would like to request is 
that you submit to the committee directly--I mean, you can get 
OMB's nod and all those clearances I know you have to go 
through, but I think it would be very helpful to the chairman 
and so on if we had a sense from you, what would it take to do 
the job and the number of people, knowing that this is not the 
time to really do add-ons, but so that you can really do that, 
and I think as we go through our conference and reconciliation 
that we could be of use to you.
    Second, I would also invite for you to respond to Ms. 
Claybrook's set of recommendations on new standards, criminal 
penalties and so on, after you have had a chance to really 
review that to see what policy changes you would recommend that 
we pursue.
    Third is this international warning. My passion is public 
health, and I know you are also keenly interested, so it is the 
early warnings, even whether they are in our own country or 
around the world, that I think is so important, whether it is 
the right to inform, but the right to alert.
    One of your jobs is the need to alert. Could you share with 
us what you think we need to do especially to have a radar 
system for what is going on, or a CDC mechanism. You know the 
appropriate language for the highway community, the highway 
user community, but do you think that is an important policy 
change?
    I mean, if we are going to have a national ballistic 
missile system to protect us against North Korean missiles, I 
would like to know what is the--or infectious disease from CDC, 
what can we do for this, to know what is going on around the 
world?
    Dr. Bailey. Clearly, it is an essential focus of ours as 
well. Let me just back up and say by the way, though, we 
clearly will provide you with our policy recommendations. All 
of those, as you heard the amendments are already underway. We 
are also looking to update the tire standards. So much of what 
you heard in earlier testimony is underway at NHTSA today, and 
I will certainly be pushing those policies.
    As far as our information in a global marketplace, I think 
that would have been essential to us to have that information 
earlier, so we are at this point looking at our current 
regulatory authority as to whether or not it could be expanded 
so that we can obtain that information in a timely manner. So 
you are right, we are going to know when to scream, ``Look 
out!''
    We are going to certainly work with Congress if a statutory 
remedy would be required to that end, because I do believe it 
is essential.
    Senator Mikulski. Well, I think what we want to do is look 
to how we can help improve your statutory regulatory authority 
without going through a legislative debate that gets us into 
other quagmires often resolved in the Judiciary Committee.
    [The information follows:]

    This computer disc contains communications from the Department of 
Transportation to the Congress regarding additional funding and 
authority for motor vehicle defect investigations at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Members of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation of the Senate Committee on Appropriations requested this 
information during the Hearing on September 6, 2000.

                                                September 12, 2000.
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation,
Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter is to notify you of a change in the 
NHTSA fiscal year 2001 President's budget request and to request your 
approval of this change as you conference the fiscal year 2001 
Transportation Appropriations Bill. The Administration requests an 
additional $9 million for the Defects Investigation Program. This 
additional funding would bring total funding for this program in fiscal 
year 2001 to $20 million.
    The Administration is committed to enhancing the current defects 
investigation program. The additional $9 million requested will be used 
to enhance testing, modernize information systems, improve the 
timeliness of ODI processing of the increasing number of complaints, 
and enhance public awareness of NHTSA's defects investigation program. 
Attached is more detailed information on the increased funding 
requested.
    These funds will complement the $1.8 million reallocated by NHTSA 
to the Bridgestone/Firestone investigation. In order not to increase 
the overall funding requested in the President's Budget, the 
Administration proposes $9 million in reductions to other NHTSA 
research programs.
    I appreciate your consideration of this request. If you have any 
questions, please contact me or NHTSA Administrator Sue Bailey at 202-
366-1836. Identical letters have been sent to Chairman Frank Wolf, 
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg and the Honorable Martin Olav Sabo.
            Sincerely,
                                          Rodney E. Slater,
                           Secretary, Department of Transportation.

                               Attachment

    To enhance the defects investigation program, NHTSA requests 
additional fiscal year 2001 funding of the following:
    $2.5M.--To provide for enhanced testing at the Vehicle Research and 
Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio, and possibly other test 
facilities. VRTC conducts most of the testing to support ODI's defect 
investigations. Funds are used to purchase vehicles and equipment 
necessary to conduct tests, to update instrumentation, to purchase time 
on the various test sites/equipment (VRTC rents laboratory space and 
must also pay for certain tests on equipment/sites owned by a private 
company), and to utilize contract support staff. ODI tries to complete 
its investigations within 16 months. However, investigations that 
involve complex testing frequently take as long as 2-4 years due to the 
shortage of testing resources. This funding will allow ODI to shorten 
this time period and thus enhance an already creditable process.
    $1.5M.--To provide funds to modernize and enhance the ODI database 
to incorporate analytical intelligence, integrate optical image 
retrievals, and hardware. Funds are necessary to complete a 
comprehensive user needs study, upgrade hardware and software, upgrade 
search capabilities, and to provide better access to statistics and 
data on equipment such as tires and child safety seats. In addition, 
ODI would be able to integrate the optical image consumer complaints 
system with the office network to allow retrieval of complaint images 
at each investigator's desktop.
    $1M.--To provide for internet access to ODI public files. 
Currently, optical images are made of ODI's public files and provided 
to the Technical Information Services office for use by the public. 
There is no means for the public to access these documents via the 
Internet, and this access has recently become in great demand due to 
the highly publicized Bridgestone/Firestone investigation. This funding 
would provide funds necessary to purchase the hardware, including a 
CDROM multi-disk player, web server, optical server, database software 
licenses, internet router, and the services of a data base manager and 
web site designer to make this data available to the public.
    $2M.--To enhance and improve procedures for tire testing. This 
effort is comprised of several tasks. First it entails a complete 
review of existing standards, industry practices, international 
practices, and other applicable standards. For FMVSS 109, review the 
strength, debeading, endurance and highspeed requirements. It will 
permit us to review and improve test procedures currently used to 
evaluate tires, with emphasis on consideration of replacing current 
laboratory tests with on-vehicle tests or other equivalent dynamic 
tests. It will permit development of new test procedures on belt 
separation, one of the most common failure modes of radial tires. It 
will permit evaluation and development of performance requirements for 
technological advances in tire safety, including low tire pressure 
warning systems. It will augment crash data collection to capture 
information regarding tire failure.
    $1.4M.--Improve the timeliness of ODI's processing of large amounts 
of information and process new information that is proposed to be 
required. An additional 30 people, 22 in ODI, 4 are the Vehicle 
Research and Test Center engineers/technicians and 4 legal staff are 
requested. ODI currently has 45 staff members.
    The 22 new staff members proposed include eleven investigators (ODI 
currently has 17), five data entry and document control staff (ODI 
currently as 2), four screeners (ODI currently has 4), two clerical 
support (ODI currently has 2) and funds to upgrade hotline support. ODI 
needs additional staff due to the large increase in the number of 
complaints that ODI has received over the past year (complaints rose 
from under 30,000 to over 50,000), the complexity of motor vehicles, 
and the increase in the number of vehicles on the roads. This large 
increase in complaints was not projected at the time the 2001 budget 
was proposed. We expect complaint levels to rise even further with the 
media coverage of the Firestone recall. The $1.4 million also includes 
an additional $150,000 to enhance hotline operator awareness of 
automotive issues.
    $.5M.--Even with the increased media emphasis on the Firestone 
investigation, the public still does not know to report potential 
defects to NHTSA. NHTSA cannot improve the safety of consumers unless 
the information it uses to analyze problems is correct. As a step in 
correcting this, NHTSA is requesting legislative authority to mandate 
that automobile manufacturers share complaint information with NHTSA. A 
media campaign should also be conducted to ensure that the public 
realizes that complaint information needs to be provided to NHTSA. 
Given that this information is the basis for the NHTSA program, we must 
leave no stone unturned in ensuring that NHTSA has the best information 
possible. This would include print, direct mail, and TV. The dollars 
requested are consistent with costs of other media campaigns conducted 
by NHTSA.
    $.1M.--Allow additional NHTSA travel to visit crash sites and 
manufacturers sites to gather information necessary to support defects 
investigations. ODI's budget for travel is currently $26,000. This 
would allow ODI investigators, the ones most familiar with the problem 
being analyzed, to see evidence first-hand.
    $9M.--Total.

 NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION--FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET
                                 OFFSET
                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year 2001
                                     ------------------
        Research and analysis                    H/S      Diff    Offset
                                      Request    mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash Avoidance: Driver/Vehicle        20,531    7,969   12,563    9,000
 Performance........................
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................  .......  .......  .......    9,000

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Analysis: (9,000) The Driver/Vehicle Performance Program
  would be reduced in the areas of advanced crash avoidance (4,000),
  human factors (4,000), and enhanced driving performance research
  (1,000).

                                 ______
                                 
                                                September 11, 2000.
The Honorable Al Gore,
President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. President: I am pleased to transmit to you for 
introduction and referral to the appropriate committee a proposed bill

          To amend title 49, United States Code, to require 
        manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle 
        equipment to obtain information and maintain records about 
        potential safety defects in their foreign products that may 
        affect the safety of vehicles and equipment in the United 
        States, and for other purposes.

    The bill includes two titles. Title I, ``Motor Vehicle Safety,'' 
would amend chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, the motor 
vehicle safety statute administered by the Department's National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Title II, ``Odometers,'' 
would amend chapter 327 of title 49, United States Code, the odometer 
requirements statute administered by NHTSA.
    Parts of Title I and all of Title II are taken from a bill 
submitted by the Department for introduction on March 24, 2000. We 
continue to believe that these provisions will advance the cause of 
highway safety and commend them to your attention. The additional 
provisions represent a focused effort by the Department to further 
strengthen NHTSA as it moves aggressively to address the critical 
safety issues raised by the ongoing investigation of Firestone ATX, ATX 
II, and Wilderness AT tires. We believe that the provisions we are 
submitting will augment the administrative efforts the Department has 
been and will be taking to give NHTSA the tools it needs to 
expeditiously move ahead to address this issue.
    This proposed legislation could affect receipts, in that it 
proposes increases in civil penalties for violations under the vehicle 
safety and odometer laws. Therefore, it is subject to the pay-as-you-go 
(PAYGO) requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. The 
Office of Management and Budget estimates that the net effect of this 
proposal on receipts during fiscal year 2001 would be an increase of 
less than one million dollars.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that it has no 
objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, to the 
submission of this proposed legislation to Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                          Rodney E. Slater,
                           Secretary, Department of Transportation.

                                 A BILL

    To amend title 49, United States Code, to require manufacturers of 
motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment to obtain 
information and maintain records about potential safety defects in 
their foreign products that may affect the safety of vehicles and 
equipment in the United States, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

                     TITLE I--MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY

  Sec. 101. (a) Subchapter I of Chapter 301 of title 49, United States 
Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 30106. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

  ``(a) General Authority.--The Secretary of Transportation may 
cooperate internationally to enhance motor vehicle and traffic safety 
by exchanging information related to safety defects, noncompliances 
with motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, and other matters 
related to motor vehicle safety, conducting vehicle safety research, 
and updating, developing and promoting improved motor vehicle safety 
standards and enforcement procedures.
  ``(b) Confidential Information.--The Secretary may authorize the 
disclosure of confidential commercial information submitted to the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or incorporated into 
agency-prepared records, to foreign government officials who perform 
counterpart functions to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration as part of cooperative law enforcement or regulatory 
efforts, provided that:
          ``(1) The foreign government agency has provided both a 
        written statement establishing its authority to protect 
        confidential commercial information from public disclosure and 
        a written commitment not to disclose any information provided 
        without the written permission of the sponsor or written 
        confirmation by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
        Administration that the information no longer has confidential 
        status; and
          ``(2) The Secretary determines disclosure would be in the 
        interest of motor vehicle safety.
    ``(c) Non-Public Information.--The Secretary may disclose 
nonpublic, predecisional documents concerning the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration's or the other government agency's 
regulations or other regulatory requirements, or other nonpublic 
information relevant to either agency's activities, as part of 
cooperative regulatory activities, provided that:
          ``(1) The foreign government agency has the authority to 
        protect such nonpublic documents from public disclosure and 
        will not disclose any documents provided without the written 
        confirmation by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
        Administration that the documents no longer have nonpublic 
        status; and
          ``(2) The Secretary determines that the exchange is 
        reasonably necessary to facilitate cooperative regulatory 
        activities.
  ``(d) Limit on Disclosure.--Any exchange under this section of 
confidential commercial information and nonpublic documents and 
information does not require that such records shall be made available 
to all members of the public.''
  (b) The analysis for Chapter 301 is amended by the addition of the 
following after the entry for section 30105:

``30106. International Cooperation.''.

  Sec. 102. Section 30115 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
by inserting at the end the following: ``A person shall not affix a 
certification label or tag to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle 
equipment unless the person has performed testing or other engineering 
analyses that demonstrate compliance with all applicable motor vehicle 
safety standards prescribed under this chapter.''.
  Sec. 103. Sec. 30118 of title 49, United States Code, is amended as 
follows:
          (a) In subsections (a), (b) and (c), by inserting ``, 
        original equipment'' after ``motor vehicle''; and
          (b) In subsection (c), by designating the existing text as 
        paragraph (1), by redesignating existing paragraphs (1) and (2) 
        as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and by adding the 
        following at the end:
                  ``(2) A manufacturer shall have a duty to review and 
                consider information regarding crashes or incidents in 
                vehicles or equipment where there are fatalities, 
                serious injuries, or fires, including such information 
                received from foreign sources, to learn whether the 
                vehicle or equipment contains a defect or does not 
                comply with a motor vehicle safety standard, and to 
                advise the Secretary if the manufacturer has reason to 
                believe that a defect or noncompliance may exist.''.
  Sec. 104. Section 30120(g)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by--
          (1) striking ``8 calendar years'' and substituting ``10 
        calendar years''; and
          (2) striking ``3 calendar years'' and substituting ``5 
        calendar years''.
  Sec. 105. Section 30120 of title 49, United States Code, as amended 
by section 104 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(j) Limitation on Sale or Lease of Used Motor Vehicles.--
          (1) A dealer may not sell a used motor vehicle, for purposes 
        other than resale, or lease a used motor vehicle until the 
        dealer informs the purchaser or lessee of any notifications of 
        a defect or noncompliance pursuant to section 30118(b) or 
        section 30118(c) of this title with respect to the vehicle that 
        have not been remedied, and either
                  ``(A) offers to have the defects or noncompliances 
                remedied, or
                  ``(B) gives the purchaser or lessee a written 
                description of the defects or noncompliances, including 
                all relevant information from any notification pursuant 
                to subsections 30118(b) or 30118(c) of this title, and 
                receives a written acknowledgment of the offer or 
                description from the purchaser or lessee.
          ``(2) The requirements of paragraph (1) of this subsection 
        shall apply after a period of time following issuance of 
        notifications that the Secretary shall specify. The Secretary 
        may extend this period with respect to particular 
        notifications.
          ``(3) In this subsection, notwithstanding section 30102(a)(1) 
        of this title,
                  ``(A) `dealer' means a person who sold at least 10 
                motor vehicles during the prior 12 months to purchasers 
                that in good faith purchased the vehicles other than 
                for resale; and
                  ``(B) `used motor vehicle' means a motor vehicle that 
                has previously been purchased other than for resale.''.
  Sec. 106. Section 30120 of title 49, United States Code, as amended 
by section 104 and 105 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:
  ``(k) Limitation on Operation by Owners and Lessors of School Buses 
and Vehicles Used to Transport Passengers for Compensation.--
          ``(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person who owns or leases a 
        school bus or a motor vehicle used to transport passengers for 
        compensation and who receives a notice of a defect or 
        noncompliance pursuant to section 30118(b) or section 30118(c) 
        of this title may not operate the vehicle to which the notice 
        applies as a school bus or for compensation until the defect or 
        noncompliance is remedied as required by this section.
          ``(2) The requirements of paragraph (1) shall apply after a 
        period of time following issuance of such notifications that 
        the Secretary shall specify. The Secretary may extend this 
        period with respect to particular notifications.''.
  Sec. 107. Section 30165(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended----
          (1) in the first sentence by--
                  (A) inserting ``(1)'' after ``PENALTY.--'' at the 
                beginning of the sentence;
                  (B) inserting ``or'' after ``30127,'' and striking 
                ``or 30166''; and
                  (C) striking ``$1,000'' and substituting ``$5,000'';
          (2) by striking the third sentence; and
          (3) by adding the following new paragraph:
                  ``(2) A person who violates section 30166 of this 
                title or a regulation prescribed under that section is 
                liable to the United States Government for a civil 
                penalty for failing or refusing to allow or perform an 
                act required under that section or regulation. The 
                maximum penalty under this paragraph is $5,000 per 
                violation per day. The maximum penalty under this 
                paragraph for a related series of daily violations is 
                $500,000.''.
  Sec. 108. Section 30165 is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
  ``(e) Administrative Penalties.--Whenever on the basis of any 
information available the Secretary finds that any person has violated 
any of the sections in (a) above or a regulation prescribed under any 
of those sections, the Secretary may assess a civil penalty under this 
subsection. The penalty amounts shall not exceed those under (a). The 
maximum penalty under this subsection for a related series of 
violations is $1,000,000.
  Sec. 109. Section 30166 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
by revising subsection (e) to read as follows:
  ``(e) Records and Making Reports.--
          (1) The Secretary of Transportation reasonably may require a 
        manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to 
        keep records, and a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to 
        make reports, to enable the Secretary to decide whether the 
        manufacturer, distributor, or dealer has complied or is 
        complying with this chapter or a regulation prescribed or order 
        issued under this chapter. This subsection does not impose a 
        recordkeeping requirement on a distributor or dealer in 
        addition to those imposed under subsection (f) of this section 
        and section 30117(b) of this title or a regulation prescribed 
        or order issued under subsection (f) or section 30117(b).
          ``(2) The Secretary of Transportation shall by rule require a 
        manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to 
        keep records and to make reports based on information it has 
        received, upon receiving information, periodically, or in 
        response to an order or specific requirement to make a report 
        with regard to crashes or incidents in vehicles and equipment 
        where there are fatalities, serious injuries or fires;
          ``(3) The Secretary of Transportation shall by rule require a 
        manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to 
        keep records and to make reports, upon receiving information, 
        periodically or in response to an order or specific requirement 
        to make a report with regard to warranty or adjustment 
        information related to actual or potential defects;
          ``(4) The Secretary of Transportation reasonably may require 
        a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to 
        provide to the Secretary of Transportation access to the 
        manufacturer's communications related to defects and recalls, 
        to the same extent and in the same manner as accessed by one or 
        more of the manufacturer's dealers; and
          ``(5) The Secretary of Transportation reasonably may require 
        a person in the business of providing automobile insurance or 
        resolving claims under insurance policies, to keep records or 
        to make reports, upon receiving information, periodically or in 
        response to an order or specific requirement to make a report 
        regarding crashes or incidents in vehicles and equipment where 
        there are fatalities, serious injuries or fires including 
        provision of the vehicle identification number, insured's names 
        and addresses and telephone numbers. This information shall be 
        treated as confidential information by the Secretary.
  Sec. 110. Section 30166 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
  ``(l) Definitions.--In this section, notwithstanding section 30102 of 
this title,
          ``(1) `dealer' means a person selling and distributing new 
        motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, within or outside 
        the United States, primarily to purchasers that in good faith 
        purchase the vehicles or equipment other than for resale.
          ``(2) `distributor' means a person primarily selling and 
        distributing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, within 
        or outside the United States, for resale.
          ``(3) `manufacturer'
                  ``(A) means a person--
                          ``(i) manufacturing or assembling motor 
                        vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or
                          ``(ii) importing motor vehicles or motor 
                        vehicle equipment for resale, and
                  ``(B) includes
                          ``(i) persons incorporated within or with 
                        their principal place of business in the United 
                        Sates and their direct and indirect domestic 
                        and foreign subsidiaries and affiliates,
                          ``(ii) persons with their principal place of 
                        business in a foreign country, including their 
                        direct or indirect domestic and foreign 
                        subsidiaries and affiliates, any of which 
                        export motor vehicles or motor vehicle 
                        equipment into the United States, and
                          ``(iii) persons with their principal place of 
                        business in a foreign country, including their 
                        direct or indirect domestic and foreign 
                        subsidiaries and affiliates, any of which 
                        manufactures or assembles motor vehicles or 
                        motor vehicle equipment in the United States.
          ``(4) `owner' means an owner within or outside the United 
        States.
          ``(5) `purchaser' means a purchaser within or outside the 
        United States.
          ``(6) `person' means any manufacturer, distributor or dealer 
        as defined above and any other person within the United States 
        that may have information related to this chapter.''.
  Sec. 111. Sections 103, 108, 109, and 109 of this Act shall take 
effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act.

                          TITLE II--ODOMETERS

  Sec. 201. Section 32709(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by--
          (1) striking ``$2,000'' and substituting ``$5,000''; and
          (2) striking ``$100,000'' and substituting ``$1,000,000''.
  Sec. 202. Section 32710(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ``$1,500'' and substituting ``$10,000''.

    Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late. 
Thank you. I will just conclude my questions, because I know we 
are going to be pursuing this.
    Senator Shelby. We are going to continue on this 
investigation, absolutely.

                       ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF RECALL

    To Mr. Crigger and Ms. Petrauskus, Ms. Claybrook mentioned 
here that companies do an economic analysis to determine 
whether to make modifications in their products, and surmises 
that such an analysis was done, or probably done relating to 
the Firestone tires and Explorer vehicles.
    Can you tell the subcommittee whether such analysis was 
actually done relating to tire failure, tire pressure, the 
Explorer suspension system, or any combination thereof by 
either of your companies or under contract for your companies, 
and sir, identify yourself.
    Mr. Wyant. Yes, sir. I am Bob Wyant. I am vice president 
for corporate quality for Bridgestone/Firestone. I am not sure 
I understand your question.
    Senator Shelby. Let me ask it again. Ms. Claybrook when she 
testified, mentioned that companies do an economic analysis to 
determine whether to make modifications to their products, and 
she surmised that such an analysis was done relating to, in 
this case, the Firestone tires. Was it in fact done?
    Mr. Wyant. In terms of a recall decision?
    Senator Shelby. I am just speaking of an economic analysis 
that would include a recall decision.
    Mr. Wyant. In short, no.
    Senator Shelby. And if not, why not?
    Mr. Wyant. In my 36 years, I am not aware of being involved 
in--am not involved and have never been involved in any safety 
related dollar analysis decision process, period.
    Senator Shelby. Well, some people would say a calculus of 
expected profits versus potential cost of lawsuits. Was that 
made in this case?
    Mr. Crigger. Nothing like that was done.
    Senator Shelby. Ms. Petrauskus, what about Ford?
    Ms. Petrauskus. Absolutely none. There was no such analysis 
made. If I might just, maybe to correct the record a little 
bit, there was earlier discussion about changes made.
    Senator Shelby. Modifications.
    Ms. Petrauskus. Modifications made during the development 
process and the engineering process for the explorer. One of 
the things I wanted to be absolutely clear on is, before the 
Explorer vehicle went into production it passed not just all of 
the Government's requirements but our own tough, very tough 
rollover requirements, and it did so at 26 psi tire pressure, 
and it did so at 35 psi tire pressure.
    I just want to be sure there was no confusion on that 
score. Thank you.

                   FORD EXPLORER SUSPENSION REDESIGN

    Senator Shelby. I have another question to direct to you. 
It has also been brought to our attention that during the 
consumer satisfaction replacement of tires in Saudi Arabia and 
Venezuela, that Ford instituted a redesign of the Explorer 
suspension. If that is true, why have you not taken similar 
action in the United States?
    Ms. Petrauskus. That is not correct. In the case of Saudi 
Arabia, at the same time as we replaced the customer tires we 
did two other things. We put in place a training program for 
our dealers, and we reduced the top speed of the Explorer 
electronically to try to see if we could keep the speed down. 
So we reduced the top speed to the levels that we have in the 
United States. They had been higher in Saudi Arabia.
    Senator Shelby. Does that lead reasonable people to infer 
perhaps that the tire problem is exacerbated by the vehicle and 
the design?
    Ms. Petrauskus. All of the evidence--I need to answer your 
question about Venezuela, too, and I will in a moment.
    All of the evidence we have in Saudi Arabia almost 
unequivocally seems to point to underinflation--but I am not 
talking about a little underinflation. I am not arguing about 
20 versus 26 versus 30. I am talking about underinflation in 
the low teens--a lot of bad repair practices, and a lot of 
damage, external damage to the tire, the kind you would get 
going over sharp rocks and the like, because there is a lot of 
recreational use of these vehicles in the desert, and that in 
part was one of the things that led us to conclude we need to 
reduce the maximum speed levels down to the U.S. level.
    In the case of Venezuela, the decision was made to put 
stiffer shock absorbers on the vehicles. These are the same we 
have used in Australia for some time. The good thing about 
these Australian shock absorbers is, they are stiffer and they 
do a much better job in terms of giving the customer a decent 
ride on washboard roads. It was a complaint we had. It was a 
want, a customer want we had from customers in Venezuela. We 
went ahead and decided to put it into production. There is 
absolutely no relationship between those shock absorbers, or 
the prior version, and tread separations and tire issues we 
have seen in Venezuela. We are absolutely confident of that.
    Senator Shelby. And in those lawsuits that were settled 
where the agreements are sealed, are you saying or would you 
say that there is no connection to anything that might come out 
of those?
    Ms. Petrauskus. If I might, I just want to be real clear in 
the case of Ford Motor Company I am unaware of documents, any 
documents that we sealed.
    Now, what we do have is, when there is a settlement 
agreement the fact of the settlement and the amount of the 
settlement is kept private, but everything else, all of the 
day-to-day engineering documents, all of the complaint data, 
all of the things that relate directly to safety, and that we 
have talked about making public, none of that, none of that is 
protected information, and the reason there have been so many 
documents talked about in the press is we do not ask for 
confidential treatment, and they are all over town.

                     NHTSA'S SLOWNESS IN RESPONDING

    Senator Shelby. Dr. Bailey, I will try to be quick with 
this. Representatives from State Farm Insurance, which insures, 
as I understand, about 20 percent of drivers in the United 
States, informed your agency's office of defects investigations 
of a growing number of incidents of tire failure by the P-35, 
75, R-15 Firestone, ATX tire mounted on 1991 to 1995 Ford 
Explorers in July of 1998.
    NHTSA, however, did not act on this information until May 
2000, or reportedly on subsequent phone conversations from 
State Farm to NHTSA. Why were these communications, these 
warnings, if you will, from State Farm seemingly ignored?
    Dr. Bailey. They were not ignored. When they were received 
they were analyzed in relationship to the population of tires 
that were produced, which was over 40 million at that time.
    Those 21 complaints, those claims that were ``noticed'', 
and that is a quote from the original e-mail, that were 
``noticed'', those claims ran over a period of almost 8 years, 
several years. So you can see over several years 21 complaints 
in a population of 40 million tires, it did not trigger an 
investigation, nor would it have.
    Senator Shelby. Let me follow up with this. If you are 
claiming or stating that those complaints perhaps were not 
enough to trigger an investigation, why did it open an 
investigation of model year 1991, 1993 Chrysler minivans after 
receiving, Dr. Bailey, only two complaints that seatbelts would 
open when in use, and did not this investigation lead to a 
recall of 1.1 million vehicles?
    In other words, you acted on one thing at a smaller 
threshold and at a larger threshold, probably a lot more 
danger, perhaps, you did not act at all.
    Dr. Bailey. Let me again put it in perspective and say that 
we take in about 50,000 complaints a year. There are about 500 
that deal with tires. There are only about 50 that deal with 
Firestone tires. There were only about five a year that dealt 
with these particular tires.
    And so that we have it in context here, you can see that 
again when we are looking at a population of 47 million tires 
produced with less than 5 complaints a year about these 
specific tires in question, that would not necessarily trigger 
an investigation, again where there may be 500 complaints a 
year about other tires.
    Let me also say, the difference between the Chrysler 
situation and the Firestone situation, is that we never expect 
a seatbelt or a child safety seat to fail. Therefore, one or 
two or three failures of something that is never supposed to 
fail is enough to trigger an investigation, whereas we know 
that tires that may be used for 40,000 miles, do fail. So we 
are putting it into the context of the difference between tires 
and safety mechanisms that are not ever intended to fail.
    Senator Shelby. To Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone, it has 
been mentioned here that, well, there is going to be a request 
by the committee for the documents, the internal documents 
related to Firestone and Ford and the safety and the warnings 
and everything. Will we have to subpoena those, and if so we 
will, or will you furnish those to the committee?
    Mr. Crigger. We will cooperate fully with the committee.
    Ms. Petrauskus. We will be happy to provide whatever 
documentation the committee will require.
    Senator Shelby. Okay. I want to thank all of you for your 
testimony and your participation here. We will continue our 
investigation.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Thank you. The subcommittee is recessed.
    [Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., Wednesday, September 13, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2001

                              ----------                              


                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2000

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 9:33 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Shelby and Specter.

          OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FREIGHT RAIL COMPETITION ISSUES

                       NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. CROWE, VICE PRESIDENT, WALTER 
            INDUSTRIES, INC., BIRMINGHAM, AL

             opening statement of senator richard c. Shelby

    Senator Shelby. The committee will come to order. This 
oversight hearing of the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee will now begin.
    American railroads carry more freight than ever. According 
to the Association of American Railroads, 26 million carloads 
of freight were carried in 1998; however, the number of major 
U.S. railroads has declined dramatically over the last two 
decades, and this high volume of freight traffic is 
concentrated on a more streamlined rail system that is 
experiencing capacity constraints, as we all know.
    Over the past couple of years I have had a number of 
meetings with rail-dependent companies, who consider themselves 
captive to one major railroad. They have no choice in who 
provides their rail service. These captive shippers, as they 
are called, feel that the level of service they are provided 
and the shipping rates they are charged reflect that lack of 
competition.
    Some companies can point to specific examples of how lack 
of competition is affecting their and their customers' bottom 
line. A chemical company in the Gulf Coast region of Texas 
cites the ridiculous instance of paying the exact same rate to 
ship their product by water to a market in the Far East, almost 
7,000 miles away, as they paid to ship by rail to Atlanta, less 
than 1,500 miles away. Their contract with the shipping company 
stipulates delivery within 2 days of the targeted delivery 
date. The rail contract to Atlanta has a 4-day delivery window 
there.
    A company might be willing to pay higher rates if they 
could be confident that their product would arrive at the 
destination within the time period specified in the service 
contract. Sadly, this is often not the case. Many companies 
have experienced severe service problems in the wake of recent 
mergers. In Alabama, my home State, two chemical companies 
reported to me that slow rail service in the wake of the Union 
Pacific/Southern Pacific merger led to a near shutdown of a 
major Alabama production plant, and did, in fact, shut down a 
production unit of specialty chemicals in McIntosh, Alabama, 
due to rail service failures.
    Shippers have very few realistic forms of redress for poor 
performance. A company can appeal unreasonable rates or lack of 
competitive access before the Surface Transportation Board, if 
they can afford it. FMC Corporation, a diversified industrial 
conglomerate headquartered in Chicago, filed an appeal against 
a Class I railroad, based on unreasonable rates, and after 2\1/
2\ years the STB ruled in FMC's favor. However, the legal costs 
of the drawn-out appeals process and the expense of economic 
modeling required by the STB cost the company $6 million to 
file the appeal, more than the company might ever recover in 
awards.
    I have called this hearing today to explore the issues of 
freight rail access, rail service, and shipping rates. I want 
to focus on whether there is sufficient level of competition 
and choice in the rail shipping and railroad industry. I know 
that some of today's witnesses will definitely answer no, we 
need more choice and better competitive options.
    Farmers, small businesses, and their customers deserve good 
service and fair pricing, just as much as large companies do. 
Competition drives investment, increases capacity, reduces 
shipping rates, and fuels economic growth. I want to talk about 
ways that railroads, the shipping community, and the regulatory 
agency that oversees them, the Surface Transportation Board, 
can enhance and stimulate competition.
    If railroads are unwilling to provide that service at a 
reasonable charge, I think that we should try to find ways to 
allow others to compete for that market. Small railroads and 
shippers help build and maintain communities. We know that. 
They are vital to the economies of American farms, small 
communities, and towns. Limited access, slow or erratic 
service, and non-competitive shipping rates discourage these 
smaller businesses, and can have real consequences on local 
economies. Railroads need to be more service oriented and more 
competitive.
    I am looking forward to our day's witnesses here, and look 
forward to hearing them all. Our first panel will be the 
shippers. We will have Mr. Bobby Tom Crowe, Walter Industries, 
Birmingham; Mr. Eric Aasmundstad, representing the American 
Farm Bureau and the farmers of North Dakota; and Ms. Diane 
Duff, from the Alliance for Rail Competition. I want to welcome 
all of you here today. Mr. Crowe, do you want to start?

                      STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. CROWE

    Mr. Crowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bobby Tom 
Crowe. I am here representing the American Chemistry Council 
and the Alabama Chemical Manufacturers, and uniquely, Walter 
Industries is made up of a group of subsidiary corporations of 
manufacturers that stretch all across the United States. We 
also happen to own and operate a very active short-line 
railroad.

                        COMPETITIVE RAIL SERVICE

    Mr. Chairman, I certainly commend this hearing and the 
committee encouraging the industry to come forward, and to 
comment, regard, and support competitive rail service in the 
United States.
    As you know, the American Chemistry Council is the voice of 
U.S. chemical industry. The American Chemistry Council 
represents the chemical industry on public policy issues, 
coordinates the industry's research and testing programs, 
administers the industry's environmental, health, safety, 
performance improvement initiative that is known as the 
Responsible Care program.
    I commend you for holding these hearings to encourage 
competition. Changes in the rail industry, marked by the series 
of non-competitive mergers, demand an examination of the 
current policy. It was the stated intent of the Staggers Act of 
1980 to encourage competition among railroads. Rail 
competitiveness legislation must include several important 
revisions to balance the interest of rail customers with those 
of rail carriers and rail labor.
    I am not here to bash or demagogue these issues. We all 
have a common goal, efficient, reliable, and reasonable-priced 
rail transportation, and encouraging competition between 
railroads is the way to achieve that goal. We need a responsive 
rail industry, not one that exploits major portions of its 
customer base, and deals very harshly with competitive 
shippers.
    The Council's member companies compete on a national and 
global basis. Sixty-three percent of our manufacturing 
facilities are captive to a single railroad. This makes it 
difficult for us to reduce costs and get our products to market 
on a consistent and reliable basis. A better balance in the 
existing regulatory system is clearly needed.
    Rail customers, therefore, recommend that six provisions be 
included in any rail competitive legislation: Clarify the rail 
transportation policy by requiring the STB to give greater 
weight to the need for increased competition; two, require all 
rail carriers to quote a rate between any two points where 
traffic originates, terminates, or may be reasonably 
interchanged without regard to whether the rate is for only 
part of the total movement; three, eliminate the requirement 
that evidence of anti-competitive abuse be produced in a 
request to the STB for competition in a terminal area; four, 
provide low-volume, captive, and all agricultural-related 
customers with the simple benchmark test for rate and service 
cases; five, codify the STB's decision to exclude evidence of 
product or geographic competition when determining market 
dominance; and six, abolish requirement that the STB determine 
revenue adequacy.
    While each of these provisions is discussed fully in my 
written statement, I will now address three of these most 
important areas of concern.

                              BOTTLENECKS

    Congress should require rail carriers to quote a rate 
between any two points where traffic originates, terminates, or 
may reasonably be interchanged. The STB has ruled that in most 
situations a railroad with such a bottleneck monopoly can 
foreclose competitive routing by other railroads. The STB will 
not even hear a challenge to the reasonableness of a rate for a 
bottleneck segment.
    We believe that a carrier that controls a bottleneck should 
not be allowed to exploit its monopoly position. Instead, its 
pricing should be subject to the current statutory restrictions 
against charging unreasonable high rates where there is no 
effective competition.
    Consistent with other deregulatory precedents, Congress 
should overturn the bottleneck decision. We are not asking you 
to dictate the rate, but if Congress lets the bottleneck 
decision stand, competition simply will not exist for most 
captive rail shippers.

                     COMPETITION IN TERMINAL AREAS

    Congress should eliminate the requirement that a customer 
must prove anti-competitive abuse to obtain access to another 
railroad in an area served by more than one carrier. The 
Staggers Act allows such competition in a terminal area by 
means of either terminal switching, trackage rights, or 
reciprocal switching. The law has been interpreted to mean that 
a customer must establish anti-competitive abuse, so railroads 
are effectively protected against competition. We ask Congress 
to remove the anti-competitive abuse test that has been 
superimposed on the current statute.

                            MARKET DOMINANCE

    Congress should codify the STB's decision to exclude 
evidence of product or geographic competition from the agency's 
market dominance determination. Market dominance is the 
threshold test for determining the agency's authority to hear 
rate cases. By law, market dominance means an absence of 
effective competition from other rail carriers or modes of 
transportation. There is no market dominance if a railroad 
proves that the rate is less than 180 percent of so-called 
variable costs of the movement.
    For many years, however, the STB required a rail customer 
prove that it did not have the ability to use other product 
competition or access a similar product from another 
geographical region. This made what was originally intended to 
be only a threshold test into a lengthy, complicated, and 
overburdensome process.
    In December 1998, as a result of rule-making proceedings, 
the STB determined that product and geographic competition 
should be removed as factors in the market dominance 
determinations. We are grateful that the STB heeded the 
complaints of the rail customers about its market dominance 
rules. We request that Congress simply codify the STB's recent 
decisions.
    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and committee 
staff, some describe our six provisions as re-regulation. To 
the contrary, we do not want more regulation. We want 
cooperation, and to enforce the intent of the Staggers Act, but 
we do believe that the pro-competitive intent of that Act has 
been undermined and with protectionist decisions. We urge you 
to remove the barriers to competition and to adjust policies 
that are no longer appropriate in a consolidated rail industry. 
Then we will see a stronger rail industry that will be able to 
respond to customers.
    Congress should also look into the concerns of rail labor, 
short-line railroads, and regional railroads when crafting rail 
competitiveness legislation. We look forward to working with 
you to accomplish this goal. We, again, do not need more 
regulation, but more cooperation. Historically, shippers have 
had to come to Congress to deal with railroads. We do not 
consider that as a request for greater regulation.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity.
    Senator Shelby. Yes, sir.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Robert T. Crowe

                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    This testimony is on behalf of the American Chemistry Council. The 
American Chemistry Council is the voice of the U.S. Chemical Industry. 
The American Chemistry Council represents the chemical industry on 
public policy issues, coordinates the industry's research and testing 
programs, and administers the industry's environmental, health, and 
safety performance improvement initiative, known as Responsible 
Care'.
    The testimony provides a brief summary of why rail customers 
engaged in the business of chemistry are concerned about rail 
transportation. It then reviews the need for changes in the existing 
law and provides specific recommendations for what those changes ought 
to be.
    Below is a summary of the six provisions that we as rail customers 
support in legislation to revamp the rail industry:
    1. Policy.--Clarify the rail transportation policy of the U.S. by 
requiring the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to give greater weight 
to the need for increased competition between and among rail carriers.
    2. Bottlenecks.--Require rail carriers to quote a rate between any 
two points on the system where traffic originates, terminates or may 
reasonably be interchanged without regard to whether the rate is for 
only part of the total movement.
    3. Competition in Terminal Areas.--Eliminate the requirement that 
evidence of anti-competitive conduct be produced when the STB 
determines outcome of requests to allow another railroad access to rail 
customer facilities within an area served by the tracks of more than 
one railroad.
    4. Relief for Certain Agricultural Shippers.--Provide small, 
captive agricultural shippers with a simple benchmark test for rate and 
service cases.
    5. Market Dominance.--Codify the STB's decision to exclude evidence 
of product or geographic competition when determining market dominance.
    6. Revenue Adequacy.--Abolish the requirement that the Board 
determine on a regular basis which railroads are revenue-adequate.
    Good afternoon Mister Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I 
am Bobby Tom Crowe. I am here today representing the American Chemistry 
Council. Our concern is the need for better rail transportation.
    You are to be commended for holding this hearing. Congress needs to 
become more active in the debate about rail transportation.
    The rail transportation debate has been described by some as ``re-
regulating'' the rail industry. I must strongly state that nobody 
supports returning to rail regulation as it existed prior to the 
enactment of the Staggers Act of 1980. Customers of the rail industry 
need a strong and economically viable railroad system. Without such a 
system, the country's economy will suffer and we would not be able to 
receive raw materials and market our products.
    At the same time, we need a rail industry that is responsive to the 
needs of its customers. My company, as well as the other members of the 
American Chemistry Council, competes on a national and international 
basis. The competition we face on a daily basis means not only that we 
must seek ways to reduce costs, but we must also seek transportation 
options that get our products to market on a timely basis. There are 
occasions when shipments must reach a rail destination by a specified 
time to be loaded on an ocean-going ship or to be used by a customer on 
a time-sensitive basis. If these shipments are late we can lose sales 
or face other business consequences. These are the reasons that rail 
transportation must be provided on a basis that is responsive to the 
demands of the customer. It is for these reasons that a better balance 
in the existing regulatory system is needed.
    In the United States, the business of chemistry employs some 
1,000,000 high-tech, high-wage workers. In turn, these lead to the 
creation of 1.1 million jobs in other industries, bringing total U.S. 
jobs dependant on the chemical industry to 2.1 million. Our industry is 
the U.S. leading export sector and a substantial contributor to a 
positive U.S. balance of payments. The chemical industry depends 
heavily on railroads to safely and efficiently transport raw materials 
to chemical manufacturing facilities and to deliver a wide variety of 
finished products to destinations throughout the country. Railroads 
also transport chemical exports to Canada, Mexico, and U.S. ports.
    According to data compiled by the Association of American 
Railroads, the chemical industry ships about 140 million tons of 
products by rail on an annual basis and spends about $5 billion per 
year on rail freight charges, accounting for 15 percent of the revenue 
received by U.S. railroads. Most significant in terms of 
competitiveness, 63 percent of chemical manufacturing facilities are 
served by a single railroad. These monopolized facilities face high 
transportation costs and often suffer from inadequate rail service.
    Recent rail transportation events have shaped the business 
environment. There is a growing awareness that transportation is not a 
separate, isolated function of the supply chain, but rather, an 
integral part of the production process. When talking about the 
transportation you must remember few other issues address such 
fundamental business components in corporate America. That is, rail 
transportation is about: Moving raw materials and products; Meeting 
customer demand; and Affecting the corporate bottom line.
    Why are the railroads the only industry in this country to exercise 
monopoly control over their customers? The core issue is the lack of 
competition in the U.S. rail system. Legislation is needed to address 
the fundamental way railroads operate.

                         BACKGROUND FOR CHANGE

    Four developments over the last twenty years have reduced the 
competitive transportation alternatives for many ``captive'' shippers.
Railroad Mergers and Consolidations
    First, the railroad industry has consolidated from approximately 40 
major railroads in 1980 to six major railroads today. There are two 
railroads in the west: the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Union 
Pacific; two in the east: the Norfolk Southern and the CSX; and two 
operating in the middle of the nation and in parts of the northeast: 
the Kansas City Southern and the combined Illinois Central/Canadian 
National. In their decisions approving railroad mergers, the STB and 
its predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), have 
attempted to maintain for all shippers at least as many transportation 
options as they had prior to the merger, sometimes using trackage 
rights and other such agreements to achieve these results. But the 
Board's efforts have not always been successful.
``Tie In'' Agreements with Shortline and Regional Carriers
    Second, there has been a proliferation of short line and regional 
railroads since 1980 as the major railroads sold off parts of their 
systems. However, as the major railroads sold tracks to new short line 
and regional railroads, the sales agreements often included provisions 
requiring the short line to move its freight back to the railroad that 
sold the track, even where movement to a second railroad might be 
possible. These provisions were approved by the ICC and the STB and 
further protected by an agreement between the major railroads and the 
short line and regional railroads, which itself has been approved by 
the STB. Thus, competition that could have been created by when tracks 
were sold has instead been stifled. It is of interest, however, than in 
testimony before the STB in March, the American Shortline and Regional 
Railroad Association advocated greater competition due to the higher 
level of consolidation that now prevails in the rail industry.
Lack of Competition in Terminal Areas
    Third, in the mid-1980's the ICC adopted an interpretation of the 
Interstate Commerce Act that allows the railroads to prevent 
competition from occurring in terminal areas. Terminal areas are those 
places where the facilities of at least two rail carriers cross and 
therefore competitive alternatives could be available to rail customers 
if they were able to be served by more than one railroad. Under its 
interpretation in the 1986 Midtec case, the ICC determined that 
railroads could avoid competition in a terminal area unless a shipper 
or other railroad proves ``anti-competitive abuse'' by the railroad. No 
applicant seeking competition in a terminal area has ever been able to 
satisfy the STB's interpretation of ``anti-competitive abuse''. This 
``anti-competitive abuse'' test is not contained in the Interstate 
Commerce Act as amended by the Staggers Act.
The Bottleneck Decision
    Finally, and perhaps of most concern to railroad customers, is the 
STB's ``bottleneck'' decision, which is fundamental to the entire issue 
of competition in the rail industry. On February 10, 1999, the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in MidAmerican Energy 
Co. v. Surface Transportation Board, upheld the December, 1996 decision 
of the STB that allows railroads to ``exploit'' their bottlenecks. The 
question of ``bottlenecks'' is now a public policy issue ripe for 
resolution by Congress.
    That judicial decision in the bottleneck case is that under current 
law railroads can avoid competition and ``exploit'' their customers 
located on railroad bottlenecks. Under this decision, the railroads 
have been given the best of both worlds: the benefits of deregulation 
and the ability to ``exploit'' their monopoly facilities! This state of 
the law must be reversed by an act of Congress.
    By way of background, ``bottlenecks'' are those sections of a 
transportation movement where only one railroad is available. 
Typically, for much of the remainder of the movement, competitive rail 
transportation options are available. ``Bottlenecks'' are a problem 
where one of the two railroads that could provide competition also 
controls the ``bottleneck''. Where the ``bottleneck'' carrier can 
provide service at the ``origination'' of the movement and at the 
``destination'' of the movement, then the ``bottleneck'' carrier has 
every economic incentive to exclude the other railroad from 
participation in a part of the overall movement. Thus, the 
``bottleneck'' railroad either will not provide a rate across only the 
``bottleneck'' portion (thus preventing the customer access to the 
railroad competition that is available) or will quote a rate for its 
portion of the movement that is so high as to make the joint-line 
portion economically infeasible.
    In December, 1996, the STB sided with the railroads in its 
``bottleneck'' decision, succumbing to their unsubstantiated claims 
that they would fall into financial ruin if they could not ``exploit'' 
their customers across their bottleneck facilities. Captive rail 
shippers are outraged by this decision. If this decision stands, the 
railroad industry will be the only ``network'' industry that has been 
both deregulated, but allowed to continue to ``exploit'' its 
``essential facilities''. This privilege was not extended to the 
airline industry, the telecommunications industry, the natural gas 
pipeline industry or the electric utility industry. In each of these 
cases, either Congress or the Federal regulatory agency has required 
these industries to allow competitive rates across their ``bottleneck'' 
facilities. Railroad customers demand to know why a different decision 
was made in the case of the railroads, why their interests have been 
dismissed and what standard is going to restrain the railroads 
``exploitation'' of those over whom the railroads continue to enjoy 
monopoly power.
    Railroad customers encourage Congress to adopt legislation 
overturning the ``bottleneck'' decision and requiring the railroad at 
least to quote a rate to customers across bottleneck facilities. 
Railroad customers are not even asking the Congress to dictate the 
rate, as has been in the case with respect to the telecommunications, 
pipeline and utility industries. If Congress lets this ``bottleneck'' 
decision stand, transportation competition simply will not exist for 
most captive rail shippers of bulk commodities.
    In light of these four developments, most shippers of bulk 
commodities do not have access to transportation competition. The 
choice of these railroad customers is either to keep quiet and accept 
the transportation terms dictated to them by the railroads or to test 
the reasonableness of their rate at the STB. Unfortunately, as shown in 
a 1999 GAO study, the ``rate reasonableness process'' at the STB is so 
difficult, costly, time consuming and cumbersome that few railroad 
customers ever pursue this remedy. This remedy, by the way, is the only 
rate relief remedy available to captive rail shippers.
    On other matters, STB Chairman Linda Morgan indicated in a letter 
to Senator John McCain and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, that the 
agency needs direction from Congress. That letter, dated December 21, 
1998, identified a number of areas in which Congress should provide 
more direction. These requests for direction include: rail competition, 
revenue adequacy, and so-called ``small'' rate cases.
    Unfortunately, the STB has chosen to ignore many of the policy 
mandates listed in Staggers. For example, the following are listed as 
rail policy in Staggers:
    1. Rail policy should foster sound economic conditions and to 
ensure effective competition and coordination between rail carriers and 
other modes;
    2. Rail policy should reduce regulatory barriers to entry into and 
exit from the industry; and
    3. Rail policy should prohibit predatory pricing and practices, to 
avoid undue concentrations of market power, and to prohibit unlawful 
discrimination.
    These policies need to be clarified legislatively and not with any 
new regulation of the industry. The Staggers Act provides the STB with 
policy to ensure a competitive, free-market environment for both large 
and smaller rail customers. It is time the policy is put into practice.

                            RECOMMENDATIONS

    In light of the above, the American Chemistry Council supports rail 
competitiveness legislation that includes the six provisions summarized 
here:
    1. Policy.--Clarify the rail transportation policy of the U.S. by 
requiring the Surface Transportation Board to give greater weight to 
the need for increased competition between and among rail carriers.
    2. Bottlenecks.--Require rail carriers to quote a rate, upon 
request, between any two points on the system where traffic originates, 
terminates or may reasonably be interchanged without regard to whether 
the rate is for only part of the total movement.
    3. Competition in Terminal Areas.--Eliminate the requirement that 
evidence of anti-competitive conduct be produced when the STB 
determines outcome of requests to allow another railroad access to rail 
customer facilities within an area served by the tracks of more than 
one railroad.
    4. Relief for Certain Agricultural Shippers.--Provide small, 
captive agricultural shippers with a simple benchmark test for rate and 
service cases.
    5. Market Dominance.--Codify the STB's decision to exclude evidence 
of product or geographic competition when determining market dominance.
    6. Revenue Adequacy.--Abolish the requirement that the Board 
determine on a regular basis which railroads are revenue-adequate.
    Each of these provisions is discussed in more detail below.
    1. Policy.--Congress should clarify the U.S. rail transportation 
policy by requiring the STB to give greater weight to the need for 
increased competition between and among rail carriers.
    The current rail transportation policy appears to clearly favor 
competition as the primary regulator of choice. Currently, the statute 
appropriately states that, among other factors, it is Federal policy:
  --to allow, to the maximum extent possible, competition and the 
        demand for services to establish reasonable rates for 
        transportation by rail;
  --to minimize the need for Federal regulatory control and to require 
        fair and expeditious regulatory decisions when regulation is 
        required;
  --to promote a safe and efficient rail transportation system by 
        allowing rail carriers to earn adequate revenues as determined 
        by the Board;
  --to ensure development of sound rail transportation system with 
        effective competition among rail carriers and with other modes, 
        to meet the needs of the public and the national defense;
  --to foster sound economic conditions and to ensure effective 
        competition and coordination between rail carriers and other 
        modes;
  --to maintain reasonable rates where there is an absence of effective 
        competition;
  --to reduce regulatory barriers to entry into and exit from the 
        industry;
  --to prohibit predatory pricing and practices, to avoid undue 
        concentrations of market power, and to prohibit unlawful 
        discrimination; and,
  --to provide for the expeditious handling and resolution of all 
        proceedings required or permitted to be brought under this 
        part.
    However, a review of the past 20 years of regulatory precedent 
demonstrates that rail regulators have given disproportionate emphasis 
to the provision that states that the STB is to allow rail carriers to 
earn adequate revenues. If Congress truly intended for competition to 
be the regulator of choice--among rail carriers as well as with other 
modes--the priorities of this policy need to be clarified 
legislatively.
    2. Bottlenecks.--Congress should require rail carriers, upon 
request, to quote a rate between any two points on the system where 
traffic originates, terminates or may reasonably be interchanged 
without regard to whether the rate is for only part of the total 
movement.
    In the agency's 1996 ``bottleneck'' decision, the STB ruled that, 
in most situations, a rail carrier with a ``bottleneck'' monopoly can 
lawfully foreclose alternate and competitive rail routings by another 
carrier, where the ``bottleneck'' carrier can provide origin to 
destination service. Consider the example of a shipper that needs to 
move his goods 1,000 miles and is served by both Carrier A and Carrier 
B at his destination, but only Carrier A at his origin. Carrier B 
interchanges with Carrier A and can provide alternative and competitive 
rail service over 900 miles of the total movement from the interchange 
to the destination.
    In the above example, even though Carrier B can provide competition 
over a large portion of the movement, the STB ruled that Carrier A can 
simply refuse to interchange with Carrier B for transportation from the 
interchange to the destination. The STB also ruled that it would not 
even consider a shipper's challenge to the lawfulness of a rate for 
this ``bottleneck'' segment. This means that there can be no review of 
the reasonableness of a rate for the 100 miles controlled by Carrier A 
in the above example.
    The STB's bottleneck decision should be reversed legislatively, to 
restore to shippers the right to route over competitive routings at 
rates produced by the competitive market thorough existing 
interchanges, and to clarify that the STB can establish a maximum 
reasonable rate over a bottleneck segment. These changes would ensure 
that the monopoly bottleneck carrier couldn't take advantage of its 
pricing power to foreclose competition over the competitive portion of 
the route. They would permit competition to flourish where it can. 
These changes would not bring a return to the old ``open routing'' 
system, whereby carriers were required to keep even inefficient 
interchanges open and were required to charge the same rate over all 
possible routes. Rather, only interchanges already utilized by the 
carriers would qualify, and rates over various routes would vary as 
costs and competition demand. Where a carrier controls a bottleneck, 
its pricing initiative would only be subject to current statutory 
restrictions against charging unreasonably high rates where there is no 
effective competition.
    Consistent with other congressional deregulatory precedent, 
railroad customers encourage Congress to adopt legislation overturning 
the ``bottleneck'' decision and requiring the railroad at least to 
quote a rate to customers across bottleneck facilities. Railroad 
customers are not asking Congress to dictate the rate, as has been in 
the case with respect to the telecommunication, pipeline and utility 
industries. If Congress lets this ``bottleneck'' decision stand, 
transportation competition simply will not exist for most captive rail 
shippers.
    3. Competition in Terminal Areas.--Congress should eliminate the 
requirement that evidence of anti-competitive conduct be produced when 
the STB determines outcome of requests to allow another railroad access 
to rail customer facilities within an area served by the tracks of more 
than one railroad.
    The 1980 Staggers Rail Act specifically allowed competition to 
occur within terminal areas by means of either ``terminal trackage 
rights'' or ``reciprocal switching,'' but regulatory interpretation of 
the law has prevented this from occurring.
    According to 49 USC Sec. 11102. ``Use of Terminal Facilities,'' the 
law clearly states that the Board may require terminal facilities--
including mainline tracks for a reasonable distance outside a 
terminal--to be used by another rail carrier if it is ``practicable'' 
and ``in the public interest'' so long as it does not ``substantially'' 
impair the owner of those facilities to handle its own business. This 
is referred to as ``trackage rights.''
    This section of the law also clearly states that the Board may 
require rail carriers in a terminal facility to transfer, or 
``switch,'' a customer's shipment to another rail carrier--under what 
is known as ``reciprocal switching agreements,''--where such agreements 
are found to be ``practicable and in the public interest,'' or ``where 
such agreements are necessary to provide competitive rail service.''
    Railroads already can access each other's customers through either 
trackage rights or reciprocal switching agreements, and often do. 
However, the railroads decide unilaterally which customers within the 
reasonable distance of the terminal area can access such competition, 
and the competing railroads usually will only agree to an ``even swap'' 
of access to specific customers. As a result, most customers that fall 
within a ``reasonable distance'' or rail terminal facilities can not 
get competition through these provisions unless the regulator deems 
such action to be ``practicable and in the public interest'' or 
``necessary to provide competitive rail service''--a function that was 
originally envisioned and anticipated within the 1980 Act as a means to 
encourage competition.
    Unfortunately, regulators have interpreted the language of the 
statute to mean that a rail customer must prove that the railroad was 
undertaking anti-competitive abuse. Rather than affirming the pro-
competitive intent of the law, the regulator has determined that 
trackage rights and reciprocal switching agreements will only be used 
when anti-competitive behavior can be proven to exist. Although this 
provision of the law was clearly intended as a means of encouraging an 
emergence of competition, instead the STB chose to protect the rail 
industry from competition. Therefore, rail customers are asking 
Congress to remove the ``anti-competitive abuse test'' that was 
superimposed on the current statute by regulators.
    4. Relief for Certain Agricultural Shippers.--Provide low volume, 
captive agricultural shippers with a simple benchmark test for rate and 
service cases.
    In the case of the low-volume agricultural shipper, a better test 
must be established to provide these customers with a quick and simple 
way to access relief from poor service and unreasonably high rates 
within the existing regulatory framework. The existing ``small rate 
cases'' provision does not work because it does not provide any clear 
indication of who would qualify, or establish a definitive simple rate 
or service benchmark.
    Consider: STB's guidelines established three factors that the Board 
will look at to determine the maximum rate for small shippers. 
Specifically, the Board reviews the profits that the carrier obtains 
from the challenged rate compared to: (1) The profits that railroads in 
general earn from comparable traffic; (2) The level of profits that the 
carrier would need to obtain from all of its potentially captive 
traffic in order to become ``revenue adequate''; and (3) The profits 
that the defendant carrier earns on all of its potentially captive 
traffic. But the Board has never said how these comparison factors will 
be weighted or if they will even be utilized, so from a legal 
standpoint, a small shipper has no means of assessing the potential 
outcome of bringing a rate complaint.
    In addition, there has never been a decision by the Board about 
what case would qualify as a ``small case'' so a shipper with a 
complaint doesn't even know who can qualify to use these rules. One of 
the three comparison factors depends upon access to the confidential 
waybill sample data, and you can't get access to the data until you 
file a complaint. Beyond the complexities of the STB's guidelines, the 
process is lengthy and costly. The prospect of spending thousands of 
dollars--or even millions, and weeks--or even years--of time on a 
process that is unlikely to provide any real relief is not especially 
enticing, particularly in a fast paced marketplace where other business 
opportunities could be lost.
    In STB Chairman Morgan's letter of December 21, 1998, she 
specifically noted that, if Congress agrees with the assessment that 
the current guidelines could unreasonably impede access to the 
regulatory process and should be replaced by a single benchmark test, 
Congress could adopt specific ``small'' rate case standards.
    Various members of the agricultural community have proposed a 
threshold under which it would be clear what rate and service 
circumstances would merit regulatory relief. This proposal would also 
establish the parameters for such relief, and in circumstances where 
all else fails, allow eligible facilities to sue for damages either in 
Federal court or before the STB.
    5. Market Dominance.--Codify the STB's decision to exclude evidence 
of product or geographic competition when determining market dominance.
    According to the statute, ``market dominance'' means an absence of 
effective competition from other rail carriers or modes of 
transportation. In theory, a finding of ``market dominance'' gives the 
STB the authority to protect a captive shipper--one who has no 
alternative transportation choices--from excessively high rates. By 
law, if a rail carrier proves that the rate charged is less than 180 
percent of out-of-pocket costs, then that carrier is determined to be 
not market dominant. Market dominance was intended by Congress to be 
merely a threshold test for determining the agency's authority in 
hearing rate cases.
    However, in implementing this part of the statute, regulators 
required a rail customer to prove that it did not have the ability to 
use another product (``product competition'') or access a similar 
product from another geographic region (``geographic competition''). 
The addition of determining product and geographic competition as part 
of market dominance made what was originally intended to be only a 
threshold test into a lengthy, complicated and overly burdensome 
process.
    On December 21, 1998, as a result of a rulemaking proceeding, the 
STB determined that factors of product and geographic competition 
should be removed from the market dominance determinations. This 
provision would simply codify this decision.
    Captive rail shippers are very grateful that the STB heeded the 
complaints of railroad customers and removed the consideration of 
``product'' and ``geographic'' competition from the ``market 
dominance'' test. This provision would simply codify the STB's December 
21, 1998 decision.
    6. Revenue Adequacy.--Abolish the requirement that the Board 
determine on a regular basis which railroads are revenue adequate.
    According to the STB, the revenue adequacy status of any particular 
railroad has little practical effect, and Congress may wish to consider 
legislatively abolishing the requirement that the Board determine on a 
regular basis which railroads are revenue adequate.
    According to many financial analysts on Wall Street, the revenue 
adequacy status of any particular railroad is never even considered 
when determining the financial status of that railroad.
    Finally, according to Dr. Alfred Kahn, the noted economist widely 
known as the ``father of deregulation'' for his work in deregulating 
the airline and trucking industries, the revenue adequacy test as 
currently applied by the Surface Transportation Board is nonsensical 
and should be abolished.
    In short, the annual regulatory determination of revenue adequacy 
has little if any bearing on the realities of railroad economics 
unnecessarily polarizes the transportation community, and should be 
eliminated.

                               CONCLUSION

    The chemical industry believes that any rail competitiveness 
legislation must include these provisions. These provisions do not 
``re-regulate'' the rail industry; in fact, in most cases, they remove 
agency-imposed barriers to competition or adjust regulatory policies 
that are no longer appropriate in a consolidated industry. If these 
provisions are enacted, rail customers believe that we will see the 
growth of an inherently stronger rail industry that is responsive to 
customer needs and concerns. We look forward to working with you to 
accomplish just that.

STATEMENT OF ERIC AASMUNDSTAD, NORTH DAKOTA FARM BUREAU 
            STATE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU 
            FEDERATION

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Aasmundstad, go ahead.
    Mr. Aasmundstad. Good afternoon, Chairman Shelby. My name 
is Eric Aasmundstad. I am the President of the North Dakota 
Farm Bureau, and in addition to my duties as President of the 
North Dakota Farm Bureau, I am also a grain producer and custom 
harvest operator in North Central North Dakota. I am appearing 
here today representing the American Farm Bureau Federation, 
the nation's largest general farm organization.

                        NORTH DAKOTA LANDLOCKED

    The area where I live in North Dakota is landlocked, and we 
are 100 percent dependent on over-land transport to the ports. 
The farmers there have every reason to be concerned about 
competitive transportation. It is impossible for the relatively 
small number of Americans who farm to feed the remaining 
majority of Americans who do not, in the absence of a viable 
transportation system.
    Environmental advocates insist that we cannot expand and 
modernize the waterway transportation infrastructure in the 
upper Mississippi, which is so crucial to my area. Some of 
these same environmental advocates insist that the Corps of 
Engineers implement a so-called spring rise on the Missouri 
that will end commercial navigation on the Missouri, including 
export grain, and endanger commercial navigation on the main 
stem of the Mississippi. Still, other environmental advocates 
insist that the Corps of Engineers destroy the waterway 
navigation infrastructure that is critical to the 
competitiveness of grain producers in the Northwest.
    Ironically, those who seek to end waterway navigation 
insist the freight can be moved on trucks and by rail when 
these alternative modes are clearly unable to handle the 
additional freight. Add to this safety advocates who insist 
that highway safety must be served by reducing the number of 
hours a farmer can drive to deliver his grain to ever more 
distant river terminals and rail-loading facilities, coupled 
with the fact that our rural highways and bridges continue to 
deteriorate and Class I railroads continue to abandon rural 
rail lines. All these things considered together put a very, 
very heavy burden on the agricultural sector.

                              COMPETITION

    Competition is important for all agricultural shippers. As 
a general rule, agricultural shippers are unable to command the 
market power to deal with a railroad company as effectively as 
a major coal mining company or electric utility.
    We are often forced to deal with poor service, such as 
trains that are not delivered to a loading point in a timely 
manner, and it may not be picked up for days or weeks. Farmers 
and agricultural shippers must also absorb extremely high 
freight rates that railroad companies can demand due to their 
monopoly market power.
    The real-world experience of American farmers demonstrates 
that competition would be helpful. Prior to the massive rail 
consolidation of the last 20 years, many agricultural areas 
were served by three or four railroads that could move grain 
and other bulk commodities. Today, only two railroads carry the 
vast bulk of the traffic that moves west of the Mississippi 
River, and in many areas, they do not compete with each other. 
Grain producers from western States pay very high freight rates 
to ship their grain.

                              STAGGERS ACT

    Over the years, the ICC and the STB, which succeeded it, 
determined that the powers granted by the Staggers Act set that 
a shipping rate of 160 percent of a railroad's variable costs 
as full return for the railroad's cost to capital. Further, the 
Staggers Act determined the railroad rates greater than 180 
percent of variable costs are excessive.
    In a fact-finding proceeding conducted recently by the STB, 
the North Dakota Public Service Commission, the North Dakota 
Wheat Commission, and the North Dakota Grain Dealers 
Association submitted shipping cost figures to the STB in March 
1998 regarding shipping rates from North Dakota to Portland, 
Oregon. According to that submission, shipping rates averaged 
from 229 percent to 257 percent of variable costs, using rate 
figures from the fourth quarter of 1995.
    According to a quick survey of grain shippers in my state, 
BNSF now charges about $1.20 per bushel to ship Hard Red Spring 
Wheat to Seattle. If you compare this per-bushel shipping price 
to the market being offered in my State of $2.27 a bushel, you 
can see that farmers in my State are working several months a 
year to pay BNSF to ship their product.
    Every penny in shipping costs that result from a lack of 
meaningful competition is born by farmers in the form of lower 
grain prices at the elevator where they sell their grain. We 
believe meaningfull competition among rail service providers 
would help alleviate this problem.
    I have spent a great deal of time here discussing the 
price, because the numbers are available that can help describe 
the problem. Service difficulties are more difficult to 
quantify and assign numbers to. Overtime costs elevator 
operators must incur when a railroad drops off cars late, and 
insists on picking them up loaded the next day, missing 
connection points with customers, and trains sometimes lost for 
days in shipping yards all have costs that are born by 
shippers, and ultimately by the farmers.

                        PAPER AND STEEL BARRIERS

    Since many rural areas find themselves served by short-line 
or regional railroads, it is critically important for reforms 
to discourage paper and steel barriers. Paper barriers may 
prevent a short line or regional railroad from interchanging 
with any Class I other than the one that sold the track that 
now forms the short line's infrastructure as a condition of 
that sale.
    These contractual barriers can take other forms as well. 
Steel barriers are more simple. Sometimes the class one that 
sold the short line or regional railroad's track simply removes 
any spurs or branches that would allow the smaller railroad to 
interchange with any other class one. Congress should prohibit 
such barriers to competition and instruct the STB to carry out 
that mandate. There are key reforms needed to ensure meaningful 
rail competition.
    Competition is of paramount importance. Farm Bureau 
supports provisions of the Rail Competition and Service 
Improvement Act that requires incumbent railroads to offer 
access to competing railroads in terminal areas and allow 
shippers to seek rates from a competitor over so-called 
bottleneck rail segments. Many agricultural shippers find 
themselves captive to a single rail service provider.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    One of the things our members, the folks I represent in 
North Dakota, feel that--one of the questions that have to be 
answered, should railroads be considered strictly a for-profit 
entity, owned and controlled by their stockholders, or should 
they be thought to provide an essential service, much as 
electric companies? That is the question we feel needs to be 
answered.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Eric Aasmundstad

    Chairman Shelby and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Eric 
Aasmundstad, President of the North Dakota Farm Bureau. In addition to 
my duties as North Dakota Farm Bureau president, I am a grain producer 
and custom combine operator in north central North Dakota. I am 
appearing today representing the American Farm Bureau Federation, the 
nation's largest general farm organization, with nearly five million 
Farm Bureau families across the country.
    Farmers have every reason to be concerned about competitive 
transportation. It is impossible for the relatively small number of 
Americans who farm to feed the remaining majority of Americans who do 
not, in the absence of a viable transportation system. Washington has 
failed to create competitive transportation options by reforming the 
outdated Jones Act, which effectively prohibits coastwise ocean 
transportation of agricultural products and allows operators of a small 
and inefficient U.S. flag fleet to maintain a monopoly on such 
transportation. Environmental advocates insist that we cannot expand 
and modernize the waterway transportation infrastructure on the Upper 
Mississippi. Some of these same environmental advocates insist that the 
Corps of Engineers implement a so-called spring rise on the Missouri 
River that will end commercial navigation on the Missouri (including 
carrying export grain) and endanger commercial navigation on the 
mainstem of the Mississippi. Still other environmental advocates insist 
that the Corps of Engineers destroy the waterway navigation 
infrastructure that is critical to the competitiveness of grain 
producers in the Northwest.
    Since 1997, the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Railroad has 
worked to improve and expand its lines, allowing it to move coal from 
the Powder River basin in Wyoming to its Mississippi River terminal in 
Minnesota. This will also allow DM&E to offer improved service to its 
agricultural shippers. According to USDA testimony on this matter, 
Surface Transportation Board (STB) Finance Docket No. 33407, Dakota, 
Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation Construction Into the Powder 
River Basin, 11/30/98:

    ``DM&E's shippers cannot compete effectively for (Pacific 
Northwest) traffic because the railroad is too slow--it takes 9 days to 
move across DM&E from end-to-end. Rebuilding the railroad will promise 
to cut this travel time from days to hours. In addition, connecting to 
the Iowa & Minnesota Rail Link near Owatonna, Minnesota, will allow 
DM&E-sourced corn to move to the processing plants of Iowa. With the 
ability ship to three major markets (river, processors, and Pacific 
Northwest), the basis price for agricultural producers should rise: 
some estimates suggest increases as high as $.20 per bushel for both 
corn and wheat. If prices for wheat, corn and soybeans increased just 
$.10 per bushel, then farm income in the DM&E service region could 
increase by more than $90 million in a typical crop year.''

    Mr. Chairman, with a strong endorsement like that, you might think 
the necessary regulatory approvals to rebuild and expand the DM&E would 
already be in hand, and heavy equipment would be humming in South 
Dakota and Minnesota. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Three years 
after beginning their regulatory efforts, DM&E and its investors are 
still awaiting an environmental impact statement (EIS) from the Surface 
Transportation Board that is long overdue and is estimated to run to 
some 3,000 pages. This draft EIS will incorporate input from five 
different Federal agencies, including the Coast Guard. I didn't know 
the Coast Guard had anyone in South Dakota to notice what might be 
going on there, let alone pay attention to rail construction. In the 
meantime, the project is in danger of running out of money and out of 
time, and agricultural shippers in South Dakota and Minnesota are in 
danger of losing yet another transportation option.
    Rural highways and bridges continue to deteriorate as Class I 
railroads continue to abandon rural rail lines. Ironically, those who 
seek to end waterway navigation insist the freight can be moved on 
trucks and by rail, when these alternative modes are clearly unable to 
handle the additional freight. Add to all this safety advocates who 
insist that highway safety must be served by reducing the number of 
hours a farmer can drive to deliver grain to ever-more distant river 
terminals and rail loading facilities.
    Farm Bureau supports greater intermodal and intramodal competition 
and public policies that encourage competition. The AFBF Board of 
Directors approved priority issues for 2000 at its meeting in January. 
Among these priorities are: ``Promote public policies that support a 
low-cost national transportation system to ensure international 
competitiveness of U.S. farm production.'' A key aspect of 
accomplishing this broad goal is to seek public policies that create 
the largest possible number of competitive transportation options for 
agricultural shippers. Unfortunately, the public policy trend seems to 
be moving in the opposite direction.
    Competition is important for small agricultural shippers. As a 
general rule, agricultural shippers are unable to command the market 
power to deal with a railroad company as effectively as a major coal 
mining company or electrical utility. We are often forced to deal with 
poor service, such as trains that are not delivered to the loading 
point in a timely manner or that may not be picked up for days or 
weeks. Farmers and agricultural shippers must also absorb extremely 
high freight rates that railroad companies can demand due to their 
monopoly market power.
    We believe that the railroad landscape prior to the passage of the 
Staggers Act allowed for the possibility of competition. The Staggers 
Act brought about partial deregulation of the railroad industry and 
encouraged rail industry consolidation on a massive scale. AFBF policy 
approved by the delegates to the 81st AFBF Convention in January 2000 
says, in part, ``We oppose parallel mergers of rail systems and the 
granting of railroad abandonments which tend to lessen potential 
transportation competition.''
    Most of the important mergers that have occurred over the last 15 
years, including that which created the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, 
have reduced competitive shipping opportunities for many agricultural 
shippers. Farm Bureau opposed the 1996 merger in which the Union 
Pacific absorbed the Southern Pacific because of concerns about 
competitive shipping opportunities for agricultural shippers. In each 
instance with these past mergers, shippers have been promised benefits 
that largely have yet to materialize. We are pleased that the Surface 
Transportation Board is undertaking a review of its rules for 
consideration of future rail mergers to determine if changes are 
needed. In this Board proceeding, Ex Parte 582, it is important that 
the Board create clear and unambiguous rules to ensure that competitive 
rail service options are preserved for shippers in all future mergers. 
Farm Bureau has provided the Board with preliminary comments in that 
rulemaking, and we look forward to continuing to participate in that 
process. For the information of the subcommittee, the pre-rulemaking Ex 
Parte 582 comment of the Farm Bureau is attached to my statement. But, 
as I will discuss later, we are concerned that Board action to 
encourage competition will be insufficient to guarantee competition. We 
believe passage of Farm Bureau-supported legislation like S. 621, the 
Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 1999, will be 
necessary.
    The real-world experience of American farmers demonstrates that 
competition would be helpful. Prior to massive rail consolidation of 
the last 20 years, many agricultural areas were served by three or four 
railroads that could move grains and other bulk commodities. Today, 
only two railroads carry the vast bulk of the traffic that moves west 
of the Mississippi River, and in many areas they do not compete with 
each other. Grain producers in western states pay very high rates to 
ship their grain. Over the years, the Interstate Commerce Commission--
and the Surface Transportation Board that succeeded it--determined with 
the powers granted by the Staggers Act that a shipping rate of 160 
percent of a railroad's variable costs (labor, transportation, fuel, 
etc.) is full return of the railroad's cost of capital. Further, the 
Staggers Act determined that railroad rates greater than 180 percent of 
variable cost are excessive.
    In a fact-finding proceeding conducted recently by the STB, known 
as Ex Parte 575, the North Dakota Public Service Commission, the North 
Dakota Wheat Commission and the North Dakota Grain Dealers Association 
submitted shipping cost figures to the STB in March 1998 regarding 
shipping rates from North Dakota to Portland. According to that 
submission, shipping rates averaged from 229 percent to 257 percent of 
variable cost, using rate figures from the fourth quarter of 1995.
    But rather than concentrate on economic theory like percentages of 
variable cost, one can look at prices to move rail cars from certain 
locations to major grain ports in the Pacific Northwest to learn the 
true cost of the lack of rail competition for farmers. Earlier this 
year, Burlington Northern charged $3,792 to move a hopper car in a 52-
car train carrying 3,260 bushels of grain from Plentywood, Montana 
1,207 miles to Portland, Oregon. That is about $1.13 per bushel for 
rail transportation cost. From Alliance, Nebraska, to Portland, Oregon, 
(1,473 miles) Burlington Northern charges $3,325, or about $.99 per 
bushel. Thus, we have the odd situation that Nebraska farmers shipping 
from Alliance pay less per bushel to move their grain farther than 
their Montana counterparts shipping from Plentywood. Why should Montana 
farmers pay $.14 per bushel more to ship their grain more than 200 
fewer miles than Nebraska farmers do? In this case, Nebraska farmers 
benefit to a limited degree from competition between railroads. Farm 
Bureau believes that all farmers, including those in Montana, should 
enjoy the benefit of competition, and Nebraska farmers should enjoy 
even greater benefits of competition than they enjoy now.
    According to a quick survey of grain shippers in my state, BNSF now 
charges about $1.20 per bushel to ship Hard Red Spring Wheat to 
Seattle. If you compare this per-bushel shipping price to the market 
being offered in my state ($2.27 a bushel for wheat per Grainline.com 
on August 10), you can see that farmers in my state are working several 
months a year to pay BNSF to haul their grain to market. Every penny in 
shipping cost that results from a lack of meaningful competition is 
borne by farmers in the form of lower grain prices at the elevators 
where they sell their grain. We believe meaningful competition among 
rail service providers would help alleviate this problem.
    I spend a great deal of time here discussing price because numbers 
are available that can help describe the problem. Service difficulties 
are more difficult to quantify and assign numbers to. Overtime costs 
elevator operators must incur when a railroad drops off cars late and 
insist on picking them up loaded the next day, missing connection 
points with customers, and trains sometimes lost for days in switching 
yards all have costs that are borne by shippers and ultimately by 
farmers.
    There are key reforms needed to ensure meaningful rail competition. 
Competition is of paramount importance. Farm Bureau supports provisions 
of the Rail Competition and Service Improvement Act that requires 
incumbent railroads to offer access to competing railroads in terminal 
areas, and to allow shippers to seek rates from a competitor over so-
called ``bottleneck'' rail segments, where many agricultural shippers 
find themselves captive to a single rail service provider.
    Since many rural areas find themselves served by shortline or 
regional railroads, it is critically important for reforms to 
discourage ``paper'' and ``steel'' barriers. ``Paper'' barriers may 
prevent a shortline or regional railroad from interchanging with any 
Class I other than the one that sold the track that now forms the 
shortline's infrastructure as a condition of that sale. These 
contractual barriers can take other forms as well. ``Steel'' barriers 
are more simple: sometimes the Class I that sold the shortline or 
regional railroad its track simply removes any spurs or branches that 
would allow that smaller railroad to interchange with any other Class 
I. Congress should prohibit such barriers to competition and instruct 
the Surface Transportation Board to carry out that mandate.
    Thank you for your time and attention. I'd be happy to answer any 
questions you may have.

    Senator Shelby. Thank you. Ms. Duff, do you mind if Senator 
Burns--if you will defer to him. I wanted to ask you, though--
--
    Senator Burns. Yes. You better ask her--you do not want to 
get----
    Senator Shelby. I think you-all are on the same song book 
here----
    Senator Burns. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. The same page.
    Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much----
    Senator Shelby. Senator Burns, thank you.
    Senator Burns [continuing]. For inviting me here today. I 
will just submit my statement. I did want to----
    Senator Shelby. It is in the record, without objection.
    Senator Burns [continuing]. Sort of reinforce what Mr. 
Aasmundstad, down there, said.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

    Senator Burns. Keep in mind that we are talking about great 
distances in the West when we start working, when we start 
moving stuff, whether we are moving coal, or we are moving 
services or equipment into our State, because agriculture, we 
sell wholesale, we buy retail, and we pay the freight both 
ways. Right now, that freight is taking one big bite, 
especially in States where we are captive shipper. North Dakota 
has the same problem we did.
    Now, I will tell you a little story about Wesby, Montana. 
Wesby, Montana used to be in North Dakota years ago, but they 
moved over into Montana, because of a freight weight situation. 
Now, we are thinking about moving it back, because you get the 
cheaper rates from North Dakota to Portland than we do in 
Montana. We can ship to North Dakota, and North Dakota can 
change engines and send it right back through the State, back 
to Portland, and we come out a little bit better. That is the 
way it was working for quite a while.
    So we have legislation pending, and it has quite a lot of 
support around the country, and, of course, I do not think 
there is a chance that we get it done this year, but next year 
I think we will, and we need to pursue it for the simple reason 
that even though the railroads or the majors will tell you that 
rates have come down nationally, but in States where we are 
captive shippers, just the opposite is true.
    About 3 years ago we got into a situation that has hurt 
agriculture more than anything else. We had a merger in the 
Southwest, and we had a virtual meltdown in Houston. We had 
cars tied up, and we had grain on the ground that never was 
shipped, that was never moved, and you combine that with the 
complete collapse, the financial collapse of five countries in 
the Pacific rim that take the majority of our production in the 
Northwest, and you combine those two, and we have never been 
able to recover from those situations. Some of that was caused 
by just the lack of service and the attitude towards service, 
and also our freight rates.
    So I am going to submit my statement for the record today. 
I appreciate you having these hearings. There is concern, 
because the mergers in the railroads are not over. They are not 
over.
    There are some pending out there, even though the 
Burlington Northern Sante Fe with the Canadian National, that 
is sort of on the back burner right now, I doubt if it will 
happen, but it is not for sure that there are not more mergers 
out there in the offing.
    So I appreciate you having these hearings, and I appreciate 
the courtesy. Thank you, Ms. Duff, for doing that, and I would 
submit my statement for the record.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Senator Shelby. The statement will be made a part of the 
record without objection.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns

    Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 
before your Subcommittee. The issue of rail competition is one I have 
been very active on over the last decade.
    As you know, Congress passed the Staggers Act in 1980. At the time 
of enactment, there were over 40 major railroads. Today, we have only 4 
major railroads. Within 20 years, rail competition in our nation was 
decimated. Today you will hear testimony that our nation's rail 
transportation environment is as healthy as ever. You will hear 
testimony that rail rates have decreased significantly under 
deregulation as provided by the Staggers Act.
    What you won't hear from the rail industry is the growing numbers 
of markets that are becoming captive to railroads. Corporate 
consolidation has had severe implications for Montana's farmers and 
ranchers. The rail industry is no different. Montana is almost entirely 
captive to a single railroad.
    What does that mean? Considering the cost and level of service 
provided in Montana, this means our farmers pay more that any other 
shipper in the nation for less than adequate service. Montana farmers 
are forced to wait until the railroads are ready to provide service 
while these same railroads rush to provide service to those areas where 
a competitive element exists. Meanwhile, Montana grain fills our 
elevators, and once full, the grain sits on the ground exposed to the 
elements until rail transportation is available.
    Once that service is available, Montana farmers pay extremely high 
rates, higher than any other rate in the nation for this service. Mr. 
Chairman, the bottom line is that Montanans pay more for less. Now this 
is just one scenario--granted an extreme scenario--from one region of 
our nation.
    Our nation's railroad transportation environment is not stable in 
its current state. Nationally, our rates have decreased since passage 
of the Staggers Act. However, regionally, farmers and other shippers 
raise concerns about inadequate service or forced high costs due to a 
lack of competitive presence. I expect this to evolve further.
    Industry stability is absent. We can determine this not only by the 
recent merger attempt but also by the impact this announcement had on 
the entire industry. Immediately following the announcement by the 
Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Canadian National railroads, I was 
made aware of several other merger discussions. Alliance building 
within the railroad and airline economies in the face of competitor 
merger proposals is a fascinating process.
    Also, we can consider the instability of the rail industry by the 
impact on rail service following the 1995 merger of the Union Pacific 
and the Southern Pacific. The Houston meltdown in 1998 had service 
impacts across the nation. Montana farmers were hit especially hard in 
a time of financial crisis that remains in existence today.
    Through all of this, the Surface Transportation Board contends we 
have a very healthy rail industry. Given this inability to see the 
forest through the trees, I am particularly concerned about the STB's 
effectiveness as the adjudicating body between railroads and shippers.
    Montana's grain producers as well as other small businesses have 
been facing tough transportation issues for nearly two decades. Montana 
is a classic case of what happens to shippers when you eliminate 
competitive transportation alternatives. Our rail rates go through the 
roof and our shippers end up subsidizing rail rates in regions where we 
do have competition.
    Now, we're seeing the same thing happen in other regions around the 
nation. Montana has been down this road and I encourage members of this 
Committee to look at the problems we face in Montana as a precursor to 
what will happen in other regions.
    The STB, based on their 1998 decision regarding the McCarty Farms 
vs. Burlington Northern case, has indicated to the producer that BNSF's 
rates are not excessive. I am concerned that after 17 years of 
adjudication, by using the STBs decision making process, those 
decisions may not be the right decisions.
    Montana rail rates are the among the highest in the country. These 
rates significantly exceed 180 percent of variable cost, and the only 
way the STB can justify the rates as reasonable is to subscribe to the 
`differential' pricing scheme of the railroads. Make no mistake about 
this scheme, it is `discriminatory' pricing and it is only practiced by 
monopolies. It is unfair on its face and Congress needs to consider 
legislation such as S. 621 introduced by myself, along with Sens. 
Rockefeller, Dorgan and Roberts, that will help to introduce 
competition into this market like it has done with other monopolized 
markets such as telephone, electric utility, and pipeline 
transportation.
    Montana's shippers pay some of the highest rates in the world while 
our neighbors pay a significantly lower cost for transportation. The 
price of regulatory freedom for monopolies, should not be borne by 
captive shippers.
    The rail industry is unique. Other industries whether that be the 
airlines, utilities, or telephone companies have their own problems. 
But rail transportation is based solely on trackage rights. Competition 
is quickly becoming an unknown in rail transportation.
    In Montana, we are truly dependent on the railroads to transport 
bulk commodities that could not be efficiently transported by any other 
means. Economic history can tell us what happens in an environment 
without competition. The free enterprise system is not based upon 
allowing monopolies to control markets. The provider rakes in the 
profits but the shipper continues to pay the cost in increased rates 
and a decrease in the quality of service.
    Today's witness representing the railroads will suggest that 
Montana's rates are the result of an open and deregulated environment. 
If the problem is strictly based on market dominance, how can Montana's 
shippers have the highest freight costs in the nation. If ever there 
has been a victim of free-market economics, Montana's producers top 
that list.
    It is apparent that the failure of the Surface Transportation Board 
to take proper action against the nation's rail industry has led to a 
problem of much larger scope--this is not just Montana's problem 
anymore--it is now a national problem. Therefore, it is important that 
Congress take action now to enforce the rights of our nation's 
producers and preserve the idea of competition while there remains an 
opportunity to preserve competition.
    Agricultural shippers are the most vulnerable to predatory 
marketing by monopolistic practices of railroads. They are charged the 
freight rates by the grain merchandisers when they deliver their grain 
to market, but they don't pay the railroads, the merchandisers do. The 
most important point is that the farm producer unlike every other 
industry we know of in America, cannot pass the freight costs on to 
anyone else, they must simply eat it.
    We do not need to re-regulate the railroads; rather we need to 
restore the balance between shippers and railroads that Congress 
intended to achieve originally in the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to restore the competitive 
balance in the rail transportation industry and level the playing field 
for shippers.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Senator Shelby. Ms. Duff, thank you for deferring to the 
Senator, but he wanted to make sure that was your choice.
    Ms. Duff. Well, it was my pleasure to defer to the Senator.
    Senator Burns. We have been working together on a lot of 
this stuff.
    Senator Shelby. We have.
    Senator Burns. It was a pleasure.
    Senator Shelby. Before Senator Burns leaves, our staff has 
just reminded me, I just want to point out that he is a member 
of the Commerce Committee, a very active chairman of the 
subcommittee there. He knows a lot about these issues, you 
could tell.
    It is my understanding, Senator Burns, that you are the co-
sponsor of a rail reauthorization bill that addresses many of 
the service, rate, and access issues that we have been talking 
about today, is that correct?
    Senator Burns. Right. S-621.
    Senator Shelby. Where is that bill now?
    Senator Burns. Well, it is still in committee.
    Senator Shelby. It is still in committee.
    Senator Burns. I will try and convince the chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Okay. Thank you.
    Senator Burns. Okay.

STATEMENT OF DIANE DUFF, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 
            ALLIANCE FOR RAIL COMPETITION

    Senator Shelby. Ms. Duff, your full statement will be made 
part of the record, without objection. You may proceed, as you 
wish. Thank you again for deferring to Senator Burns.
    Ms. Duff. Absolutely. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby, 
for focusing your attentions on the rail competition debate.
    I am here today representing the Alliance for Rail 
Competition, which is a broad coalition of rail customers, 
including agriculture, coal and utilities, chemicals, and 
petro-chemicals, forest and paper products, steel, and other 
manufacturing industries that rely on rail transportation.

                         RAIL OVERSIGHT SYSTEM

    As far as these rail customer constituencies are concerned, 
the rail oversight system is broken. Government regulators have 
spent too much time over the past 20 years trying to apply 
their views of what is fair, and not enough on accomplishing 
the mandate of deregulation, which would systematically replace 
government regulation with competitive choice as the most 
effective and unbiased arbiter.
    Railroads may face some intermodal competition in some 
markets, but head-to-head competition among railroads has been 
virtually eliminated by 20 years of protectionist regulatory 
decisions, and dozens of mergers, all sanctioned by rail 
regulators.
    This current state of affairs means that a large chunk of 
rail customers who have no modal alternatives are paying 
exorbitantly high rates for some of the worst service that the 
railroads have to offer. Furthermore, captive rail customers 
are rightfully fearful of the potential of railroad retaliation 
if they pursue either regulatory or political intervention, so 
much so, that many refuse to enter into this debate at all.

                          RETALIATION TACTICS

    Railroads have often employed subtle and not-so-subtle 
retaliation tactics to quiet customer complaints. In fact, 
railroads have such complete market control over these groups 
of customers that they can apply such rates or limit service in 
such ways as to put rail customers out of business, or at 
least, at further extreme disadvantage.
    Railroads will tell you that today's policies benefit the 
public, because there is no other way to earn the revenues 
necessary to sustain their high fixed costs, low-return 
businesses. This is simply not true. Many, many industries with 
similar cost structures function quite successfully in highly 
competitive environments. They have figured out how to 
differentially price their services according to customer 
demands, rather than monopoly control.
    The key is being willing to listen to your customers, 
providing the various tiers of services that will meet their 
needs, and pricing those services accordingly. For railroads to 
do this, they need to apply innovative solutions to their 
rampant service problems. Competition has regularly provided 
the necessary incentive for other former monopoly industries to 
do the exact same thing.
    Unfortunately, the Federal agency put in place to prevent 
this kind of behavior has been somewhat of a paper tiger. I 
have no doubt that the members of the board believe that they 
are exercising the board's legal authority consistent with the 
will of Congress. After all, to date, neither of the 
authorizing committee chairman in either the House or the 
Senate have been particularly sympathetic to calls for 
competition among railroads.
    Furthermore, I must give this board due credit for the 
things that it has done; for example, the market dominance 
decision that they promulgated in 1998 expedited service relief 
procedures, and, in fact, undertaking the current merger policy 
review that is under way. However, rail customers do not want 
to have a regulator determine what is fair, and they cannot 
afford the 2-year or more process that it takes. They want to 
be able to negotiate in a free market, where they have a 
choice, and the STB has done nothing to foster that kind of 
competitive choice among railroads.
    In the next couple of weeks, the board will release its 
proposed merger policy rules, and then we will see whether the 
board will finally apply clear, specific guidelines for how to 
increase competition among railroads through its broad merger 
authority. No matter what the board does, however, Congress 
must determine the role of competition among railroads for the 
future.
    Addressing concerns of customer choice via mergers can only 
do so much, and the board has repeatedly made it clear that it 
is not going to independently change current system-wide 
policies that limit competition within the existing industry 
framework.

                            BOARD GUIDELINES

    Thus, I urge this committee to keep a close eye on the 
board's activities in the coming months. If the board does not 
provide clear guidelines for how it will exercise the broadest 
portion of its authority to promote competition among 
railroads, then I suggest that this committee ought to consider 
the relative value of this agency, and provide annual funding 
for it accordingly. The rail customer community will keep you 
informed of our views on this process, while continuing our 
efforts to promote comprehensive rail policy reform.
    I should add, also, that the Alliance for Rail Competition 
has consistently supported the provisions that Mr. Crowe 
outlined in his testimony earlier, but as we continue to look 
down the road at what the rail industry has made very clear is 
going to happen, and that is further mergers, resulting in 
likely a two-railroad monopoly system throughout North America, 
we need to really look very hard at what those provisions do in 
that sort of an environment and really question whether it is 
enough, and we will be doing that in the coming months.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Thank you again for having this hearing, and I appreciate 
the opportunity to testify.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Ms. Duff.
    [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Diane C. Duff

    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding 
this hearing today. Your time and attention are greatly appreciated by 
the rail customer community, which wants very much to work with this 
committee and others to bring responsible free market competition to 
the freight rail industry, and to put an end to rail monopoly control.
    My name is Diane Duff, and I serve as the Executive Director of the 
Alliance for Rail Competition, also known as ARC. ARC is a membership 
organization dedicated to promoting rail-to-rail competition through 
legislative changes to rail policy. ARC's membership consists of 
corporate and other organizations representing the agriculture, coal 
and utilities, chemicals, petrochemicals, plastics, forest and paper, 
steel and other manufacturing industries. ARC also collaborates with 
the many trade associations and professional organizations that 
represent these industries. My testimony will attempt to succinctly 
cover a broad range of the elements involved in the debate regarding 
rail competition, including some of the policy recommendations 
supported by the rail customer community. Furthermore, I will make some 
suggestions to this committee regarding how to assess the performance 
of the Surface Transportation Board in future appropriations cycles.

               I. THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY POST-DEREGULATION

    The members of the Alliance for Rail Competition view rail 
deregulation--embodied in the Staggers Rail Act of 1980--as having had 
many beneficial effects. Deregulation freed the railroad industry from 
artificial regulatory constraints that had been financially 
devastating, and the removal of these restraints has led to improved 
productivity and increased profitability.
    However, the monopoly characteristics that we see in today's rail 
industry certainly cannot be what Congress envisioned when the Staggers 
Rail Act was passed. Although rail deregulation provided railroads with 
financial assistance, the real purpose of deregulation was to allow 
competition to prevail--that is, true competition in an effective 
efficient and timely manner without creating interim monopoly power and 
bottlenecks.
    Unfortunately, monopoly power and bottlenecks are the primary 
characteristics of today's rail industry. Since deregulation in 1980, 
the number of major Class I railroads has declined from approximately 
42 to only four major railroads today. These four mega-railroads 
overwhelmingly dominate railroad traffic, generating 95 percent of the 
gross ton-miles and 94 percent of the revenues, controlling 90 percent 
of all U.S. coal movement; 70 percent of all grain movement and 88 
percent of all originated chemical movement. This drastic level of 
consolidation has left rail customers with only two major carriers 
operating in the East and two in the West, and has far exceeded the 
industry's need to minimize unit operating costs.
    Railroads frequently claim that consolidation has not reduced rail 
customers' ability to gain access to more than one railroad, or even 
harmed those customers who have always been captive to one railroad, 
since those rail customers never had access to more than one carrier 
prior to these many mergers. However, the potential alternatives those 
captive shippers once had have been essentially eliminated because, in 
most cases, the captive rail customer's entire route or routes are now 
controlled by a single carrier. This highlights how little has been 
done by regulators to ``maximize competition to the greatest extent 
possible,'' as directed by existing statute.
    Rates.--When it comes to discussing rate levels and whether or not 
they are fair, it all depends on how dependent you are on the railroad 
for transportation. Those rail users that have some options--such as 
the proximity of a second railroad or another mode of transportation 
altogether--are the ones who have the competitive benefits intended by 
of deregulation.
    However, there remains a significant portion of the rail customer 
community that has no choice. For example: it is virtually impossible 
to move millions of tons of coal by truck; transporting bulk quantities 
of grains by truck over hundreds of miles is not economically feasible; 
and safety concerns limit the movement of many chemicals to rail. Of 
course, not all coal, chemical and grain traffic is captive--some 
companies moving these commodities are located in proximity to two 
railroads, or are close enough to a waterway to make barge 
transportation viable. But many, many companies that move these kinds 
of bulk commodities and cannot access more than one railroad are held 
hostage to railroad monopoly power. In general, we know that these 
captive rail customers are paying rates that are anywhere from 30 to 50 
percent higher than the rates of their competitors that have some 
competitive transportation alternative. Under this scenario, rail 
transportation becomes one of the biggest--if not the biggest--cost 
associated with moving these low-value bulk commodities. As a result, 
these captive rail customers are put at a significant disadvantage in 
their own markets, and in a sense, a railroad can determine the 
economic success or failure these customers.
    The Association of American Railroads asserts that rail freight 
rates have declined by more than 50 percent in constant dollars since 
1980. However, I urge you to look behind the graphs and understand what 
these numbers really represent. The AAR data does not measure freight 
rates as the price paid to ship some quantity of the commodity in 
question. Instead, the railroads use a complex average of various 
statistics known as ``revenue per ton-mile,'' a measure that is not 
comparable to the rates actually paid for rail transport. In fact, 
AAR's own data contradicts the use of revenue per ton-mile as a rate 
surrogate. Comparing revenue per ton-mile to the AAR Freight Rate Index 
shows that revenue per ton-mile overstates the decline in rates by more 
than 300 percent. Additionally, Commerce Department data shows that 
this discrepancy between rates and revenue per ton-mile continues 
today.
    Furthermore, the revenue per ton-mile measurement has been falling 
steadily since at least 1935, regardless of the regulatory climate. 
This happens because revenue per ton-mile is driven by a complex set of 
factors, such as length of haul, commodity mix and shipment size which 
can, in combination, produce reductions in revenue per ton-mile even 
when the freight rate structure is otherwise unchanged, or even 
increases. Thus, much of the decline in revenue per ton-mile is a 
mathematical illusion. Railroad traffic has undergone dramatic 
structural changes, particularly in the past 20 years. First, unit 
trains--that have lower costs and revenues per ton-mile than other 
trains--are more widely used. Second, there has been significant growth 
in long-haul corridors that have lower costs and revenues than short 
distance movements. Third, more and more costs have been transferred to 
the rail customer in the form of cars and equipment, loading and 
unloading facilities, and other similar costs. In addition, the 
consequences of growing the ``cheaper'' varieties of freight--i.e. 
those low-value bulk commodities that have no real transportation 
alternatives--are that average revenue per ton-mile has declined, 
irrespective of changes in rates. The ploy of masking structural 
changes in the rail industry by employing revenue per ton-mile as a 
surrogate for rates creates the false illusion of rapidly decreasing 
freight charges.
    Consider rates from another perspective. The U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics Railroad Producer Price Index reveals that rail prices, as 
defined by the amount customers pay for rail services, increased 48 
percent from 1980 to 1996 whereas the AAR Revenue per ton-mile (RTM) 
statistic indicates a decrease of 18 percent.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ R.L. Banks and Associates Inc. and Fieldston Company, Inc. 
(1998) ``Rail Freight Rates in the Post-Staggers Era''. Report prepared 
for the Alliance for Rail Competition, available on-line at http://
www.railcompetition.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another way to see what's really happening with rates is to compare 
the rise of rail rates to the price of the commodity being transported. 
For example, when one looks at the rail rates versus the price of wheat 
shipped from Montana between 1975 and 2000, the rail price has risen 
from less than 20 percent of the price of wheat when there was limited 
rail-to-rail competition in the state to over 50 percent in 2000 when 
the BNSF today, has a total monopoly on rail movements from the state.


    Captive rail customers' concerns about rail rates center on the 
inability of entire industries and/or regions that are captive to 
continue to compete in the world economy. If a railroad monopoly exists 
between the producer and the end-user of the commodity, the monopoly 
railroad has the ability and the will to exact, through its tariffs, 
all of the profit gained by efficiency and productivity. U.S. producers 
face competition all over the world for their products against many 
foreign competitors who do not face a monopoly railroad situation.
    The U.S. General Accounting Office (1999) conducted a recent 
general survey of rail customers, yielding some telling results. They 
found that 81 percent of shippers want increased transportation 
competition and 75 percent believed that they were being charged 
unreasonable rates.
    Service.--While rates are a serious concern for many shippers, of 
at least equal, if not greater, concern is the deteriorating quality of 
service that shippers--particularly captive shippers--receive. Massive 
amounts of testimony about service problems resulting from both the UP/
SP service crisis in the West and the ongoing service problems 
associated with the division of Conrail between CSX and Norfolk 
Southern. Railroad service failures have cost the national economy 
billions of dollars. However, given the broad diversity of the rail 
customer community--and each customers' respective and differing 
service needs--it is very difficult to quantitatively portray the 
railroads' service performance in any meaningful way.
    Railroads present performance measurements based on train speeds, 
the amount of time a train sits in a terminal area, and so forth, but 
again, the specific needs of any given rail customer make these 
averages somewhat irrelevant unless you're interested in the fluidity 
of the entire system. If I'm making regular movements of unit coal 
trains to a facility, my estimation of rail performance is likely to be 
consistency: are the unit trains arriving and departing on a stable and 
reliable schedule that allows me to maintain my coal stockpile at the 
optimum level? However, if I'm moving multiple car shipments of 
chemicals to various locations where my customers require those 
materials by a certain time, my rail service needs are likely to be 
quite different. Alternatively, if the price of wheat is favorable and 
I need to move my wheat harvest to the West Coast for export, will the 
railroads provide the cars and locomotive power necessary to deliver 
that shipment to the port quickly enough so I can capture that price?
    In short, railroad performance can really only be truly measured 
one customer at a time, and thus, anecdotal stories from customers who 
are captive to rail transportation become quite informative. For 
example, a Chicago-area agricultural processor purchasing $30 million 
worth of rail services annually was quoted last year as saying, ``If I 
could figure out a way to conduct our business without using railroads, 
I would absolutely without any hesitation stop doing business with 
them.'' Another rail customer was quoted, ``There isn't one [railroad] 
today that is easy or convenient or just competent enough to warrant 
doing business with.'' With the consolidation of the railroad 
companies, he continued, ``it is getting worse. As they get bigger we 
become relatively less important to them.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``Getting Worse,'' Traffic World, Clayton Boyce, Editor. 
October 4, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The railroads have frequently blamed current rail customer 
complaints on the transitions that naturally take place after mergers. 
In truth, however, rail customers have been concerned about 
deteriorating service for years. Railroads have paid less and less 
attention to customer service, further demonstrated by the fact many of 
them have virtually eliminated their customer service departments over 
the last five years.
    The bottom line is that, from the rail customer's perspective, the 
level of rates and the quality of service are directly linked to the 
shipper's ability to access competition. In other words, those rail 
customers that are the most captive pay the highest freight rates and 
get the worst service. Where there is competition, rates go down and 
the quality of service goes up; and when competition is absent, the 
opposite also is true.
    In summary.--By most standards, the pro-competitive goals of rail 
deregulation have not been met. Competition among rail carriers is 
virtually nonexistent, and as a result, not a single North American 
railroad is meeting the current supply chain standards required by most 
American industry--nor is there any reasonable prospect of remarkable 
improvement. Certainly, some of the few remaining major railroads 
perform better than others. But after five or more years of constant 
service failures by one railroad or another, the perpetuation of 
distorted freight rates, and a continued emphasis on further 
consolidation rather than service, operational innovations and 
improvements, it is clear that railroad policy changes are needed.

                       II. THE ROLE OF REGULATORS

    Unfortunately, the STB hasn't, up to now, felt that the rail 
customer's pain warranted encouraging competition to provide fairness 
in the marketplace for the constituency it is mandated to protect. 
Despite clear statutory language directing regulators to encourage 
competition to the maximum extent possible, regulators seem to have an 
overly narrow view of their responsibility to protect existing or 
encourage new competition among railroads. In all fairness, this narrow 
protectionist approach was not something that the Surface 
Transportation Board dreamed up when it was created in 1995. And 
furthermore, the STB has recently made some decisions that improve 
regulatory processes. Still consider the following damage that has 
already occurred over the past five years.
  --The STB has approved mergers that have placed 94 percent of the 
        entire U.S. rail transportation market in the hands of just 
        four carriers, and those four carriers don't even compete with 
        each other over significant portions of their respective 
        territories. It's worth noting that the Department of Justice 
        vehemently opposed the UP/SP merger, which the Board has often 
        identified as having significant competitive benefits. Although 
        the Board has imposed some conditions to mitigate the loss of 
        the barest levels of competition, those conditions have been 
        applicable only in limited areas, and have not attempted to 
        improve competitive factors, or extend competitive access to 
        those rail users that have historically been captive to one 
        railroad. Since the Board's merger authority is so far-
        reaching, it seems that the Board could have taken a more 
        aggressive approach to encouraging competition in previous 
        merger transactions.
  --The STB, and its predecessor, have consistently condoned the act of 
        Class I carriers creating ``paper barriers'' when spinning off 
        a branch line to form a shortline railroad. A paper barrier 
        essentially prohibits the newly created ``independent'' 
        shortline from interchanging traffic with any railroad but the 
        parent carrier. As a result of paper barriers, the shortline 
        and regional railroad community can also be captive to Class I 
        carriers.
  --The STB determined that railroads are fully within their right to 
        exploit customers located on a bottleneck. A ``bottleneck'' is 
        a segment of rail track that serves either the point of origin 
        or the point of destination in any given route. Because the 
        bottleneck is controlled by one railroad, that railroad can 
        force any customer that needs to move goods over that portion 
        of track to use only that railroad's services over the entire 
        route, regardless of whether a second carrier may be available 
        to provide competing service for a majority of that route.
    Certainly, the Board should be given credit for its modest attempts 
to enhance competition, such as its 1998 decision to eliminate product 
and geographic competition factors from the market dominance 
determination process. But why shouldn't its efforts have been more 
aggressive? And as the agency charged with regulatory oversight of the 
rail industry, why has the Board not requested additional authority to 
rectify what has clearly become an anti-competitive environment? Some 
rail customers have suggested that the Board has been overly influenced 
by the railroad industry.
    This brings us to the Board's ongoing Ex Parte proceeding intended 
to revise its merger policy procedures. There may be some differing 
views within the rail customer community regarding the necessity of the 
merger moratorium that is running concurrent with the Board's policy 
review. Nonetheless, almost without exception, rail customers loudly 
applaud the Board's efforts to revise its merger policy procedures. ARC 
will be judging the Board's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, due out the 
first week of October, based on the following criteria:
    1. Need.--Does the proposed rulemaking recognize the need for 
competition to exist between rail carriers?
    2. Specificity.--Does the proposed rulemaking provide clear and 
concise guidelines for enhancing competition?
    3. Comprehensiveness.--Does the proposed rulemaking identify ways 
in which pro-competitive conditions can be applied throughout the 
industry?
    In Summary.--The Board has made some small steps in the last two 
years to address the concerns of the rail customer community. However, 
the Board's merger policy review is probably the best opportunity that 
it has to demonstrate that it is relevant in the effort to achieve the 
full intentions of rail deregulation. The Board must realize that the 
system is broken, and nothing shy of decisive congressional action that 
replaces government regulation with true market competition is likely 
to fix it.

                III. THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE'S ROLE

    ARC recognizes that congressional jurisdiction for rail policy 
reform lies largely with the Commerce Committee in the Senate, and the 
Transportation Committee in the House. But while the authorizing 
committees can decide to allow this controversial debate to linger, 
appropriators are faced each year with the dilemma of whether to 
continue funding the STB. Should the STB's merger policy review not 
provide clear guidance for enhancing rail-to-rail competition in an 
expansive manner, it will have demonstrated a lack of relevancy to the 
principles of deregulation. In this regard, this committee ought to 
give serious consideration to specifically directing the use of funding 
or even eliminating funding altogether.

 IV. THE CROSSROADS: WILL RAILROADS WORK WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS TO FIND 
                             THE SOLUTION?

    The rail industry is at a crossroads that will determine whether it 
will continue to be a viable commercial service. The long-term 
viability of rail transportation depends solely on whether rail 
customers are able to choose among a variety of service levels, offered 
at economically competitive rates by more than one rail carrier.
    Rail industry executives can work with rail customers in the policy 
arena to restructure rail operations to incorporate this kind of free 
market competition among rail carriers. Conversely, rail industry 
executives can cling to the misguided hope that their businesses will 
survive as long as they can extract maximum revenues from their 
customers that have no transportation choice. Thus far, rail executives 
have clearly chosen to continue down the latter path, fighting against 
the very customers whom they are supposed to serve.
    What railroad executives refuse to acknowledge is that today's 
captive customer is not likely to have the luxury to accept the 
railroads' monopoly behavior in perpetuity. Consider:
  --The restructuring of the electric utility industry is introducing 
        new competitive pressures, and paired with the ongoing 
        environmental debates about coal usage, more and more utility 
        executives are looking at natural gas as the fuel of the 
        future. Not a single coal-fired generation facility has been 
        built in the last 20 years, and there are no new ones on the 
        drawing board. Thus, as old coal-fired generators are retired, 
        railroads will begin to see a serious revenue drain.
  --Chemical industry executives have already undertaken massive build-
        out projects to gain access to competitive rail transportation. 
        Others have begun to make new and relocation facility siting 
        decisions based on competitive transportation alternatives, and 
        some of those decisions are taking the facilities out of the 
        U.S. altogether. Once again, railroads will eventually see 
        dwindling revenues in the movement of chemicals and plastics.
  --Grain traffic is already diverting to trucks when at all possible. 
        But the emergence of high value specialty crops--such as peas, 
        lentils, high protein wheats or high oil corns--that move in 
        truck quantities are going to begin to take their toll on rail 
        revenues generated by this sector.
    Conventional railroad wisdom is that captive customers are needed 
to survive, and that any loss in revenues from its captive customer 
base will require it to make up for those losses elsewhere. Given the 
dynamic economy that rail customers face, railroads can be assured of 
revenue losses if they continue the monopolist's business strategy.
    Restructuring the rail industry around a competitive framework, 
however, would put today's railroads back in the game.
    While railroad traffic has increased somewhat in recent years--
tonnage has climbed by about two percent annually during the 1990s--the 
industry continues in its long-term trend of declining market share. As 
shown below, over the past half century, the railroad industry's share 
of intercity tonnage has dropped from 47 percent of the market to 25 
percent of the market.\3\ At the same time, the truck market share has 
increased from 26 percent to 49 percent. These trends have continued 
throughout the 1990s. Conversely, the ``Economic Report of the 
President'' reveals that from 1990 to 1997, the Index of Industrial 
Production increased by 3.8 percent annually--almost double the rate of 
growth in railroad tonnage. Of course, some production is consumed 
locally, but the data shows that railroads are not full participants in 
the country's incremental production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Rosalyn A. Wilson, Eno foundation, Transportation in America 
1999, 17th edition. Tonnage data includes railroads, trucks, oil 
pipelines, water carriers, and airlines.

                             [In percentage]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Railroad   Truck
                         Year                           Market    Market
                                                         Share     Shar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1950.................................................      46.7     26.1
1960.................................................      36.1     32.7
1970.................................................      31.1     36.2
1980.................................................      28.7     36.3
1990.................................................      27.1     40.3
1995.................................................      25.7     46.1
1998.................................................      25.1     48.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finding the Right Solution.--In this contentious environment, rail 
customers have fought for legislation that would make modest 
adjustments to the interpretation of the existing statute. Basing all 
recommendations on the intent of the original statutory language, rail 
customers have almost universally supported the following legislative 
provisions:
    1. Policy.--Clarify the rail transportation policy of the U.S. by 
requiring the Surface Transportation Board to give greater weight to 
the need for increased competition between and among rail carriers.
    2. Bottlenecks.--Require rail carriers to quote a rate, upon 
request, between any two points on the system where traffic originates, 
terminates or may reasonably be interchanged without regard to whether 
the rate is for only part of the total movement.
    3. Competition in Terminal Areas.--Eliminate the requirement that 
evidence of anti-competitive conduct be produced when the STB 
determines outcome of requests to allow another railroad access to rail 
customer facilities within an area served by the tracks of more than 
one railroad.
    4. Relief for Certain Agricultural Shippers.--Provide small, 
captive agricultural shippers with a simple benchmark test for rate and 
service cases.
    5. Market Dominance.--Codify the STB's decision to exclude evidence 
of product or geographic competition when determining market dominance.
    6. Revenue Adequacy.--Abolish the requirement that the Board 
determine on a regular basis which railroads are revenue-adequate.
    However, throughout this year, representatives of the railroad 
industry have repeatedly stated their intention to continue pursuing 
mergers as a means of increasing operating ``efficiency'' and 
``promoting competition'' at some point in the future. In fact, most 
observers--and even many rail executives--agree that additional mergers 
will eventually produce a North American rail system monopolized by two 
transcontinental railroads. In the face of such developments, are the 
modest provisions rail customers have embraced thus far really enough?
    Under such circumstances, is it reasonable to expect that one rail 
system will compete for customers served by the other, and vice versa? 
Basic economic theory holds that, in the long run, dual monopolists 
decide that an activity such as competitive (marginal) pricing is self-
defeating because the other supplier will match it. The same theory 
holds true for service innovations as well. Thus, even with the ability 
to ask for a bottleneck rate or for access to the second carrier in a 
terminal area, rail customers are likely to have little or no choice of 
prices and service levels should the rail industry consolidate further.
    In the coming months, the rail customer community will be forced to 
come to terms with the implications of the railroad industry's end 
game, and determine its own vision for addressing that end game. As 
with any monopoly situation, the question will always be ``how much 
access is necessary and appropriate to facilitate meaningful 
competition?'' Thus, the solutions we pursue in the 107th Congress may 
be quite different than those we see today.
    The Impact of Competition on Railroads.--As we consider the future 
of this evolving industry, it's important to understand that increased 
levels of competitive access can--and will--benefit all affected 
parties. Central to the debate over competition is whether railroads 
must have monopoly power in order to remain financially sound, and if 
not, how much access is necessary for the forces of free market 
competition to take hold.
    Those who oppose the introduction of competition--and who wrongly 
refer to any form of competition interchangeably as either 
``reregulation'' or ``forced access''--base their opposition on a 
series of incorrect assumptions:
    1. A competitive railroad marketplace cannot sustain the practice 
of differential pricing, because competition automatically drives all 
rail rates to equality.
    2. Without differential pricing, the industry will not be able to 
earn sufficient revenues to cover their expenses or provide efficient 
service to shippers.
    3. The reduction of revenues caused by eliminating differential 
pricing will keep railroads from investing in their infrastructure.
    It may sound good, but the evidence suggests otherwise as discussed 
by Dr. Robert McCormick of Clemson University in a verified statement 
before the Surface Transportation Board, commissioned by the Chemical 
Manufacturers Association.
    Differential Pricing.--Differential pricing exists for all 
competitive industries. However, competitive industries differentially 
price based upon the demand of the consumer. They do not isolate and 
then plunder one group of customers in favor of another group of 
customers as the railroads do.
    Consider differential pricing in other industries, many with large 
fixed costs similar to the railroads:
  --Hotels allocate certain numbers of rooms to as many as 20 different 
        rate tiers.
  --Telephone markets show similar patterns. There are time of day and 
        bulk pricing features; weekends and nights are cheaper than 
        weekdays. Large volume purchasers pay lower prices than small 
        volume users.
  --Literary works and movies are distributed in a way that is intended 
        to charge higher prices to those who have a greater desire to 
        read or see them immediately upon release, as opposed to those 
        consumers who are willing to wait. In the case of books, there 
        are hard cover vs. soft cover releases, and for movies, evening 
        vs. matinee showings, theatre tiers, video sale, video rental.
  --Airlines offer many levels of discounted seats that allow for 
        different priorities of service and based on advance purchase.
  --Electricity has special price tiers, such as peak load pricing, and 
        ``green power.''
    In fact, for its competitive intermodal traffic, BNSF already 
differentially prices based on demand of the consumer through tiered 
service packages that have delivery time components (delivery within 
80-85 hours; 75-80 hours; 55-60 hours, and guaranteed delivery time 
with a full price refund).
    In each example, these industries share the same features of 
railroads: large fixed costs that must be allocated across different 
users. Railroads are not unique, and in fact, these features are 
becoming more and more commonplace.
    So if railroads can practice differential pricing in a truly 
competitive marketplace, then do the remaining assumptions hold water? 
No. Clearly, so long as railroads are well managed, those railroads 
can--at the very least--earn their cost of capital, which in turn 
allows them to continue investing in their infrastructure at least at 
the same rate as they do today.
    To test our theory that railroads could compete without harming 
their financial picture, ARC commissioned an analysis based on real 
world economic behavior and using very conservative data from reliable 
data sources projecting growth of the key industries that rely on 
railroad transportation. What we found was that rather than bankrupting 
the railroad industry, competition would generate increased net 
revenues to the tune of $500 million annually. Is this a windfall? 
Certainly not. But the point was not to predict exact revenues, but to 
identify likely trends if railroads were to be placed in a competitive 
environment.
    As for their ability to invest, the evidence again shows that 
investment increases when competition is introduced. Telecommunications 
industry is the best example, because if forcing competition on a 
regulated industry is truly a prescription for disaster, then the 
telecommunications industry should be in a shambles--which it is not.
    But let's focus on investment levels before and after competition 
was introduced. Did competition cause investors to withdraw financial 
capital from the industry? Absolutely not. In fact, investment 
increased dramatically. Rather than capital flight, there has been a 
continuous capital infusion into both the deregulated and regulated 
sectors.
    And while there are not a plethora of examples within the rail 
industry itself, the experience of introducing competition in the 
Powder River Basin certainly reinforces the evidence compiled by the 
behavior of other industries.

                               V. SUMMARY

    While financially healthy today, the railroad industry has achieved 
undue market power, has exercised it to the detriment of large portions 
of its customers, and has no incentive to change, despite evidence that 
a continuation of current behavior will result in a continuing long-run 
deterioration of revenues and erosion of customer base.
    These trends are supported--if not actively, then through lack of 
action--by the Surface Transportation Board. The ongoing merger policy 
review remains the one opportunity for the Board to do something 
decisive to prevent further erosion of rail-to-rail competition and 
even begin to return some competition among railroads. If this 
opportunity is lost, the relevancy of the Board--and thus the need for 
continued funding--is called into question.
    At this point in the evolution of the rail industry, however, no 
real solution exists without decisive congressional action. Rail 
customers will continue to petition Congress to take action as it has 
in so many other industries to ensure that the right level of access is 
available in order to develop and maintain a truly competitive 
marketplace.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. The rail customer 
community and I look forward to working with this subcommittee on these 
critical issues in the 107th Congress.

                  ADDENDUM 1: WHO ARE RAIL CUSTOMERS?

    The Alliance for Rail Competition represents the diversity of the 
rail customer community. A brief description of the industries that 
rely on rail transportation and their specific concerns is summarized 
below.
Agriculture
    Approximately two percent of all Americans are engaged in 
agriculture as their primary occupation. While it may seem a small 
number, that two-percent of the population manages to produce enough 
food and fiber to feed the rest of the country's population, as well as 
a good part of the rest of the world.
    Railroads are an important mode of transportation for the Nation's 
agricultural shippers. In 1997, railroads moved 1.4 million carloads 
(126 million tons) of farm products and 1.3 million carloads (86 
million tons) of food and kindred products. Although this volume is 
large, it amounted to only 13 percent of all rail traffic that year.
    Railroads are most important in the movement of grain. Grain and 
oilseed shipments represent about 95 percent of all farm product 
traffic moving by rail. Since the late 1970's grain tonnages shipped by 
rail have increased by 23 percent. Railroads also move more grain than 
barges and as much as all commercial trucks. Railroads account for 
about 40 percent of all grain shipped from commercial facilities. By 
comparison, trucks also haul about 40 percent of the grain shipped 
commercially and barges haul the remaining 20 percent.
    Many agricultural shippers are small and face unique challenges in 
a changing global marketplace. Their exceedingly low profit margins 
paired with dramatic fluctuations in world economies already place them 
in a financially precarious environment that Congress has taken a 
special interest in addressing. These rail customers also have an 
irrevocable tie to the railroads because in many cases there is no 
alternative mode of transportation that makes logistical or economic 
sense.
    Having said that, agricultural shippers in some parts of the United 
States are paying the highest rail freight rates in exchange for 
arguably the most sporadic and unreliable service. These shippers need 
a clearly defined means for securing reliable service at a reasonable 
rate. Agricultural shippers are also unique in that the party that 
bears the cost of rail transportation--the farmer--is not the party 
that negotiates the rate for that transportation--the grain elevator. 
Further, the farmer has no ability to pass on the costs associated with 
transportation to the customer.
    Farmers throughout the western states, including Montana, Idaho, 
North and South Dakota, Washington, Oregon, Colorado and Nebraska, are 
paying anywhere from 225 to 300 percent or more of the railroads' 
revenue to variable cost. Any business in the world would be ecstatic 
to receive that kind of return on its cost. But even if you assume that 
the high cost of capital for railroads requires railroads to generate 
180 percent revenue to variable cost--a profit margin of 80 percent--
you're still talking about an additional return of 45 percent or more.
    Maybe this doesn't sound unreasonable to you, but I urge you to 
keep in mind that this kind of profit is being extracted out of a group 
that is ill-equipped to afford it: the farmer. Consider this example: A 
bushel of spring wheat currently sells for approximately $4.15. Roughly 
$1.00 of that amount, or one-quarter of the price a farmer receives, 
goes to pay for rail transportation. Stated another way, the average 
wheat farmer is working for the railroads nearly three months out of 
the year. If Congress cares about the future of agriculture, and did 
not intend to place the railroads in a position where they can exploit 
every last nickel out of their customers, then changes must be made.
    While rates are of great concern to many people in the agriculture 
industry, receiving reliable service is of equal concern. Crop harvests 
are naturally cyclical in nature, as opposed to other rail traffic that 
is more evenly balanced throughout the year. But the movement of grain 
is largely determined by the demand of the global marketplace. When 
prices in the marketplace are high, farmers want to move their grain, 
and vice versa. Yet railroad service--or lack of it--can and has 
prevented farmers from moving their grain when there is demand. It's 
important to point out that the agriculture community has long suffered 
from sporadic and unreliable rail service and so long as current 
policies are maintained, that situation is expected to continue for the 
foreseeable future.
    Over the last 30 years, the agriculture industry has been subjected 
to an increasing degree of competition with foreign producers--in both 
domestic and foreign markets. As in all industries, free markets reward 
lower-cost producers, and also consistent with other industries, the 
agriculture industry must search for ways to trim costs in order to 
remain competitive.
    That is why the debate over rail competition has become so 
important to this industry. For the agriculture industry to remain 
competitive, it can no longer afford to rely on a rail industry that 
operates as a virtual monopoly. As a critical underpinning of the 
national economy, the agriculture community's concerns deserve special 
consideration.
Chemicals and Plastics
    The U.S. chemical industry (excluding plastic resins) employs some 
955,000 high-tech, high-wage workers. In turn, these lead to the 
creation of 1.1 million jobs in other industries, bringing total U.S. 
jobs dependant on the chemical industry (excluding plastic resins) to 
2.1 million. This industry is the leading export sector and a 
substantial contributor to a positive U.S. balance of payments. The 
chemical industry depends heavily on railroads to safely and 
efficiently transport raw materials to chemical manufacturing 
facilities and to deliver a wide variety of finished products to 
destinations throughout the country. Railroads also transport chemical 
exports to Canada, Mexico, and U.S. ports.
    According to data compiled by the Association of American 
Railroads, the chemical industry ships about 110 million tons of 
products (excluding plastic resins) by rail on an annual basis and 
spends more than $3.5 billion per year on rail freight charges, 
accounting for 11 percent of the revenue received by U.S. railroads. In 
many parts of the country, there are chemical manufacturing facilities 
served by a single railroad, leading to high costs. The chemical 
industry, which has participated in a number of major STB rail 
proceedings, strongly supports rail competitiveness and specifically 
endorses the recommended legislative provisions discussed in my 
testimony.
    The plastics industry directly employs more than 1.3 million 
workers. When taken into account the upstream industries, that is the 
supplying industries, the number of plastics industry employees rises 
to 2.3 million, nearly two percent of the U.S. workforce.
    Recent rail transportation events have shaped the business 
environment of the plastics industry. There is a growing awareness that 
transportation is not a separate, isolated function of the supply 
chain, but rather, an integral part of the production process. When 
talking about the transportation of plastic pellets, you must remember 
few other issues address such fundamental business components in 
corporate America. That is, rail transportation is about: Moving raw 
materials and products; Meeting customer demand; and Affecting the 
corporate bottom line.
    When addressing the importance of rail transportation to the 
chemical and plastics industries, economics plays a large part. As an 
example, for plastics:
  --Transportation is the second highest cost component in raw material 
        production (second only to feedstock);
  --Transportation can account for up to 20 percent of the finished raw 
        material cost;
  --Approximately 60 billion pounds of plastics are shipped each year;
  --The plastics industry pays over $1 billion to the railroads each 
        year;
  --If a facility is captive, at the point of origin or destination, 
        rates for the exact same rail movement can be 15-60 percent 
        higher than from a competitively served facility.
    Given the fact that 75 percent of plastics raw material producers 
are captive to one railroad, paying higher rates, and generally 
receiving poorer service--coupled with the fact that the railroads are 
the only industry in this country to exercise complete monopoly control 
over their customers--the time has come to start asking why the 
railroads are able to operate in this type of an environment.
    The core issue is the lack of competition in the U.S. rail system. 
Legislation is needed to address the fundamental way railroads operate.
Forest Products and Paper
    The forest, pulp, paper, paperboard, and wood products industry 
employs approximately 1.5 million people with a payroll of $40.8 
billion and ranks among the top 10 manufacturing employers in 46 
states. It represents 7.8 percent of the manufacturing work force in 
the United States. Sales of forest and paper products exceed $275 
billion annually both here and abroad. For most producers, 
transportation costs are the third largest operating cost component 
after fiber and labor. These costs average between 5 percent to 25 
percent of delivered product costs.
    The forest products and paper industry is the fourth largest user 
of rail transportation in the United States and incurs $2.9 billion in 
annual rail expenses which is approximately 9 percent of all rail 
revenues. Significantly, the industry's $183 billion of domestic flows 
combined with the inland portion of its international flows makes the 
industry one of the largest commodity shippers in the country. Much of 
the industry's exports and the domestic sales are transported by rail. 
In fact, the forest products and paper industry moves an average of 
24,000 carloads in any given week using proprietary short line 
railroads and all Class I railroads. The industry is responsible for 70 
percent of all railroad boxcar traffic, including 19 million tons of 
recycled paper, and 95 percent of all centerbeam lumber car traffic. 
The industry also represents significant carload volumes consisting of 
inbound raw materials (such as logs, woodchips, coal and chemicals) and 
thousands of containers carrying finished goods for domestic and 
offshore distributors. In addition, the industry has a substantial 
investment in boxcars, tankcars, and other rail equipment.
    Rail service problems are currently national in scope. While other 
transportation modes measure ``on time'' service in hours, railroads 
measure it in days. This type of service affects not only the 
performance of the major remaining railroads, but other connecting 
railroads and their shippers. For example:
  --A forest products company has had a major customer in California 
        insist upon replacing rail service with trucks where the 
        infrastructure to do so does not exist.
  --Another company, with four manufacturing operations located in East 
        Texas, experienced service problems with shipments destined to 
        southern California. Rail transit times increased from 14 days 
        to as much as 45 days. Business was consequently lost to 
        competitors as a result of this variable service.
  --Delivery problems have caused mill inventories of finished goods to 
        go up. This causes warehousing costs, increased emergency 
        delivery costs, and, ultimately, higher inflation to the 
        general public.
  --Variable service, lengthened transit times, and captive pricing 
        contributed to a mill closing by a large forest products 
        company.
    The forest products and paper industry needs efficient competitive 
transportation to be able to compete in a global economy. We are 
concerned with the changes in the competitive dynamics of the national 
rail structure and believe that in order to have a healthy 
transportation industry we need vigorous rail-to-rail competition. 
Without competition, there is no incentive for the railroads to improve 
and maintain low cost levels, consistent service levels, and an 
adequate supply of quality boxcar equipment. To address the issues of 
rail service, competition and access, the forest products and paper 
industry endorses the recommended legislative provisions discussed in 
my testimony. The forest products and paper industry also encourages 
rail policy to foster the growth of short line railroads through the 
elimination of ``paper barriers'' to enable the free interchange of 
traffic between and among all connecting railroads.
Mining and Utilities
    Coal shippers, including both electric utility companies and coal 
producers, have major concerns with the current law governing the 
railroads. Coal is one of the largest commodities by volume moved by 
the nation's railroads. Currently, approximately 54 percent of the 
nation's supply of electricity is generated from coal, the vast 
majority of that coal moves by rail from the coal mine to the power 
plant and a significant portion of that coal has, for at least some 
portion of its movement, only one available railroad transportation 
option. Thus, a significant portion of the coal moved in the nation is 
``captive'' to a single railroad for transportation. As such, the 
railroad customer, who is usually the electric utility that buys the 
coal at the ``mine mouth'' and is responsible for arranging the 
movement of the coal to the power plant, does not have the ability to 
negotiate the terms of its rail transportation in an open and 
competitive market.
    Some characteristics of railroad coal movements are:
  --electric generating plants are designed to use a specific type of 
        coal and typically have relatively few options regarding the 
        source of coal that can be used in the plant, which may have a 
        design life of as much as 50 years or more; the source of coal 
        is further restricted by the location of the plant and its 
        access to rail transportation;
  --most of the nation's electric generating plants were built before 
        the railroad mergers of the last two decades severely 
        restricted railroad transportation options;
  --normally, the railroad customer (the utility) pays for the railroad 
        cars that move the coal; either the utility or the coal 
        producer pays for the railroad loading facility at the coal 
        mine; and the railroad customer may be forced to pay other 
        costs that traditionally have been considered to be costs to be 
        borne by the railroad;
  --coal is moved normally in ``unit trains'' of approximately 100 
        cars;
  --the unit train movement of coal is highly efficient and extremely 
        profitable for the railroads, particularly where the movement 
        is ``captive'' and the railroad can demand a price above 180 
        percent revenue to variable cost ratio; and
  --the railroad transportation cost of coal not only affects the cost 
        of the production of electricity, but the price of coal at the 
        mine mouth, which can, in turn, adversely affect the amount of 
        severance tax that most coal producing states collect from the 
        coal produced in their states.
    The first choice of coal shippers is for their transportation 
arrangements to be negotiated in a competitive marketplace, as are 
their contracts for the purchase of coal and, increasingly, their 
contracts for the sale of electricity. Some electric generating 
facilities have transportation options and are not ``captive'' to a 
single railroad. Others have been able to achieve competitive railroad 
transportation options by financing the construction of connecting 
track (``building out'') to a competing railroad. The STB and its 
predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), have allowed 
such ``build outs'' which have been very important, although costly, 
tools for achieving competitive transportation alternatives.
Transportation Intermediaries
    The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) is the leading 
organization for North American transportation intermediaries with over 
700 member companies. TIA is the only organization representing 
transportation intermediaries of all disciplines. The members of TIA 
include: property brokers, domestic freight forwarders, NVOCC's, 
intermodal marketing companies, perishable commodity brokers, logistics 
management firms, and motor carriers.
    The 46 member companies of TIA who operate intermodal marketing 
companies (IMCs) urge Congress to support legislation that will promote 
increased competition and access for rail service for both large and 
small rail customers. Increased competition will result in improved 
customer service from the railroads--particularly for the small to 
medium size rail customers with whom our members do business. If 
Congress does not enact rail competition legislation, many small 
businesses will continue to suffer from poor service and find it 
increasingly difficult to remain in business due to the lack of safe, 
efficient transportation on our nation's railroads.
    IMCs have also found it exceedingly difficult to even receive rail 
service for small to medium size customers. Without competition, 
railroads tend to service larger customers at the expense of the 
smaller one. TIA believes that Congress must rectify this situation and 
that all rail customers should be given an opportunity to operate in a 
competitive, free-market environment.

                   ADDENDUM 2: ANECDOTAL INFORMATION

Anecdote #1:
    The operator of a Montana grain elevator, in the fall of 1998, 
became frustrated with the BNSF. He had ordered cars in September 1998 
and the BNSF indicated they could deliver in October. October came and 
went, and soon November was drawing to a close.
    When he got the BNSF on the telephone, they stated the cars he 
ordered would be available at his elevator on that Saturday. He hired 
the crews necessary to load the train, and on Saturday morning he 
waited. And he waited. At 2 p.m. he called the BNSF . . . and they 
stated that although they were sorry, they would not be able to deliver 
the cars for another week.
    After an angry exchange, a grain elevator employee came into the 
office and said the train was coming down the track! Yet the rail 
operations people on the other end of the telephone line, were adamant 
that it would be another week.
    Sure enough, it was their cars and they promptly loaded the train 
with grain and released the cars back to the BNSF on Sunday.
    Two weeks and one day later, the BNSF finally picked up the train 
for shipment.

Anecdote #2:
    Several lumber shippers in NW Montana and Northern Idaho, requested 
that the BN give them a contract rate similar to a large lumber shipper 
and wholesaler in the Pacific Northwest.
    The BN refused, stating that these complaining shippers couldn't 
meet the requirements of that rate. The shippers asked what the 
requirements were and the BN stated they were confidential and they 
couldn't tell them because they were part of an on-going confidential 
transportation contract.
    The shippers banded together and formally challenged the very next 
confidential contract the BN filed with the ICC on a movement of this 
shipper.
    The BN lumber personnel stated to the complaining lumber shippers 
that they would never get this contract opened up for public review.
    However, the ICC felt after review that the complaining lumber 
shippers were adversely affected and ultimately did open up the 
contract to confidential review by the complaining shippers. The result 
was that the BN had to reluctantly offer the same contract to the 
complaining group, which promptly exercised its rights to the 
contractual provisions. The BN stated at the time, that to offer this 
contract to lumber mills, would do violence to the lumber industry. The 
results have proven much different--the lumber mills as a group, are 
better able to compete against the big lumber wholesalers.
    However, the BN promise to give the wholesalers a better deal than 
the lumber mills, did hold up.

Anecdote #3:
    In 1987, MRL put in a confidential contract on wheat from Big 
Timber, Montana at a newly constructed grain transfer facility. The 
contract called for rebates (legal ones) to the shipper if the 
shipments met a minimum number of cars.
    The contract allowed the new facility to be effective over an area 
previously not served by the MRL. However, the new facility was told 
after a year of operation that the BN had become upset with the fact 
that this facility was providing competition to BN points and therefore 
demanded that MRL not renew the contract. The effect of non-renewal was 
to put the facility out of business, which is what the BN wanted, 
because it could not draw grain more than 40 miles due to the lower 
rates on the BN.

Anecdote #4:
    BN, in mid-1980s, presented a small grain shipper with a $150,000 
demurrage bill for shipments of piggyback from Montana into Portland.
    In the mid-1980s in Billings, the BN intermodal folks had a great 
number of truck trailers arriving in Montana but leaving empty back to 
the West Coast. In the spirit of identifying a win-win situation, a 
small grain shipper in Billings, approached the BN intermodal folks 
with a proposal. If the BN provided the grain shipper with a low rate, 
they could fill the empty truck trailers with grain for shipment to 
Portland for unloading. This endeavor started to become very popular 
and soon the BN Intermodal facility in Billings was shipping a great 
number of piggyback movements from Billings to Portland.
    The situation in Portland, however, soon became a mess. The grain 
houses in Portland have only so much capacity to unload piggyback 
movements and became hopelessly behind.
    The BN Intermodal people, however, kept supplying more and more 
truck trailers for loading in Billings, and not knowing of the capacity 
problem in Portland, the shipper kept filling an ever-increasing number 
of trucks loaded with grain to Portland.
    After about 6 months of delayed unloading, the BN embargoed the 
shipments but presented the shipper with a demurrage bill for $150,000+ 
and turned the issue over to its Law department.
    The shipper, after a year of wrangling with the BN (in which the BN 
threatened the shipper with financial ruin), finally convinced them 
that they were the ONLY ones who knew the transportation situation in 
Portland, and were the responsible party for embargo of shipments they 
knew had no chance of being unloaded. The BN subsequently settled the 
case for about $3,000!

Anecdote #5:
    A major Fortune 500 petrochemical rail customer shipping petroleum 
coke from Billings to Salt Lake City located on both BN and Montana 
Rail Link ships tens of thousands of tons each year wanted to route 
MRL, Montana Western, UP to Salt Lake City. It would save many miles of 
route, and a week in transit time.
    In January 2000, Montana Western (located between UP and MRL) 
requested the rate from MRL. MRL cannot set the rates, but must ask the 
BNSF for permission even though the shipment on this route never went 
over the BNSF tracks. The BNSF has consistently refused to allow the 
movement and forces the rail customers and receivers in Salt Lake City 
to pay higher rates for poorer service and keep much larger inventories 
for more inconsistent deliveries.

Anecdote #6:
    Over the past two years, the small to medium size intermodal 
marketing companies (IMCs) have been fighting railroad efforts to drive 
them from the marketplace in favor of their larger counterparts. These 
IMCs serve America's small businesses and provide them the ability to 
get their goods to market at an affordable price. Unfortunately, 
railroads seem only interested in dealing with a handful of the largest 
intermodal companies. Thus, some of the rail carriers erected 
artificial barriers in the form of guaranteed volume contract 
requirements that were so high as to prevent IMCs from using rail 
service.
    For example, the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad in 1998 
almost overnight raised their volume requirements from $500,000 to $5 
million annually. As a result of these volume cap increases, as many as 
60 percent of IMCs lost their contracts because they couldn't meet the 
new, unilaterally imposed BNSF levels.
    Currently, Norfolk Southern is indicating that they will raise 
their annual requirements from 250 units to 1,200 units effective 
January 1, 2001. This would occur even though the railroad told the STB 
that the merger would take one million trucks a year off the road. If 
NS raises its volume requirements, small businesses will have no choice 
but to ship by truck--drastically raising transportation costs and 
jeopardizing their continued profitability.
    Union Pacific Railroad has just announced new procedures for the 
disbursement of repositioned equipment during peak season in Los 
Angeles. The railroad plans to give priority treatment to eight IMCs, 
four of which are large IMCs, with only two smaller IMCs included. This 
action will have the ability to get repositioned equipment. This is a 
serious problem because equipment shortages are rampant during the peak 
season. There are currently 75 IMCs that operate in the United States. 
Why should eight IMCs that are chosen by the railroad be given priority 
treatment? In a free, competitive market, every competitor should be 
given an equal opportunity to succeed in their business. Why should 
rail carriers pick and choose whom the winners and losers will be?

Anecdote #7:
    Arizona Chemical Company (AZ), a subsidiary of International Paper, 
is currently being pummeled by the monopoly power of Norfolk Southern 
(NS).
    The rail contract AZ had with NS expired at the end of June, and 
was extended for a month so the parties could attempt to negotiate a 
new contract. However, NS decided to terminate allowances on all AZ 
traffic, effectively increasing its rates 21 percent on an overall 
basis. Although AZ indicated that it was willing to discuss rate 
increases, it would not do so unless NS was able to improve on its 
inadequate service and committed to undertake to measure its service. 
NS then advised AZ that this was unacceptable and that it would raise 
the rates essentially because it could do so. When AZ refused to sign 
the contract, NS then put in place, effective 8/1, what amounts to a 40 
percent rate increase on AZ traffic.
    AZ then refused to pay the increase, at which point NS threatened 
to put AZ on a cash basis, in which case it would not deliver or pickup 
cars unless AZ paid in advance via cash or certified check. 
Regrettably, since that would plainly disrupt or even threaten AZ 
operations, it had no choice except to pay the claimed balance due.
    So, and notwithstanding that its service is woefully inadequate, NS 
was able to force a 40 percent rate increase down AZ's throat simply 
because it believes that AZ has no reasonable competitive alternative.
    In an attempt to try to work this out, AZ representatives contacted 
Chairman Morgan's office and requested that they approach NS about 
this, suggesting that the Board advise NS that, if it really felt it 
was entitled to some rate increase, it should agree to submit the 
matter to mediation or arbitration under the Board's established 
procedures. To the Board's credit, it pursued the matter and spoke with 
representatives of NS. Unfortunately, those phone calls made by the 
Chairman's office ultimately had no effect, as NS apparently sought to 
excuse its actions by alleging that the increase was not related to the 
Conrail transaction or its service problems, that it was losing money 
on AZ's traffic and that AZ could have avoided the 40 percent increase 
by signing the 21 percent increase contract.

Anecdote #8:
    FMC Corp. is one of the Union Pacific Railway's (UP) biggest 
customers, spending approximately $90 million annually for rail service 
provided by the UP. In 1996, UP published considerably higher tariff 
rates for FMC commodities after FMC already had invested heavily in new 
loading and unloading facilities to improve UP productivity. Following 
a year of failed rate negotiations, FMC filed a complaint with the 
Surface Transportation Board on October 21, 1997. FMC's complaint 
involved 2 million tons of soda ash, phosphorus and similar commodities 
shipped in some 20,000 rail cars over a period of three years from 
FMC's Green River, Wyoming and Pocatello, Idaho facilities. According 
to FMC's analysis, the company was forced to pay rates that were as 
much as 600 percent above UP variable costs for providing the 
transportation--solely because the UP had monopoly power over FMC's 
traffic.
    On May 12, 2000--2\1/2\ years after the initial filing, the STB 
concurred with FMC's position by determining that Union Pacific held 
monopoly control over 15 of the 16 challenged routes. Although it 
concurred with FMC on the merits of the case, the Board's decision 
effectively compensated FMC for only 20 percent of its total past costs 
(i.e., legal/expert costs + the difference between prescribed and 
tariff rates during the 3 year period of the case). Furthermore, the 
costs of UP's service meltdown and merger with Southern Pacific were 
considered as allowable UP costs, subtracting from their penalty. And 
future rates were based on a railroad designed for peak, rather than 
normal volume days.) These terms effectively eliminated the bulk of any 
economic benefits the company might have realized by winning the case. 
Nonetheless, Union Pacific has appealed the decision.
    The case itself (not counting earlier negotiations) has lasted 34 
months (filed on October 31, 1997) and, with appeals, there is still no 
finality to the STB's decision. Both parties continue to incur 
substantial legal and expert costs to bring this case to closure. To 
date FMC has spent over $6 million on legal and expert resources to 
address procedural and substantive issues.

Anecdote #9:
    Among the conditions applied by the STB to the UP/SP merger were 
several conditions directed specifically to the competitive harm that 
otherwise would have been suffered by 2-to-1 shippers. A condition 
granting extensive trackage rights over UP/SP lines to the BNSF 
railroad was imposed for the stated purpose of protecting most 2-to-1 
shipper. Further, an ``omnibus clause'' was imposed to protect any 2-
to-1 shipper not covered by those trackage rights, requiring UP and 
BNSF to enter into arrangements ``under which, through trackage rights, 
haulage, ratemaking authority or other mutually acceptable means, BNSF 
will be able to provide competitive service'' to each 2-to-1 shipper 
covered by the clause.
    However, the omnibus clause in practice has been proven to be of 
little value as demonstrated by the Board's decision in the Union 
Electric case, decided on May 31, 2000. Union Electric operates a coal-
fired electric generating plant at Labadie, Franklin County, MO, which 
was accessed, prior to the UP/SP merger, by UP and by SP and by no 
other railroad. There is no dispute as to the 2-to-1 status of UE's 
Labadie plant. The question is whether Union Electric has a right to 
receive competitive service under the omnibus clause, and whether an 
addendum to an existing contract changes that contract so radically as 
to eliminate Union Electric's ability to make use of the omnibus 
clause.
    According to the Board's decision: ``The UP/UE contract at issue 
was entered into prior to the consummation of the merger by a 2-to-1 
shipper, on the one hand, and UP, on the other hand; it was negotiated 
under the auspices of old 49 U.S.C. 10713; and it was in effect at the 
time the merger was consummated. It therefore follows that, at the time 
the merger was consummated, the contract modification condition applied 
to this contract. ``The contract modification condition, however, 
applies only to contracts that were ``in effect at the time the merger 
was consummated,'' Merger Dec. No. 57, slip op. at 9, and must be 
exercised ``prior to the expiration of a contract'' to which that 
condition applies,'' Merger Dec. No. 57, slip op. at 10. The ICC-WRPI-
C-0080 contract was amended in 1999 by an ``Addendum Three,'' and we 
agree with UP's assessment that this addendum amounted to ``major 
surgery'' on the underlying contract.''
    Thus, despite a fanfare of announcements about the Board's 
affirmation of 2-to-1 shipper rights, the STB actually ruled against 
the shipper by rejecting a request that UP be ordered to open Union 
Electric's contract for renegotiation--a pro-competitive condition the 
shipper thought had been imposed as part of the UP-SP merger approval.

                     BARRIERS TO COMPETITIVE ACCESS

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Crowe, our State, Alabama, is primarily 
served by two major railroads, CSX and Norfolk Southern. Does 
Walter Industries and your subsidiary short line, is that 
Jefferson Warrior----
    Mr. Crowe. That is correct. It is Jefferson Warrior.
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. Have access to both of these 
major railroads?
    Mr. Crowe. We do.
    Senator Shelby. Are you restricted in any way, by contract 
or so forth, with them?
    Mr. Crowe. We experience a lot of barriers----
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Mr. Crowe [continuing]. And a lot of difficulties with our 
short line.
    Senator Shelby. Explain some of that.
    Mr. Crowe. Well, an example would be, we originate a lot of 
tonnage going out of our plants that are manufactured. We also 
bring much of our raw materials into our plants.
    Senator Shelby. You ship in and out, do you not?
    Mr. Crowe. We ship in and out, and we do a lot of our own 
switching in our plants. The paper barriers, and problems like 
car bunching, and all these things, point to a less than 
cooperative attitude.
    Senator Shelby. Well, elaborate a little on paper barriers.
    Mr. Crowe. Well, a paper barrier that we have experienced 
is that when we moved coke from our coke facility, even just 
across the road to U.S. Pipe, that uses foundry coke, we have 
some barriers and difficulties in gaining permission to cross 
Class I railroads. These type barriers make it difficult to be 
timely. Also, when we----
    Senator Shelby. In other words, you mine coal, you produce 
coke, which is a manufactured process----
    Mr. Crowe. Correct.
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. And then you move the coke, 
which is a by-product----
    Mr. Crowe. That is correct.
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. To another industry, where you 
make pipe, is that correct----
    Mr. Crowe. That is correct.
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. From a foundry, and you have 
to cross a Class I railroad.
    Mr. Crowe. Yes. We have to cross Class I railroads, and in 
many cases it makes it very difficult to do this. The access 
ability to the Class Is and the difficulty that we experience 
is quite significant.
    Senator Shelby. Do you consider at the end of the day you 
are basically a captive shipper, in a sense?
    Mr. Crowe. Oh, definitely. We are captive in many ways. As 
I stated earlier, from the standpoint of the raw materials that 
we receive for our chemical manufacturing and for our other 
manufacturing companies, as well as captive, to where our 
customers may be, in shipping out our finished product, we are 
captive both going and coming, and that makes it very 
difficult.

                     LIMITED TRANSPORTATION CHOICES

    Senator Shelby. Okay. Mr. Aasmundstad, I appreciate your 
joining us today. This is not the middle of the wheat harvest 
in North Dakota, is it?
    Mr. Aasmundstad. Yes, it is.
    Senator Shelby. It is?
    Mr. Aasmundstad. Yes, it is.
    Senator Shelby. We should get you back there. What is the 
market for your wheat? In other words, walk us through, if you 
would, the process of getting the grain from the field to the 
market, and what you have to do in your State.
    Mr. Aasmundstad. Well----
    Senator Shelby. Does that make sense to you?
    Mr. Aasmundstad. Sure. It varies greatly. Everything is 
naturally trucked from the field to storage facilities, whether 
they be on the farm or whether they are a grain-purchasing 
company. Many times during harvest, and I have to qualify, not 
so much the last couple of years, because the quality and the 
quantity of our crop has been very low, but in years previous, 
and with no reason to see any difference now with a quality 
crop, many times there have been--the elevators are virtually 
plugged, due to the lack of cars.
    Another thing that is very troubling in moving our grain up 
there, being the captive shippers, is, as Ms. Duff explained, 
the competitive disadvantage that a railroad could bring about 
between one grain purchaser and another by showing favoritism.
    Senator Shelby. Does that go on?
    Mr. Aasmundstad. You bet.
    Senator Shelby. Give us an example of that.
    Mr. Aasmundstad. A large grain purchasing business 
definitely has a competitive advantage over, say, a small local 
shipper, and the fact that they have to bid to the merge.
    There have been cases where that the small shippers, if 
they want cars at a specified time, have to bid what amounts to 
a restrictive fee over normal freight rates to receive those 
cars when they--receive a guarantee. That makes it very, very 
hard for the small shippers to survive.
    Senator Shelby. Is shipping by rail the only practical way 
to----
    Mr. Aasmundstad. It is the only practical way to do it. We 
are from 300 to 400 miles away from any river port of the Great 
Lakes, and you cannot ship it by truck competitively.
    Senator Shelby. Do you have access to more than one 
railroad for the people in North Dakota?
    Mr. Aasmundstad. We have a few short lines. There again, 
the problem----
    Senator Shelby. No main shippers.
    Mr. Aasmundstad. No. One.
    Senator Shelby. Are the grain producers, in your opinion, 
more cut off from transportation options than other industries, 
or some other industries?
    Mr. Aasmundstad. Well, I think they are. Mainly, other 
industries have a vehicle to pass costs along. We do not. As 
Senator Burns said, we sell wholesale by retail, and with some 
of the regulations proposed dealing with truck traffic and 
truck safety, it is going to be virtually impossible for a lot 
of people to afford.
    You cannot hire two drivers to drive a truck, it is 
economically impossible to do. The other thing that we are 
looking at is, we have to move further and further, move our 
grain further and further. We bear the costs of repairing our 
State highways, our county roads, that just cannot bear any 
more heavy truck traffic.
    Senator Shelby. Ms. Duff, your alliance, your organization 
represents a number of U.S. manufacturing industries. Do not 
these companies have other shipping options besides rail, or 
would you explain?
    Ms. Duff. It is often kind of amazing to a lot of people to 
consider that large chemical companies or large utilities are 
being held captive by a railroad, and that they do not have any 
opportunity to really negotiate out of that.
    The fact is that you really are only buying rail service on 
a facility-by-facility basis, and so long as that facility has 
one railroad, it does not matter how big your company is, you 
are still stuck with dealing with that one railroad.
    Now, some companies that are large enough have managed to 
leverage that size in their negotiation with railroads, but it 
is really so modest. They are still put at a disadvantage to 
those other people in their own industries that have 
competitive options. So they can improve it in some regards, 
but overall they are held captive, and there is not a lot that 
they can do about it.

                     DEFINING ``CAPTIVE SHIPPERS''

    Senator Shelby. How do you define yourself captive shipper, 
the term captive shipper? Is this different from what the 
railroad industry defines as captive?
    Ms. Duff. Well, it probably is different.
    Senator Shelby. Yes. Go ahead.
    Ms. Duff. It is always a moving target. What we have tried 
to do----
    Senator Shelby. It is how you look at it, is it not?
    Ms. Duff. What we have tried to do for consistency sake is 
rely on the statutory definition of captive, which is, if you 
are paying a rate of 180 percent of revenue to variable costs 
or higher, then you are captive. The reality is, if you have 
one railroad that goes to your facility, you are captive, and 
there has been no real effective way to make that count.
    If you have options with trucks or barges, then you are not 
captive, and most people who have those options are not 
involved in the Alliance for Rail Competition, or even in this 
debate, and it is very easy for them to say, ``Hey, my rail 
service is fine.'' Surprisingly, the railroads are performing 
better in areas where they actually have to work to save their 
customers.
    Senator Shelby. It is my understanding that the American 
Chemistry Council states that 63 percent of their member 
companies are captive to service by a single railroad. Do you 
know if other industries have a similar high percentage of 
captive shippers?
    Ms. Duff. We did a commodity study in 1997, updated in 
1998, and the coal, chemical, and grain industries are the top 
three captive revenue producers for the railroads. The coal 
industry is producing $3.5 billion for the railroads in captive 
revenues. Those are movements that are moving at a 180 percent 
of revenue to variable cost or higher. The chemical industry is 
moving at about $2.5 billion, and the grain industry at just 
shy of a billion dollars. So all three of those industries are 
contributing heavily on a captive rate basis.
    Senator Shelby. Ms. Duff, I have been told that railroad 
shipping rates, when measured in revenue-per-ton mile, have 
fallen since the Staggers Act was brought about. If this is the 
case, then why do we hear so many complaints about shipping 
rates?
    Ms. Duff. Well, revenue----
    Senator Shelby. Do you understand what I am getting at?
    Ms. Duff. I do.
    Senator Shelby. Is that how you measure it?
    Ms. Duff. Well, it is how you can measure it----
    Senator Shelby. How you can measure it.
    Ms. Duff [continuing]. But revenue-per-ton mile is not the 
same thing as a rate. You do not pay a revenue-per-ton mile. 
First, it is important to understand that revenues----
    Senator Shelby. Are you talking about apples and oranges?
    Ms. Duff. Absolutely. Revenue-per-ton mile, as a 
measurement, has been steadily declining since at least 1935. 
So that as a measurement alone has very little to do with the 
regulatory climate.
    Second of all, that measurement is basically a complex 
average of a number of different factors, so as the rail 
industry changes its characteristics, it is natural that that 
revenue-per-ton mile measurement would decline regardless of 
what is happening with rates. Rates could stay the same or even 
go up, and the revenue-per-ton mile would be declining.
    Senator Shelby. It has been alluded to that the United 
States could, I am not sure we will, but we could end up with 
two major railroads in this country. What would happen then? 
What would be the effect on manufacturers and shippers? All of 
you.
    Ms. Duff. Well, I would just start off by saying that in 
effect right now rail customers are faced with regional two-
rail monopoly situations. We have two operating in the east and 
two operating in the west. Basically, a two-railroad system 
spread over the entirety of North America further eliminates 
the potential for competition that currently exists running 
down the middle of the country, and I think that it really 
calls into question a lot of the issues that we have been 
debating about bottlenecks and terminal access, for example.
    There is very little evidence to show that rail customers 
are going to be willing to come to the board for relief. 
Bottleneck rates might be granted, but there is no reason why 
those rates are going to be any better than what is happening 
right now, and there is no reason why the board is necessarily 
going to grant access in a terminal area.
    So I think that what we will see is continued long-term 
thinking on captive industries' part, where they are going to 
start looking at the structure of what their businesses are, 
and making some significant changes to get out from underneath 
the rail monopoly.
    Senator Shelby. Okay. Do you have any comments, sir?
    Mr. Aasmundstad. Yes. If we end up with a two-railroad 
system in this country it is going to be absolutely devastating 
to the agricultural industry from the point I brought up 
earlier that if the two-railroad system or the surviving 
railroad in the system shows any favoritism at all to a 
shipper, and I am not calling a farmer a shipper, the farmers 
are at the end of the food chain on this, but to an 
agricultural product purchaser, they could have very heavy 
dictate on who survives and who does not in the agricultural 
industry from farmers right to the purchasers of the raw 
products.
    Senator Shelby. Choose winners and losers.
    Mr. Aasmundstad. You bet they could, because they will have 
the ability to move the product.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Crowe?
    Mr. Crowe. I have concluded my comments, Mr. Chairman, and 
we appreciate the opportunity to be with you. Alabama 
manufacturers and manufacturers throughout the country are 
looking to the Congress to bring about some behavioral 
modifications that are direly needed. It is very expensive to 
go before hearings and to conduct extensive hearings, and we 
must now come to the Congress to bring about some vital reform 
in this area.

               RAIL SERVICE PERFORMANCE AND MARKET SHARE

    Senator Shelby. Let me just share this with all of you. I 
am sure you have seen this before. An April, 1999, GAO report 
on railroad regulation showed that the railroads market share 
of freight movements versus truck traffic, river and canal 
traffic, and other transportation modes, the data show the 
percentage of rail traffic staying relatively constant, while 
truck traffic had increased dramatically from 25 to 30 percent 
of total traffic carried between 1990 and 1997. Is that a 
factor in lack of competition or competitive access driving 
that, or what is?
    Ms. Duff. Well, I think it is a reflection on the 
performance of the rail industry. Everybody who has really--
that used to use railroads, that had a choice with other modes, 
have pretty much systematically turned to trucks or other modes 
of transportation where that opportunity was allowed for.
    There are a number of different measurements. I have heard 
the ATA talk about trucks are carrying 87 percent of the 
nation's freight. If you look at the industrial productivity 
measurement, that has been increasing by 3.8 percent, whereas 
rail tonnages have been increasing by something like two 
percent, so less than half. These are all statistics that 
really reinforce the idea that railroads are not carrying the 
amount of freight that they should.
    I think the railroads would argue that that is a factor of 
the competitive stance that they are in. The fact is, they are 
not competing, they are not providing the kind of service, and 
as a result, our entire transportation infrastructure is 
suffering as a result.
    Senator Shelby. I want to thank all of you on the first 
panel for your participation here today. I do not know what the 
answer is, but at least we are talking about it, and we are 
holding hearings. Thank you. I thank all of you.
    Ms. Duff. Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you. Our second panel, we have Mr. 
Edward Hamberger, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
Association of American Railroads; Mr. Frank Turner, President 
of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association. 
Gentlemen, if you-all will come up. Your written testimony will 
be made part of the record, without objection, and you may 
proceed as you wish. Mr. Hamberger, do you want to proceed 
first?

STATEMENT OF EDWARD HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 
            EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN 
            RAILROADS

    Mr. Hamberger. Indeed.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the Association of 
American Railroads and our member companies, I appreciate the 
opportunity to be here to give you our views on the issue of 
competition in the freight railroad industry. You have been 
kind enough to make my written statement a part of the record, 
and in that statement we deal with the issue of competition in 
the traditional fashion. We walk down and point out that there 
is, indeed, pervasive rail-to-rail competition. One of the 
members of the first panel acknowledged that he has rail-to-
rail competition.

                         INTERMODAL COMPETITION

    We point out that there is intermodal competition from our 
friends in the barge and towing industry, and, of course, our 
friends, and also customers in the trucking industry. Of 
course, we point out that, notwithstanding, there are some who 
believe that there is no such thing as product and geographic 
competition. There is product and geographic competition out 
there affecting choices and acting as competitive forces on the 
rail industry.

              COMPETITION FROM COUNTERVAILING MARKET POWER

    Finally, Ms. Duff was kind enough to acknowledge that, 
indeed, there is competition from countervailing market power. 
Now, we disagree as to how pervasive that is. We believe that 
countervailing market power is exercised by many of our 
particularly larger customers, but it is out there, and we do 
agree on that.
    I guess the most compelling statistic I would point to from 
that testimony is that while we carry 40 percent of the 
nation's ton miles in freight, we collect only 10 percent of 
the freight revenue dollar. That gets me to--what I would like 
to do today, Mr. Chairman, if I might, is look at this issue of 
competition in terms a little bit different, and that is in 
terms of what you deal with every day, in terms of money--
money, revenue, investment capital, where it is, how it is 
spent, what the impact is, and who, indeed, should be 
responsible for spending it.

                   ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

    This subcommittee more than any other knows the 
significance of an adequate infrastructure investment. You know 
in the programs that you administer what happens when there is 
not adequate expansion of capacity, when there is deferred 
maintenance, when technology does not keep pace. Unfortunately, 
we in the freight rail industry also know what happens when 
those things occur, and that is why since 1980 we have spent 
$266 billion, money earned in the private sector, $266 billion 
to improve our infrastructure.
    That has made us the most capital-intensive industry in the 
country. Last year alone we spent $6.6 billion in capital 
investment, out of a total for the industry of $33 billion in 
total revenue, almost 20 percent of the total revenue 
reinvested back into the industry.
    Again, in terms that you deal with in other modes, that 
would be equal to a $2.04 expenditure for every gallon of 
diesel fuel we burned last year. That is a heck of an excise 
tax, $2.04, and that is not going to stop there. We estimate 
that we are going to have to reinvest ourselves twice over in 
the next 20 years.
    Now, what has been the result of all this investment? We 
think, quite simply, according to the World Bank, it has made 
us the best freight rail system in the world, the lowest rates, 
and the best service, according to the Lou Thompson, of the 
World Bank.
    Our customers benefit from this investment, because we have 
improved productivity 171 percent since 1980. Rates, according 
to the GAO, have fallen on an average of over 4 percent per 
year since 1980.
    Our employees have benefitted, because accident rates have 
gone down 70 percent. Last year was our safest on record by 
some measures, and the first 6 months of 2000 are on track to 
be even better.
    The economy benefits, because our customers in the chemical 
industry experience a 99.99 percent rate of safe transportation 
of hazardous materials from origin to destination without 
incident. Of course, the economy, as a whole, has benefitted. 
According to a Brookings Institute study just released, the 
benefit to the American economy each year since the Staggers 
Act has been $12.3 billion in improved productivity and lower 
prices.
    And yes, railroads, too, have benefitted. We have gained 
market share incrementally from 35 percent in 1980 to 40 
percent, and we have climbed out of the abysmal 1 to 2 percent 
rate of return on investment, up to a modest, if not robust, 
9.4 percent last year. That puts us, I should point out, still 
behind the rest of the American economy.
    In 12 of the last 15 years we have ranked in the lowest 
quarter of the Fortune 500 companies in terms of return on 
equity. Remember that this is the industry which is the most 
capital intensive in the country, and which routinely spends 15 
to 20 percent of its revenues on capital investment.
    Now, we have before you, the Congress, a whole series of 
proposals coming forward under different names, First Access, 
Competitive Access, Open Access. We call them re-regulation, 
because we think that's what they amount to. But no matter what 
you call them, they all have one thing in common, the net 
result is an outflow of capital from the freight railroad 
industry to a select customer base.
    We would lose anywhere from $1.3 billion to $2.4 billion, 
depending on the proposal and depending on your estimate, but 
everyone agrees that there would be a net outflow of money out 
of the railroad industry, and a loss of ability to make capital 
investments. If we lose that ability to invest capital, we will 
have no choice but to, as the Wall Street folks say, harvest. 
We would disinvest. We will have deferred maintenance. Safety, 
unfortunately, would go the wrong direction. Service would get 
worse. Productivity would decline.
    I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that that brings us back to 
how I started, to the work of this subcommittee, and what you 
deal with every day, and that is money, because I predict that 
if any of these proposals pass, that in the not too distant 
future you will have another panel of shippers and customers up 
here, and what they will not be talking about then is 
competition or bottleneck, they will be talking about the need 
to get a couple billion dollars more in Function 400 to 
reinvest in the freight rail industry.
    I would say that there are really only two sources of 
investment capital. Either it comes from the private sector or 
it comes from the government. Right now the private sector has 
been shouldering that responsibility, and I believe with 
admirable results.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    The real question before you, stripped of all the veneers, 
is who should be responsible for railroad investment. Should we 
continue the current system, where the private sector shoulders 
that responsibility, or by re-regulating the industry, shift 
that responsibility to the taxpayer? I admire Mr. Aasmundstad 
for putting that on the table as well. Who should have that 
responsibility, the private sector or the public sector? We 
strongly urge you to remember the lessons of the past, and keep 
that responsibility in the private sector. Thank you for the 
opportunity to be here.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Edward R. Hamberger

    I would like to thank you for providing me with this opportunity to 
address this committee about freight rail competition issues. This 
topic is especially appropriate now, just weeks from the 20th 
anniversary of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. Indeed, now is an 
excellent time to look back on what has transpired since the passage of 
the Staggers Act, and review how that legislation has allowed the rail 
industry to become a competitive factor in the transportation 
marketplace. Moreover, we should look at what our nation could face if 
the tremendous gains made possible by the deregulation embodied by 
Staggers were reversed through short-sighted reregulation. If the 
railroads are to continue to provide low cost and efficient 
transportation, pursue service enhancements, and continue to realize 
dramatic safety improvements, they must be free to operate effectively 
in the competitive marketplace.

                     CURRENT REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

    The story of the rail industry's stagnation under the scheme of 
pervasive regulation in effect prior to the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 
and its dramatic revitalization since Staggers is well known. In 
enacting the Staggers Act, Congress recognized that railroads faced 
intense competition from trucks and other modes for most categories of 
freight traffic, but that prevailing regulation precluded railroads 
from earning revenues sufficient to maintain and replace the rail 
infrastructure and thus thwarted the industry's ability to compete. 
Survival of the railroad industry required a new regulatory scheme that 
allowed railroads to establish their own routes, tailor their rates to 
market conditions and differentiate rates on the basis of demand.
    The reforms that Congress enacted and President Carter signed into 
law have been an unqualified success. The pricing and routing freedoms 
of the Staggers Act have enabled railroads to rationalize their 
systems, reinvest in productive rail infrastructure, generate higher 
levels of service and dramatically increase productivity, resulting in 
lower rates for shippers. The regulatory system relies on competition 
in the marketplace to govern rail rates and service and at the same 
time provides a regulatory safety net for those instances where there 
is no effective competition for rail transportation.

                          RAILROAD COMPETITION

    There are some observers who claim that railroads have too much 
market power. They often point to the number of Class I railroads to 
prove their point. But the fact is that neither the absolute number of 
railroads nor the number of railroads of a particular size is a true 
measure of the intensity of competition. Competition can be 
meaningfully assessed only with reference to the strength of the 
competitive options available to particular shippers. These options can 
take many forms.
    Rail-to-rail competition is one such option for many shippers. The 
nation's more than 550 freight railroads form a highly interdependent 
and highly efficient national rail system that actively and effectively 
competes for existing and potential traffic. Shippers are continually 
exercising their options to play one railroad off against another.
    Railroads compete not just among themselves, but in the larger 
market for freight transportation services. As such, they face 
extensive competition from trucks, water carriers, and/or pipelines for 
their traffic. The rail share of intercity freight traffic is a stark 
reminder of the intensity of this competition. Measured in ton-miles, 
rail's share of intercity traffic fell steadily for decades, from 
around 75 percent in the late 1920s to 35 percent in 1978. Only since 
deregulation has rail market share begun to inch upward; it currently 
stands at about 40 percent. The intensity of intermodal competition is 
illustrated even more vividly by the railroads' market share of 
intercity freight revenue. Though railroads currently account for 40 
percent of total intercity ton-miles, they are able to generate only 10 
percent of intercity freight revenue, and the rail revenue share has 
continued to fall.
    Rail customers can also take advantage of product competition, 
which refers to the ability of shippers and receivers to substitute one 
product for another in their production process. Coal transported to 
electric utilities is a good example. Although utility coal is the 
railroads' most important commodity, some 44 percent of the electricity 
generated by utilities in this country is produced from fuel sources 
other than coal and, in fact, competes against coal-fired generation.
    Geographic competition, which refers to the ability of shippers and 
consignees to buy from or sell in any number of geographic areas, also 
constrains railroads in many markets. Suppose, for example, an exporter 
requires grain for shipment abroad. The exporter could buy grain from 
sources in any number of different states, playing each source--and the 
railroad(s) serving it--against the others.
    And, of course, railroad customers frequently possess extensive 
countervailing market power. This is particularly true of large, 
sophisticated companies with multiple locations. These companies can 
obtain price or service concessions by shifting or threatening to shift 
traffic among plants--causing the railroads that serve them to compete 
against each other. Indeed, many individual rail customers rival or 
exceed the size of the entire rail industry.

                             RAILROAD RATES

    The competitive forces unleashed by the Staggers Act have resulted 
in sharply lower rail rates. In fact, from 1981 to 1999, rail rates (as 
measured by revenue per ton-mile) have fallen 28 percent in current 
dollars, and 57 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. This trend in 
falling revenue per ton-mile was not isolated to only a few 
commodities: each of the major two-digit Standard Transportation 
Commodity Code groupings enjoyed declines expressed in both constant 
and current dollars, although the impact varied among individual 
commodity categories. This broad, sharp decline in rail rates is 
evidence of the competitive market constraints railroads face.



    To place the post-Staggers railroad rate declines in perspective, 
the chart at right compares railroad revenue per ton-mile (in constant 
dollars) with the average retail electricity rates per kilowatt hour 
and the average expenditure per new automobile. The 57 percent decline 
in the railroad measure from 1981 to 1999 is in contrast to the 28 
decline in electricity rates and the 41 percent increase in new car 
prices.



    Numerous independent studies which examine the behavior of railroad 
freight rates have consistently concluded that rail rates have fallen. 
For example, a study released just last week by the American Enterprise 
Institute/Brookings Institution Joint Center for Regulatory Studies 
(AEI/Brookings) noted that economic efficiency grounds do not justify 
increasing rail competition. The study cited rail customer benefits 
worth $12 billion per year in lower rail rates and improvements in 
service time and reliability during the first decade of deregulation, 
and that shippers continue to benefit from lower rates. The authors 
also found that increased rail-to-rail competition had no impact on 
changes in service reliability or average service time.
    In its April 1999 report entitled Railroad Regulation: Changes in 
Railroad Rates and Service Quality Since 1990, the U.S. General 
Accounting Office concluded that ``railroad rates have generally fallen 
both overall as well as for specific commodities'' since 1990. GAO 
noted that its results are consistent with Surface Transportation Board 
(STB) calculations that found that average rail rates fell 4.1 percent 
annually in real terms from 1990 to 1996, and that rate reductions vary 
by commodity.
    In a series of late 1998 staff papers, economists at North Dakota 
State University studied the behavior of grain rates in recent years. 
They noted that ``while rate increases have been a major concern for 
shippers, most of these concerns have been unfounded. In fact, several 
studies have indicated that as a result of deregulation, cost savings 
have accrued and rail rates have fallen in real terms.'' The 
researchers also found that ``[I]n the period prior to the [Staggers 
Rail Act], most rail rates were generally increasing in real terms. 
However, in the period following [Staggers], most rail rates decreased 
in real terms by 52 percent (ranging from 40-71 percent across 
commodities).''
    And when viewed from a global perspective, U.S. freight railroads 
stand unequaled. The World Bank's Railways Adviser recently stated 
that, ``Because of a marketbased approach involving minimal government 
intervention, today's U.S. freight railroads add up to a network that, 
comparing the total cost to shippers and taxpayers, gives the world's 
most cost-effective rail freight service. Unsubsidized U.S. freight 
rail rates are not only the lowest of any market economy, they have 
been falling every year since 1980, even though U.S. labor costs are 
high.''

                          RAILROAD INVESTMENT

    There was little doubt at the time of the Staggers Act that 
inadequate investment by the nation's railroads had been a major factor 
contributing to their poor financial health and unsatisfactory service. 
As Congress explained, ``The simple fact of the matter is that the 
railroad industry is a capital-intensive industry which for decades has 
had inadequate earnings to maintain its plant and facilities at a level 
necessary to achieve improved services.'' Indeed, in 1980, Congress 
acknowledged the enormous capital shortfall ($16 to $20 billion by 
1985) of the railroad industry, even after billions of dollars of 
Federal funding had flowed into the bankrupt Northeastern railroads.
    Railroading is a capital intensive business: large capital 
expenditures are needed to maintain plant and equipment, to upgrade 
facilities as technology and markets change, and to expand capacity. 
Moreover, the amount of capital required to sustain the railroad 
industry is extremely high compared to American industry, in general, 
and among the railroad industry's most prominent competitors.
    As shown in the table below, data for Fortune 500 firms in selected 
industries that are major rail shippers or competitors reveal that on 
the basis of total assets required per dollar of revenue produced, 
railroads have significantly higher asset needs--$2.57 of assets for 
each dollar of revenue produced. The 15 chemical companies among the 
Fortune 500, for instance, have only $1.42 in assets for each dollar of 
revenue produced and the 37 utilities average only $2.23 in assets, 
while the two trucking firms average only 50 cents in assets per dollar 
of revenue. In aggregate, the 127 industrial firms in the sectors 
listed had, on average, $1.46 in assets per dollar in revenue--just 57 
percent of the railroad figure.

                       RATIO OF ASSETS TO REVENUES
                          [Dollars in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Ratio of
                                Number     Total       Total     Assets
           Industry               of     Revenues     Assetsa      to
                                 Firms                          Revenues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemicals.....................      15      $114.4      $162.1      1.42
Food..........................      22       178.6       116.2      0.65
Forest & Paper Products.......      11       106.3       134.0      1.26
Industrial & Farm Equipment...      11        81.2        88.3      1.09
Metals........................       8        44.2        54.6      1.24
Mining, Crude Oil Production..       3        17.0        24.6      1.45
Motor Vehicles & Parts........      14       452.8       634.6      1.40
Railroads.....................       4        36.4        93.6      2.57
Trucking......................       2         8.8         4.4      0.50
Gas & Electric Utilities......      37       266.3       594.8      2.23
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................     127     1,306.0     1,907.2     1.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Fortune, April 17, 2000 pp. F1-F20.

    Prior to Staggers, the inadequacy of capital expenditures fed upon 
itself--lower investment led to lower quality service, which led to a 
decline in traffic volume and lower revenues that made further 
investment impossible. In contrast, deregulation under the Staggers Act 
has been highly successful in promoting reinvestment in railroad 
infrastructure. Even as railroads have shed unproductive assets, they 
have invested in new productive assets. Capital expenditures per mile 
of road owned were more than $66,000 in 1999, almost two and a half 
times the comparable inflation-adjusted 1983 figure. Overall, new 
capital investment in roadway, structures and equipment by the nation's 
Class I railroads in 1999 alone was over $6.6 billion (nearly 20 
percent of rail industry revenue) with an additional $12.9 billion in 
maintenance expenses related to roadway, structures and equipment 
expenditures. After accounting for depreciation, railroads spent $16.2 
billion in 1999 alone on their infrastructure and equipment. This 
extraordinary level of funding--equal to 48 percent of industry 
operating revenues in 1999--is required year after year to provide the 
high quality assets necessary for the rail industry to operate 
efficiently, and has made the nation's railroads stronger and more 
effective competitors. Importantly, unlike other transportation modes, 
railroads rely on private financing, not government funds, to pay for 
their infrastructure investments. In fact, if the funds railroads spent 
on their infrastructure in 1999 were raised through a fuel tax, 
railroads would have had to pay approximately $2.04 per gallon--an 
amount equivalent to four to ten times the tax paid by competing modes.



                         RAILROAD PRODUCTIVITY

    These investments have contributed to dramatic improvements in 
railroad productivity. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, railroad productivity has exceeded that of nearly every 
other U.S. industry. Revenue ton-miles per constant dollar of operating 
expense is a useful overall productivity gauge. By this measure, which 
incorporates all cost components that contribute to rail operations, 
overall rail productivity rose 171 percent in the post-Staggers period, 
compared to just 10 percent in the comparable pre-Staggers period.
    Since Staggers, nearly every rail input has seen enormous 
productivity gains. From 1981-1999, rail labor productivity rose 287 
percent, locomotive productivity rose 113 percent, track productivity 
rose 130 percent, freight car productivity rose 92 percent, and fuel 
efficiency rose 58 percent. In each case, post-Staggers productivity 
improvements were far greater (usually two to three times higher) than 
during the comparable pre-Staggers period.



                         RAILROAD PROFITABILITY

    Rail profitability has improved to moderate levels since 
deregulation. Even with their improvements, though, railroad earnings 
are still not sufficient to cover all costs of rail operations and 
generate an adequate return on investment. Until it earns its cost of 
capital on a consistent basis, the long-term viability of the rail 
industry will continue to be threatened.
    Return on equity (ROE) is a commonly used indicator of short-term 
profitability. According to Fortune 500 data, in the 15 years from 1985 
to 1999, overall railroad ROE was less than the Fortune 500 average 
each year; in all but three years, the railroad ROE was in the lowest 
quartile; and in eight of the 15 years, 92 percent or more of other 
industries generated returns that exceeded those of the railroads. 
Standard & Poor's data show similar results: nearly three-fourths of 
the time, railroad ROE is lower than the ROE for a variety of 
industries that are major rail shippers. In most cases, railroad ROE is 
strikingly lower.
    Artificial and unrealistic restrictions that impede a railroad's 
opportunity to generate sufficient returns are likely to severely 
compromise the carrier's ability to retain and attract the capital it 
needs to sustain its investment and operations over the long term. 
Access to capital is more important than ever to the railroad industry 
for two reasons. First, the railroads were able to increase their 
profitability since Staggers in the face of strong competition from 
trucks and declining rates only through increased productivity. Those 
productivity gains, however, were achieved through measures that have 
largely been exhausted or through one-time events--as some have put it, 
by harvesting the ``low-hanging fruit.'' Future productivity gains will 
likely need to be ``purchased'' with additional, large-scale strategic 
infrastructure investments.
    Second, new investment is also needed to meet increasing shipper 
demand for transportation service. Rail traffic as measured by revenue 
ton-miles has increased by 57 percent since 1980. Part of this growth 
has been fueled by the increasing globalization of commerce and the 
resulting increase in demand for high-volume, long-haul transportation 
that is well suited to railroads. The railroad industry has reached the 
point where further significant traffic growth will not be possible 
without investments that expand capacity.
    Increasing demand for transportation is having an effect on all 
aspects of the nation's transportation system, not just the railroads. 
Trucks, which still dominate the surface transportation of freight, 
face capacity constraints of their own. Driver shortages persist and 
there continues to be political debate surrounding the public funding 
of increased highway capacity. The nation's port facilities also are 
finding themselves increasingly pressed for funds to accommodate an 
explosion in intermodal cargo traffic. It is clear that transportation 
capacity will have to increase as the economy expands. The railroads 
can contribute to meeting these increased capacity needs through 
private capital--unlike motor carriers that rely on public funding of 
highway construction and expansion--but only if the regulatory 
structure gives the railroads an incentive to make the necessary 
investments. In order to promote necessary investment in 
infrastructure, railroads must have the opportunity to earn competitive 
returns and to that end they need the pricing flexibility afforded by 
the present regulatory system.

                            CUSTOMER SERVICE

    Railroads are taking action to improve their service. They have 
spent heavily on infrastructure ($140 billion in the 1990s alone, paid 
for with private funds, not funds appropriated by this Committee). In 
addition, railroads have entered into agreements with two major 
customer groups--the National Grain and Feed Association and the 
National Mining Association. The agreements entail voluntary, private-
sector efforts to solve problems by working together. The parties 
involved all recognize that private sector solutions are preferable to 
government intervention.
    In January 1999, freight railroads became the first industry to 
publish weekly performance measures, giving customers access to updated 
information on location-specific performance measures that serve as 
indicators of how well traffic is moving through a railroad's system.
    There are also several other initiatives underway. One is the 
``Chicago Plan.'' Last spring, under the auspices of the Association of 
American Railroads, freight railroads convened an industry-wide 
planning group to address service reliability in Chicago, the most 
important rail hub. The freight railroads have also initiated a long 
list of technological programs to enhance customer service and 
performance, including Automatic Equipment Identification, Interline 
Service Management, and NetREDI--an Internet service--to provide an 
easy way for customers to track their shipments. Railroads are also 
aggressively pursuing opportunities involving e-commerce to help make 
customer interaction with railroads more efficient and beneficial.
    While every American has benefited enormously from the 
efficiencies, cost savings and rate reductions brought about by rail 
deregulation, railroads are committed to continual improvement to the 
benefit of their customers and the economy.

                                 SAFETY

    Another critical benefit of the deregulatory era has been a 
pronounced increase in safety. The chart below illustrates the 
extraordinary railroad safety achievements resulting from an emphasis 
on safety management and from safety-related investments. Accidents per 
million train-miles have been driven down 53 percent from 1981-1999, 
while injuries and illnesses per hundred employees (per year) have been 
forced down by 66 percent. The past five years have been the safest in 
the industry's history. Rail industry employee injury rates are lower 
than employee casualty rates of workers in factories, mines and even 
some retail industries, and lower than rates in the truck, transit and 
aviation industries.



    All of us want to see these safety improvements continue. One way 
to jeopardize them, however, would be to limit the ability of railroads 
to earn enough to cover the costs of their systems. In the 1970s, 
oppressive regulation prevented railroads from doing just that. One 
consequence of that unfortunate reality was billions of dollars of 
deferred maintenance, a problem that took the railroads years to 
overcome. Railroads, their employees, and the communities they serve 
cannot afford a return to a time when insufficient earnings brought 
about by misguided regulation prevented railroads from dedicating the 
necessary resources to maintain their world-best standards.

                           EXISTING REMEDIES

    Most shippers have multiple competitive options in today's 
transportation market that effectively constrain or discipline rail 
prices. But in those instances where genuine competitive issues exist, 
Congress has provided and the Board has implemented effective remedies 
to protect shippers from abuse of market power or anti-competitive 
behavior.
    Remedies for unreasonably high rates are available if it can be 
shown that there is no effective competition to constrain rail rates--
i.e., where the challenged rate exceeds the statutory jurisdictional 
threshold (currently 180 percent of variable costs) and where the 
railroad does not face effective competition for the issue traffic. 
Upon finding a rate unreasonably high, the Board is authorized to award 
reparations and/or to prescribe maximum reasonable rates for the 
future. To determine the reasonableness of a rate, the STB uses a 
``stand-alone cost'' (SAC) test, which applies the principles of 
demand-based differential pricing to cap rail rates at the level that 
would be charged by a hypothetical ``stand-alone railroad'' providing 
head-to-head rail competition for the traffic at issue.
    In enacting the ICC Termination Act, Congress responded to shipper 
concerns over the length and complexity of rate reasonableness 
proceedings. To expedite relief, Congress mandated that rate cases be 
completed within 16 months, and the STB has implemented simplified 
guidelines and procedures to speed up handling of certain cases. 
Recognizing that there is still dissatisfaction among some small rail 
shippers, the rail industry has recommended several modifications to 
existing regulatory procedures to further streamline the process.

                   PROPOSALS TO REREGULATE RAILROADS

    Despite the existence of remedies for any actual abuse of railroad 
market power and the vital role railroads play in the nation's economy, 
some groups seek to reinstate pervasive economic regulation of the 
railroads. These groups call for jettisoning the deregulatory system 
that has served the nation well and replacing it with a system in which 
regulators would again have ultimate authority over important facets of 
rail operations. You won't hear these groups calling their proposals 
``reregulation,'' of course, but that is precisely what it is. Their 
proposals are not new thinking: they have been periodically advocated, 
and rejected by Congress, for good reason, in the past.
    The end result of most proposals to reregulate railroads is the 
same: they would have the government force railroads to lower their 
rates to certain favored shippers--at the expense of other rail 
shippers, rail investors and the public at large. And if those groups 
advocating reregulation had their way, the government would take such 
action without requiring any showing of anti-competitive conduct by 
railroads, without showing that railroads had actually abused their 
market power, without showing that railroad profits are excessive, and 
without any opportunity for railroads to cover their costs or make the 
heavy investments necessary to maintain their systems.

                    THE DANGERS OF RAIL REREGULATION

    Proposals to reregulate the railroads primarily focus on 
artificially manufacturing rail-to-rail competition. As noted earlier, 
however, railroads already face extensive competition for the vast 
majority of their business, including cases where a shipper or receiver 
is served by only one railroad. Moreover, the present level of rail-to-
rail competition reflects private sector decisions as to which markets 
will sustain more than one railroad and which will not. Stated another 
way, it is not economically feasible for there to be two railroads 
serving every shipper because that level of competition is not 
sustainable. Trying to mandate more rail-to-rail competition than the 
marketplace will support would reduce competition, not enhance it, 
because it would prevent railroads from covering the full cost of 
providing service across their systems.
    This is so because of the cost and demand characteristics railroads 
face. On the cost side, railroads have extremely high fixed costs 
(e.g., the track structure and related facilities) that must be covered 
regardless of traffic level. On the demand side, rail shippers differ 
widely in terms of their willingness to pay for rail service. On one 
extreme, some rail traffic can easily shift to truck or other 
alternatives, and would do so if railroads charged much over their 
variable cost of moving that traffic. On the other extreme, some rail 
traffic is less easily diverted to other modes and has fewer 
competitive alternatives; this traffic can be charged higher markups to 
reflect the attendant higher demand for rail service.
    Given this demand structure, railroads would lose customers if they 
were required to charge all traffic the same markup over variable 
costs. Instead, railroads price their services on the basis of demand, 
with those shippers with the greatest demand for rail service paying 
higher markups than shippers with lower demand. This way, railroads 
cover their variable costs and realize varying contributions to fixed 
costs from various customers.
    This kind of ``differential pricing'' is practiced by businesses in 
every segment of the economy, from auto dealers (expensive cars carry 
higher margins) and airlines (a business traveler who buys a ticket at 
the last minute pays more than a vacationer who buys a ticket in 
advance) to movie theaters (matinees are cheaper than evening shows) 
and utilities (industrial users pay lower rates than homeowners). The 
Staggers Act explicitly recognizes differential pricing as essential to 
the rail industry's financial viability.
    Differential pricing benefit all shippers because lower rates to 
some shippers generate revenue (which helps to cover fixed costs) which 
otherwise would not be realized. Indeed, given their demand structure, 
only by pricing in accordance with demand (with reasonable regulatory 
ceilings on maximum rates) can railroads efficiently recover all of 
their costs, serve the largest number of rail customers, and maintain 
the viability of the nation's rail system.
    Unfortunately, proposals to reregulate the railroads would gut the 
use of differential pricing by railroads. Manufactured rail-to-rail 
competition would artificially drive down rail rates toward variable 
cost. There would no longer be a sufficient mix of high demand-high 
margin and low demand-low margin traffic to enable railroads to earn 
the total markups they need to cover their full costs. Specifically, 
the aforementioned AEI/Brookings study found that artificially 
manufactured rail competition would result in a drain to the railroads 
of $1.3 billion annually. The study also concluded that this huge loss 
of revenue to the railroads would provide no benefit to the economy, 
since it would merely be a transfer from railroads to rail customers. 
Rail industry analysis of specific reregulation proposals has revealed 
that more than $2.4 billion annually in railroad revenue would be lost. 
Because the revenue loss would not be accompanied by compensating 
reductions in expenses, most or all of the industry's net income would 
disappear. Railroads would have to cut their costs by shrinking the 
size and/or the quality of their rail networks. Such an outcome is 
completely at odds with the needs of our growing economy and America's 
global competitiveness.

              RAILROADS DO NOT HAVE EXCESSIVE MARKET POWER

    The call for greater rail regulation relies on the false assumption 
that railroads have undue market power. Real-world evidence proves 
otherwise:
  --Prices.--The exercise of market power rarely involves sharply lower 
        prices. Rail revenue per ton-mile has actually fallen 
        substantially--by 28 percent in nominal terms and 57 percent in 
        inflation-adjusted terms--from 1981 to 1999.
  --Costs.--If railroads had excessive market power, incentives to 
        reduce costs and use productive inputs efficiently would be 
        suppressed. Yet, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
        rail productivity gains in the past decade are among the very 
        highest in all of American industry, and rail costs per unit of 
        traffic have plunged.
  --Innovation.--If railroads had excessive market power, they would 
        have reduced incentives to invest in innovative products and 
        processes. But unit trains, double-stacking intermodal freight 
        cars, grain car reservation systems, AC locomotives, modern 
        dispatching centers, improved safety equipment, e-commerce, and 
        a variety of other innovations attest to the railroads' 
        competitive incentives.
  --Profits.--If railroads had excessive market power, they would be 
        able to earn more than a competitive rate of return. In fact, 
        railroads consistently fail to earn their cost of capital and 
        rail profitability ranks in the bottom quartile among all U.S. 
        industries.
  --Market Share.--If railroads had excessive market power, they would 
        not have steadily lost market share for decades. The ongoing 
        struggle by railroads to retain the meager market share gains 
        they have made over the past ten years is stark evidence of the 
        intensity of the competition they face from other modes. For 
        example, only about 15 percent of total U.S. electricity 
        generation is accounted for by coal-fired plants served just by 
        a single railroad. Likewise, U.S. Department of Agriculture 
        data indicate that trucks have supplanted railroads as the 
        primary transportation mode for grain. And the chemical 
        industry's own figures show that railroads account for just 20 
        percent of chemical transportation tonnage.

                               CONCLUSION

    The railroad industry is committed to sincere and productive 
participation in regulatory and private sector initiatives concerned 
with service, safety, and other areas of rail operations. The current 
regulatory regime balances competition with regulation in a way that 
protects shippers from abuse, while allowing railroads to stand or fall 
based on their response to the competitive pressures of the free 
market. The chart below demonstrates the tremendous gains railroads 
have made under the current regulatory regime. Unfortunately, many of 
the proposals to reregulate the rail industry would replace the current 
system with one in which regulation would be far more costly and far 
less effective.
    In summary, the economic reality is that the railroad industry 
faces pervasive competition in the transportation marketplace and that 
the current regulatory structure has allowed the railroads to remain 
viable in that marketplace. Going forward, railroads need the continued 
flexibility that deregulation has offered in order to efficiently 
handle the future transportation needs of our growing economy and 
sustain our nation's international competitiveness. 



STATEMENT OF FRANK K. TURNER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SHORT 
            LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Turner.
    Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Frank K. 
Turner. I am President of the American Short Line and Regional 
Railroad Association. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to 
testify at this hearing today.

                           SHORT LINE MEMBERS

    I am here today representing short line members, more than 
400 short line and regional railroad members located in every 
state of the United States. Mr. Chairman, 13 members of your 
subcommittee have between them 138 short line railroads 
operating almost 10,000 miles of track. The majority of this 
track is in rural areas where rail service could have been 
abandoned by class one railroads if short line operators had 
not purchased these lines.
    In your own State of Alabama, Mr. Chairman, there are 17 
short line railroads operating over 500 miles of track. Without 
these companies, 16 cities, from Florence, in northeastern 
Alabama, to Beatrice, in southwestern Alabama, would lose the 
only rail service they have. Small railroads can serve their 
shippers best in a competitive rail environment. We are an 
essential part of the national rail network.
    Short line and regional railroads, and the shippers and 
communities that depend on them for service, are deeply 
affected by the ongoing restructuring of the North American 
railroad industry. Class one railroads have consolidated 
aggressively since the Staggers Act. Only six large class one 
railroads remain in North America today, down from more than 40 
class one railroads in 1980. The number of competitors has been 
reduced and so has the number of competitive options.
    This is troubling, because the fundamental premise of the 
Staggers Act, as has been pointed out, was meaningful 
competition. When the industry reaches the point that most 
shippers have only one choice of a rail company to deal with, 
that fundamental premise of the Staggers Act becomes 
questionable. Small railroads can and should be a part of the 
way to enhance railroad competition in America. If small 
railroads can move certain traffic more efficient than class 
one railroads, then the system should allow it.
    If small railroads can ease congestion on overcrowded class 
one mainlines, the system should allow it. If small railroads 
can take truck traffic off of the highways, then the system 
should allow it. More often than not, the system does not allow 
it.

                                SERVICE

    Another critical issue is service, which has been pointed 
out. Services suffered in the aftermath of recent mergers. 
Small railroads simply cannot deliver good service to their 
customers if they don't get good service from their 
connections. The Service Transportation Board is considerably 
considering changing the rules that govern class one rail 
mergers. The Short Line Association has urged the board to add 
new conditions, with teeth in them, to preserve competitive 
options and ensure good service for small railroads affected by 
a proposed class one merger.

                 SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS

    The Short Line Association has proposed a short line and 
regional railroad bill of rights, and urge the board to include 
it as a condition of board approval of any future class one 
merger or consolidation transaction.
    The short line and regional railroad's bill of rights is as 
follows: One, the right to compensation for service failures; 
second, the right to interchange and routing freedom; third, 
the right to competitive and non-discriminatory pricing; and 
fourth, the right to fair and non-discriminatory car supply. I 
have attached a copy of this, of our filing, and the STB 
proceedings to my testimony for the record.
    We are hopeful that it will require the kind of actions 
that we have outlined in our bill of rights. However, the 
board's new rules will apply only if there are more class one 
railroad mergers in the future. Unfortunately, the small 
railroads have competitive and service problems with their 
class one partners today, which the board's new merger rules 
will not affect.
    We have tried to address these issues through industry-wide 
negotiations. The process began 2 years ago with encouragement 
from the STB under Chairman Linda Morgan's leadership. On 
September 10, 1998, we signed the Railroad Industrial Agreement 
between the short line and regional railroads, and class ones. 
The RIA, as it is known, contains provisions that are intended 
to address a wide range of rate and service issues.

                   TRACKAGE RIGHTS AND HAULAGE RIGHTS

    Two key provisions allow small railroads to gain access to 
new trackage rights or haulage rights agreements under certain 
circumstances or to get paper barriers set aside to develop new 
business. The RIA was a milestone 2 years ago. It was the first 
privately negotiated industrial-wide agreement for railroads, 
and it tried to address some of the critical issues.
    Unfortunately, so far, the results have been rather 
disappointing. There have been far fewer success stories than I 
had hoped. My short line members tell me most of their ideas 
are either met by silence or delay. Although, progress has been 
slow, we do not want to abandon private negotiations. Chairman 
Morgan recently wrote to Mr. Ed Hamberger and myself requesting 
an update on how the RIA is working, and urging the railroads 
to consider whether changes are needed. In fact, 
representatives of the Short Line Association and class one 
railroads are sitting down this Thursday to do just that.
    The small railroads are going to raise their concerns that 
the RIA is not working as it was intended, and it needs to be 
strengthened and be expanded. I hope the class one railroad's 
representatives will be receptive to this. We will be reporting 
back to Chairman Morgan in October. If no progress has been 
made, we will seek a more regulatory solution.

               FUNDING TO MAINTAIN AND UPGRADE FACILITIES

    Another huge issue for small railroads is the problem of 
finding funding to maintain and upgrade our facilities. We are 
often playing a catchup on light-density lines after years of 
deferred maintenance. The class one's new generation of heavier 
capacity freight cars, now built to 286,000 weight standards, 
require upgrade of ``R'' track, ties, ballasts, and bridges.
    A new study by Zeta-Tech Associates established a need of 
$6.8 billion for small railroads to upgrade their track and 
facilities to handle these new heavier 286,000-pound freight 
cars. I have attached a copy of the Zeta-Tech study conclusions 
to my testimony for the record.
    Class one railroads received almost all the productivity 
savings generated by the new 286 cars. The benefits come from 
huge volumes that allow class ones to run fewer trains, thus 
reducing fuel costs and locomotive costs. Short lines typically 
receive and move the 286 cars in single car lots, not unit 
trains. We get the burden, but not the benefit.
    Congressman Spencer Bacchus has introduced a bill to the 
House of Representatives to deal with this problem. HR-4746 
will take the 4.3 cents per gallon tax railroads currently pay 
on diesel fuel, a holdover from the days of deficit reduction, 
and use it to fund small railroad infrastructure upgrades until 
the tax is repealed.
    Based on the huge needs identified by the Zeta-Tech study, 
this seems to be a very appropriate use for the funds that are 
currently being paid into the general funds by the railroads, 
but provide no benefit to the railroad infrastructure. The 
Bacchus bill will provide much needed infrastructure help for 
small railroads. This would help them be more competitive and 
provide better service for our shippers.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    In conclusion, short line and regional railroads have 
serious concerns about competition and service in the railroad 
industry. We are trying to address these through industry-wide 
negotiations with our class one partners, and through the rule-
making procedures at the Surface Transportation Board. We hope 
our negotiations are successful, and we hope the STB makes the 
kind of changes that let short lines enhance competition and 
solve network service problems. If we are not successful in 
these arenas, we will look to Congress for more meaningful 
action. Thank you, sir.
    [The statement follows:]

                 PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK K. TURNER

    Chairman Shelby, and members of the Subcommittee, I am Frank K. 
Turner, President of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad 
Association. I appreciate the opportunity to testify at this hearing on 
issues related to freight rail competition and the Surface 
Transportation Board's response to these issues.
    I am here today representing ASLRRA's members--more than 400 short 
line and regional railroads located in every state in the U.S. Short 
line and regional railroads are an important part of the rail network. 
Today we own, maintain and operate 29 percent of the railroad track in 
the U.S.--almost 50,000 miles of track. We employ 11 percent of the 
rail workforce and receive 9 percent of rail freight revenue. The 
number of short line and regional railroads in this country has more 
than doubled since the Staggers Rail Act of 1980.
    Just to put our position in perspective, Mr. Chairman, the 13 
Members of your Subcommittee have between them 138 short line railroads 
operating almost 10,000 miles of track. The majority of this track is 
in rural areas where rail service would have been abandoned by the 
Class I railroads if short line operators had not purchased these 
lines.
    In your own state of Alabama, Mr. Chairman, there are 17 short line 
railroads operating 540 miles of track. Absent these companies, 16 
cities from Florence in northeastern Alabama to Beatrice in 
southwestern Alabama would lose the only rail service they have.
    Small railroads can serve their shippers best in a competitive rail 
environment. We are an essential part of the national rail network. 
Small railroads originate or terminate roughly one quarter of the total 
carloads that move over the larger Class I rail systems. Many of the 
lines we operate are light density lines at the fringes of the network. 
In many cases these were branch lines that were candidates for 
abandonment by their former Class I owner. Rail service was preserved 
when these lines were sold to a new short line operator. By keeping 
these lines alive, we have kept shippers connected to the national rail 
network. Many of these lines serve rural areas.
    Short line and regional railroads, and the shippers and communities 
that depend on them for service, are deeply affected by the ongoing 
restructuring of the North American railroad industry. The Class I 
railroads have consolidated aggressively since the Staggers Act. Only 
six large Class I railroads remain in North America today, down from 
more than 40 Class I railroads in 1980. As the number of competitors 
has been reduced, so have the number of competitive options.
    This is troubling, because a fundamental premise of the Staggers 
Act was that meaningful competition was supposed to take the place of 
regulation. This approach works only so long as a competitive rail 
transportation marketplace actually does exist and function. That 
requires competitive options and alternative routes and meaningful 
choices between rate offerings and service providers. When the rail 
industry reaches the point that most shippers have only one choice of 
rail company to deal with, that fundamental premise of the Staggers Act 
becomes questionable.
    Small railroads can and should be a part of the way we enhance 
railroad competition in America. If individual small railroads can move 
certain traffic more efficiently than the Class I's then the system 
should allow it. If individual small railroads can ease congestion on 
overcrowded Class I main lines then the system should allow it. If 
individual small railroads can take truckload traffic off the highways 
then the system should allow it.
    More often than not, the system does not allow it. This is not only 
bad for competition and bad for service, but it does not make sense 
economically. At the end of the day, the Class I main lines handle the 
overwhelming majority of all the traffic generated by the short lines. 
To take that traffic 100 miles out of its way on its own line so as to 
squeeze out an incremental piece of revenue does not make economic 
sense. That 100-mile diversion means that some existing traffic will be 
lost to more efficient truckers and virtually no new traffic will be 
won back to the rails. The railroads' market share has been stuck in 
the mid-thirty percent range for many years and will be stuck there for 
many years to come if it sticks to these same practices.
    Another critical issue is service. Service has suffered in the 
aftermath of the recent mergers. Most of the freight that originates or 
terminates on small railroads must be interchanged with a Class I 
railroad in the course of its journey. Small railroads simply cannot 
deliver good service to their customers if they don't get good service 
from their connections.
    The Surface Transportation Board is currently considering changing 
its rules that govern Class I rail mergers. In that proceeding, ASLRRA 
has urged the Board to add new conditions, with teeth in them, to 
affirmatively preserve competitive options and ensure good service for 
small railroads affected by a proposed Class I merger. ASLRRA has 
proposed a ``Short Line and Regional Railroad Bill of Rights,'' and 
urged the Board to include it as a condition of Board approval of any 
future Class I merger or consolidation transaction.
    The ``Short Line and Regional Railroad Bill of Rights'' conditions 
deal with issues of service, interchange and routing, pricing, and car 
supply. To give a very quick overview, they provide that, in the merger 
context, small railroads should have: 1. The right to compensation for 
service failures; 2. The right to interchange and routing freedom; 3. 
The right to competitive and nondiscriminatory pricing; and 4. The 
right to fair and nondiscriminatory car supply.
    I have attached a copy of ASLRRA's filing in STB Ex Parte No. 582 
(Sub-No. 1) to my testimony, for the record. It contains more detail on 
the conditions we are requesting and the language of the rule changes 
we have asked the Board to consider.
    The Board's new merger rules can go a long way toward addressing 
the serious competitive and service issues that small railroads face. 
The Board will release its proposed rule in October, and we are hopeful 
the proposed rule will require the kind of actions we have outlined in 
our ``Bill of Rights.''
    That is just part of the puzzle, however, because the Board's new 
rules will apply only if there are more Class I rail mergers in the 
future. Unfortunately, however, the small railroads have competitive 
and service problems with their Class I partners today, which the 
Board's new merger rules won't affect.
    We have tried to address these important issues through private, 
industry-wide negotiations. This process began two years ago, with 
encouragement from the Surface Transportation Board under Chairman 
Linda Morgan's leadership. On September 10, 1998, the ASLRRA and AAR 
signed the Railroad Industry Agreement between the short line and 
regional railroads and the Class I's. The RIA contains provisions that 
are intended to address a wide range of rate and service issues. Two 
key provisions allow small railroads to gain access to new trackage 
rights or haulage agreements under certain circumstances, or to get 
``paper barriers'' set aside, to develop new business. The RIA was a 
milestone two years ago. It was the first privately negotiated, 
industry-wide agreement for railroads, and it tried to address some 
critical issues. Unfortunately, results so far have been rather 
disappointing. There have been far fewer success stories than I had 
hoped. My short line members tell me that most of their ideas are met 
by either silence or delay, and that by the time the few deals that 
have been done are completed the potential traffic has often long since 
moved to another mode.
    Although progress has been almost nonexistent, we do not want to 
abandon private negotiations. Chairman Morgan has recently written a 
letter to Ed Hamberger and myself, requesting an update on how the RIA 
is working, and urging the railroads to sit down to discuss if changes 
are needed. In fact, representatives of ASLRRA and the Class I 
railroads are sitting down this Thursday to do just that. The small 
railroads are going to raise their concerns that the RIA is not working 
as it was intended to, and that it needs to be strengthened and perhaps 
expanded. I hope we will find the Class I railroad representatives 
receptive to our concerns. We will be reporting back to Chairman Morgan 
in October. If no progress has been made toward addressing our 
competitive and service concerns in the negotiations, we may need to 
seek a more regulatory solution.
    Another huge issue for small railroads, which affects our ability 
to provide efficient and competitive service, is the problem of finding 
sufficient funding to maintain and upgrade our lines and facilities. We 
are often playing ``catch-up'' on our light density lines after years 
of deferred maintenance. The Class I's new generation of heavier, 
higher capacity freight cars, now built to a 286,000-lb. weight 
standard, require upgrade of our track, ties, ballast and bridges. A 
new study by ZETA-TECH Associates, Inc. established a need of $6.8 
billion for small railroads to upgrade their track and facilities to 
handle these new, heavier 286,000-lb. freight cars. I have attached a 
copy of the ZETA-TECH study's conclusions to my testimony, for the 
record.
    Two important points need to be stressed. First, the Class I 
railroads receive all the productivity savings generated by the new 286 
cars. These benefits derive from huge volumes that allow the Class I's 
to run fewer trains, thus reducing fuel costs, labor costs and 
locomotive costs. The short lines typically receive and move freight in 
carloads, not in 100-car unit trains. Yet the cost to upgrade their 
track to handle these cars is no less expensive.
    Second, while this is a one-time fix for small railroads, it is one 
that becomes increasingly expensive to fix the longer it is ignored. 
Left unrehabilitated, these lines will gradually lose their business as 
their shippers are forced to move to truck or to new locations on Class 
I railroads. Once that occurs, these lines will deteriorate and 
ultimately be abandoned and no amount of Federal funding will be able 
to bring them back.
    Recognizing the need for action now, Congressman Spencer Bachus has 
introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deal with this 
problem. H.R. 4746 would take the 4.3 cents per gallon tax that 
railroads currently pay on their diesel fuel, a hold-over from the days 
of deficit reduction, and use it to fund small railroad infrastructure 
upgrades until such time as that tax is repealed by Congress. Based on 
the huge needs identified by the ZETA-TECH study, this seems like a 
very appropriate use for funds that currently are being paid into the 
general fund by railroads and yet provide no benefit to the railroad 
industry. The Bachus bill would provide much-needed infrastructure help 
for small railroads. This in turn would help them be more competitive 
and provide better service for their shippers.
    In conclusion, the short line and regional railroads have serious 
concerns about competition and service in the railroad industry. We are 
trying to address these through industry-wide negotiations with our 
Class I partners, and through the rule making procedure at the Surface 
Transportation Board. We hope our negotiations are successful, and we 
hope the STB makes the kind of changes that let short line railroads 
enhance competition and solve network service problems. If we are not 
successful in these arenas we will look to the Congress for more 
meaningful action.
    Thank you.

                              Attachment 1

 Comments of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association

    The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) 
is submitting these comments on behalf of its 418 short line and 
regional railroad members in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the above-captioned proceeding (Decision served 
March 31, 2000). In that Decision, the Surface Transportation Board 
(STB or Board) invited comments from interested parties on 
modifications to its regulations at 49 CFR Part 1180 Subpart A 
governing proposals for major rail consolidations.
    The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) 
is a non-profit trade association incorporated in the District of 
Columbia. ASLRRA represents the interests of its short line and 
regional railroad members in legislative and regulatory matters. Short 
line and regional railroads are an important and growing component of 
the railroad industry. Today, they operate and maintain 29 percent of 
the American railroad industry's route mileage (approximately 50,000 
miles of track), and account for 9 percent of the rail industry's 
freight revenue and 11 percent of railroad employment.
    ASLRRA and its members are interested parties and submit these 
Comments to suggest changes to the Board's rules governing major rail 
acquisition transactions. The Board's rules applicable to railroad 
acquisition, control, merger, consolidation project, trackage rights, 
and lease procedures are found at 49 CFR Part 1180 Subpart A (49 CFR 
1180.0-1180.9). Within the railroad acquisition rules, four types of 
transactions are defined. The first is major. A major transaction is 
defined as follows: ``A major transaction is a control or merger 
involving two or more class I railroads.'' 49 CFR 1180.2(a). The ANPRM 
deals only with the railroad acquisition rules applicable to major 
(i.e. class I) acquisition transactions and those are the sole focus of 
ASLRRA's Comments.
    Short line and regional railroads, and the shippers and communities 
that depend on them for service, are deeply affected by the ongoing 
restructuring of the North American railroad industry. Since the 
Staggers Act of 1980 transformed the regulatory landscape, the industry 
has been thoroughly changed by the sale of hundreds of light density 
branch lines to new operators and a continuing series of class I 
railroad mergers involving the retained high density main lines. As 
expressed in ASLRRA President Frank K. Turner's testimony before the 
Board on March 8, 2000 in the Ex Parte No. 582 public hearing: ``In the 
rail industry, the big have gotten much bigger, while the small have 
grown greatly in number.''
    The direction of these changes was clearly consistent with the 
intent of Congress when it enacted the Staggers Act in 1980. Back then, 
the industry was struggling to survive after years of stagnation under 
a heavy-handed regulatory regime. In the late 1970's, over a quarter of 
the track in the United States was being operated by railroad companies 
in bankruptcy. Clearly, radical restructuring was needed to increase 
efficiency, eliminate redundancy and trim excess capacity. That is 
exactly what happened. In the process, some lines with light traffic 
density were abandoned while others were sold. The class I railroads 
consolidated aggressively, to the point that only six large railroads 
remain in the U.S. and Canada today, down from more than 40 class I 
railroads in 1980. Gateways were closed, and many joint rates were 
cancelled in blanket fashion. These changes have led to increased 
efficiencies, but this progress has come at a price.
    Today questions are being raised about whether the pendulum has 
swung too far. Many short line and regional railroads are concerned 
that competitive options within the railroad industry have become too 
restricted.\1\ Many shippers share this concern. This is important 
because a fundamental premise of the Staggers Act was that for U.S. 
railroads, regulatory restrictions would be lessened or eliminated, but 
only where meaningful competition existed to discipline rates and 
service. A competitive transportation marketplace was viewed as a good 
substitute for regulation. This approach works only so long as that 
competitive transportation marketplace actually does exist and 
function. That transportation marketplace requires competitive options 
and alternative routes and meaningful choices between rate offerings 
and service providers. When the rail industry reaches the point that 
most shippers have only one choice of rail company to deal with, that 
fundamental premise of the Staggers Act no longer works. We are 
dangerously close to that point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Some ASLRRA-member railroads are participating individually in 
this rulemaking proceeding. Others probably would have participated 
individually if they were not fearful of the reaction of their class I 
connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ASLRRA does not favor re-regulation. The railroad industry has 
``been there, and done that.'' History clarifies the very real danger 
attached to extensive government regulation of our business. We do not 
want to go back to the ``bad old days.'' That is why it is critically 
important that competitive options be retained and strengthened.
    The Board's rules regarding major railroad mergers are a good place 
to start. The Board's current rules were put in place by the Board's 
predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1982, 
following passage of the Staggers Act. Quite properly, considering the 
time of their adoption, the rules seem to lean in favor of rail 
consolidations. The ``general policy statement for merger or control of 
at least two Class I railroads,'' begins:

    ``The Surface Transportation Board encourages private industry 
initiative that leads to the rationalization of the nation's rail 
facilities and reduction of its excess capacity. One means of 
accomplishing these ends is rail consolidation.'' 49 CFR 1180.1 (a).

    Later, the current rules discuss public interest considerations, 
and the balancing test that the Board performs to determine whether a 
transaction is in the public interest. The potential benefits are 
described:

    ``Both the consolidated carrier and the public can benefit from a 
consolidation if the result is a financially sound competitor better 
able to provide adequate service on demand. This beneficial result can 
occur if the consolidated carrier is able to realize operating 
efficiencies and increased marketing opportunities. Since 
consolidations can lead to a reduction in redundant facilities and 
thereby to an increase in traffic density on underused lines, operating 
efficiencies may be realized. Furthermore, consolidations are the only 
feasible way for rail carriers to enter many new markets other than by 
contractual arrangement, such as for joint use of rail facilities or 
run-through trains. In some markets where there is sufficient existing 
rail capacity the construction of new rail line is prohibitively 
expensive and does not represent a feasible means of entry into the 
market.'' 49 CFR 1180.1 (c)(1).

    The other half of the balancing test equation, the potential harm, 
is discussed next. The rules describe potential harm in two areas: 
reduction of competition and harm to essential services. 49 CFR 1180.1 
(c)(2). In both, the rules reflect the Board's (and ICC's) approach of 
``protecting competition, not competitors.''

    ``. . . While the reduction in the number of competitors serving a 
market is not in itself harmful, a lessening of competition resulting 
from the elimination of a competitor may be contrary to the public 
interest . . .'' 49 CFR 1180.1(c)(2)(i).
    ``Consolidations often result in shifts of market patterns. 
Sometimes the carrier losing its share of the market may not be able to 
withstand the loss of traffic. In assessing the probable impacts, the 
Board's concern is the preservation of essential services, not the 
survival of particular carriers. A service is essential if there is a 
sufficient public need for the service and adequate alternative 
transportation is not available.'' 49 CFR 1180.1(c)(2)(ii).

    Finally, the rules discuss conditions. For major rail merger 
transactions, the statute gives the Board extensive authority to impose 
conditions, 49 USC 11324(c). The current rules state:

    ``The Board has broad authority to impose conditions on 
consolidations, including those that might be useful in ameliorating 
potential anticompetitive effects of a consolidation. However, the 
Board recognizes that conditions may lessen the benefits of a 
consolidation to both the carrier and the public. Therefore, the Board 
will not normally impose conditions on a consolidation to protect a 
carrier unless essential services are affected and the condition: (i) 
is shown to be related to the impact of the consolidation; (ii) is 
designed to enable shippers to receive adequate service; (iii) would 
not pose unreasonable operating or other problems for the consolidated 
carrier; and (iv) would not frustrate the ability of the consolidated 
carrier to obtain the anticipated public benefits . . .'' 49 CFR 
1180.1(d)

    ASLRRA agrees with the Board's Decision, which states at page 3 
that although the current merger regulations were a proper and reasoned 
response to the serious problems affecting railroads and their 
customers at that time, the goals of that merger policy have largely 
been achieved. Today the focus must be on improving service to 
customers. Rail infrastructure has been pared down to the point that 
some tracks and yards are congested and straining at capacity. 
Preserving viable options within the rail industry is imperative to 
enhance service, sustain competition, allow choices for shippers and 
avoid reregulation.
    New STB class I merger rules can go a long way toward accomplishing 
this goal. ASLRRA recognizes that there are many different groups of 
stakeholders and diverse points of view that the Board must balance as 
it considers this important revision of its Class I merger rules. 
ASLRRA believes that its suggested changes (below) can be incorporated 
within the scope of the larger rule changes that the Board will 
consider. In ASLRRA's view, this will be consistent with the aims of 
this Ex Parte No. 582 (Sub-No. 1) rulemaking proceeding, and positive 
for the railroad industry as a whole. That is the spirit in which the 
following rule changes are suggested.
    ASLRRA presented a ``Short Line and Regional Railroad Bill of 
Rights'' in Frank Turner's March 8, 2000 Statement (attached). As part 
of its review of the railroad acquisition rules applicable to major 
transactions, ASLRRA urges the Board to implement the Bill of Rights by 
including the following provisions relating to the concerns of small 
railroads within the new rules it adopts.
    The general policy statement for merger or control of at least two 
class I railroads begins with a general statement at 49 CFR 1180.1(a). 
ASLRRA suggests that it be redrafted to include the following 
statement:
49 CFR 1180.1(a)
    ``The Board places high priority on preserving and enhancing 
competition within the railroad industry. Small railroads play an 
important role in feeding traffic to the national rail network and 
providing service and competitive options for shippers. As the rail 
network nears capacity in some areas, small railroads can help bypass 
congested areas to keep freight moving. Small railroads offer capacity 
for future traffic growth. Their important role in the national rail 
network should be preserved and their procompetitive role ensured as 
part of any class I rail consolidation.''

    In the discussion of public interest considerations for class I 
merger transactions at 49 CFR 1180.1(c), the following statement should 
be included:
49 CFR 1180.1(c)
    ``In determining whether a transaction is in the public interest, 
the Board performs a balancing test. It weighs the potential benefits 
to applicants, the railroad network, shippers and the public against 
the potential harm to the railroad network, shippers and the public. 
The Board will consider whether the benefits claimed by applicants 
could be realized by means other than the proposed consolidation that 
would result in less potential harm to the railroad network, shippers 
and the public; and will consider imposition of conditions to lessen 
such potential harm.''

    In discussing the potential benefits to be considered at 49 CFR 
1180.1(c)(1), the following language should be included:
49 CFR 1180.1(c)(1)
    ``A consolidation will be considered to benefit the railroad 
network, shippers and the public only if applicants clearly demonstrate 
that competition will be enhanced and service will not suffer. 
Conditions will be imposed to ensure that competition is enhanced and 
to provide a remedy if service does suffer.''

    In discussing the other half of the balancing test equation, the 
potential harm at 49 CFR 1180.1(c)(2) the following should be included:
49 CFR 1180.1(c)(2)
    ``A consolidation would ill serve the public interest if the result 
would be harm to competition, restriction or elimination of competitive 
options within the rail network, or deterioration in service. The Board 
will impose conditions as necessary to preserve and enhance competition 
and enforce maintenance of service levels.''

    The section discussing conditions at 49 CFR 1180.1(d) should 
specifically include the items of the ``Short Line and Regional 
Railroad Bill of Rights.''
49 CFR 1180.1(d)
    ``The Board has broad authority to impose conditions on 
consolidations, including those that might be useful in preserving 
competitive options within the rail network that might be compromised 
or lessened by the consolidation, and ensuring that adequate service 
levels will be maintained. The Board recognizes that imposition of 
conditions may be essential in future consolidations in order to 
achieve these goals. In regard to ensuring the important role of small 
railroads within the rail network, the Board will impose the following 
four conditions unless the applicants demonstrate convincingly that 
imposition of one or more of these conditions would pose unreasonable 
operating or other problems for the consolidated carrier and would 
substantially frustrate the ability of the consolidated carrier to 
obtain the anticipated public benefits. These conditions will be 
imposed in order to protect competition, not particular competitors. 
Therefore, in order to minimize unreasonable burdens on small 
companies, the Board will impose these conditions presumptively, on its 
own motion. Class II and class III railroads will not be required to 
file individual responsive applications and will not be required to pay 
filing fees in connection with imposition of these conditions.
    Conditions for the benefit of class II and class III railroads.--
(1) Class II and class III railroads that connect to the consolidated 
carrier have the right to compensation by the consolidated carrier for 
service failures related to the consolidation. In addition, when the 
consolidated carrier cannot provide an acceptable level of service 
post-transaction, connecting class II and class III railroads should be 
allowed to perform additional services as necessary to provide 
acceptable service to shippers.
    (2) Class II and class III railroads have the right to interchange 
and routing freedom. Contractual barriers affecting class II and class 
III railroads that connect with the consolidated carrier that prohibit 
or disadvantage full interchange rights, competitive routes and/or 
rates must be immediately removed by the consolidated carrier, and none 
imposed in the future. The consolidated carrier must maintain 
competitive joint rates through existing gateways. Also, class II and 
class III railroads should be free to interchange with all other 
carriers in a terminal area without pricing or operational 
disadvantage. Any pricing or operational restrictions which 
disadvantage connecting class II or class III railroads must be 
immediately removed by the consolidated carrier, and none imposed in 
the future.
    (3) Class II and class III railroads that connect to the 
consolidated carrier have the right to competitive and 
nondiscriminatory rates and pricing. Rates and pricing of the 
consolidated carrier that do not meet this standard will be promptly 
corrected by the consolidated carrier upon request by a connecting 
class II or class III railroad.
    (4) Class II and class III railroads that connect to the 
consolidated carrier have the right to fair and nondiscriminatory car 
supply. Car supply issues regarding this standard will be promptly 
addressed by the consolidated carrier upon request by a connecting 
class II or class III railroad.
    Implementation.--The Board strongly encourages the consolidated 
carrier to work out any issues regarding these conditions with its 
connecting class II and class III carriers in a mutually agreeable 
fashion without resorting to the Board for interpretation or 
enforcement. However, if needed, the Board will put in place an 
expedited and cost-effective remedy process to be initiated by 
complaint filed with the Board by a connecting class II or class III 
carrier.''

    The section of the current rules discussing supporting information 
to be provided by applicants, 49 CFR 1180.6, should have language added 
to specifically require that the application filed in a major 
transaction must include the following information:
49 CFR 1180.6
    ``The effect of the proposed transaction upon class II and class 
III carriers that connect with applicants.''

    The section of the current rules dealing with market analyses, 49 
CFR 1180.7, requires applicants to prepare impact analyses in major 
transactions. This section should have language added to specifically 
require that the impact analyses prepared and filed by applicants in 
connection with a major transaction must include the following 
information:
49 CFR 1180.7
    ``An impact analysis must include the effect of the proposed 
transaction upon class II and class III carriers that connect with 
applicants.''

    These rule changes, adopted by the Board as part of its revision of 
the class I merger rules, will be a giant step forward and will put the 
Board's rules in tune with today's railroading reality. The rail 
network must affirmatively preserve competitive options and ensure good 
service in order to remain viable. Small railroads will play an 
essential part if they are not prevented from doing so. Including the 
conditions enumerated in the ``Short Line and Regional Railroad Bill of 
Rights'' will put a stop to the erosion of competition and service 
caused by recent mergers. ASLRRA urges the Board to revise its rules to 
include the changes suggested above, and include the ``Short Line and 
Regional Railroad Bill of Rights'' as a condition of its approval of 
any future class I merger or consolidation transaction.

                              Attachment 2

   An Estimation of the Investment in Track and Structures Needed to 
                      Handle 286,000 lb. Rail Cars

                           executive summary
    The short line and regional railroad industry in America operates 
about 50,000 of the 170,000 track miles making up the U.S. railroad 
network, and accounts for just under $3 billion of the approximately 
$35 billion in railroad industry gross revenues.
    With $3 billion in revenue for 50,000 track miles, the short lines 
and regionals have only about $60,000 per track mile in annual revenue, 
compared with an average of $269,000 per mile for large (Class I) 
railroads in America. Nevertheless, they must maintain a physical plant 
capable of handling the heaviest freight cars allowed in interchange on 
North American railroads.
    The weight limit for general interchange is in the process of being 
raised from 263,000 lbs. to 286,000 lbs. The short line and regional 
railroads have voiced considerable concern about the potential cost of 
upgrading their fixed plant (track and bridges) to handle cars of this 
weight. For this reason, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad 
Association asked ZETA-TECH to estimate the cost to the industry of 
improving its track and bridges to safely handle heavier cars.
    ZETA-TECH surveyed 46 of the 550 short line and regional railroads, 
with 4,742 miles of track. Detailed information was collected on track 
and bridge condition, track components, annual tonnage, and operating 
speed. This information was entered into a database, and ZETA-TECH 
developed a series of logic matrices to determine when each combination 
of track components, condition, tonnage, and operating speed was 
adequate to handle 286,000 lb. cars.
    The product of the analysis was an estimate of the total quantity 
of rail to be replaced, ties to be inserted, ballast to be installed, 
and bridges to be repaired or replaced, on the 4,742 miles comprising 
the sample of railroads. These results were then extended to the entire 
short line industry, to produce the results shown in Table A.

       TABLE A.--CALCULATED COST OF UPGRADING SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROADS TO HANDLE 286,000 LB. CARS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Required
                           Component                            investment per    Total cost       Total cost
                                                                     mile          (sample)        (industry)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail..........................................................         $75,106    $356,150,175    $3,754,182,002
Ties..........................................................          16,372      77,636,048       818,362,236
Ballast/Surfacing.............................................           2,657      12,597,440       132,789,720
Turnouts......................................................           7,882      37,377,454       393,996,056
Bridges.......................................................          35,236     167,085,889     1,761,253,773
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total...................................................         137,253     650,847,006     6,860,583,787
                                                               =================================================
Track Mileage.................................................  ..............           4,742            49,985
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Paper barriers

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Turner, just briefly for the non-
railroad people like me, what role specifically do the short 
line and regional railroads play in our competitive national 
system? In other words, are the connections, this is where you 
connect to the main----
    Mr. Turner. Yes. Mr. Chairman, we are a feeder line to the 
main trunk lines of the national----
    Senator Shelby. Give me an example in my home state, 
please.
    Mr. Turner. Well, let us say the short line to Alabama and 
Eastern that runs from Sylacauga, that runs out to Sylacauga, 
they bring in a lot of limestone and all that, and they deliver 
it into Birmingham, to CSX, for nationwide service.
    Senator Shelby. Okay. Mr. Hamberger, do you feel that the 
class one railroads have a vested interest in the health and 
vitality of smaller railroads, and if so, why?
    Mr. Hamberger. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. That is why we sat 
down and negotiated the deal, the agreement that we did, the 
Rail Industry Agreement, in September 1998, and why we have had 
ongoing meetings, both at the CEO level and at the working 
level, if you will, between the Short Line Regional Rail 
Association, and the AAR, and our members. We are meeting again 
Thursday, as Mr. Turner indicated, and it is important because 
about 10 percent of the overall traffic moves on short-line 
railroads. Frank represents not just the short line----
    Senator Shelby. This is nationwide, now.
    Mr. Hamberger. Yes, sir.
    Senator Shelby. Okay. That is a good bit of traffic.
    Mr. Hamberger. Yes, sir, it is.
    Mr. Turner. Well, you are talking revenue, when you are 
saying----
    Mr. Hamberger. Right.
    Mr. Turner [continuing]. But actually more cars than that 
move over them. About one out of every four or five railroad 
cars, 20 to 25 percent of every railroad car moves from 
either--originates or terminates on the short line, but we only 
get 9 percent of the revenue.
    Mr. Hamberger. Right. So it is obviously a very important 
part of being able to maintain service throughout the network, 
yes.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Turner, this past spring your 
organization testified before the Surface Transportation Board 
and called for what you call a short line and regional railroad 
bill of rights. You specifically called, or they did, for the 
end of paper barriers----
    Mr. Turner. That is correct, sir.
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. Which we have talked about 
here----
    Mr. Turner. Yes.
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. Which restrict short-line 
railroads' ability to make a choice between competing class one 
railroads. Explain that.
    Mr. Turner. Well, the first thing, when many of these 
railroads came into existence as a result of the Staggers Act 
of the 1980s, these were lines that were secondary main lines, 
or branch lines that were probably going to be candidates for 
abandonment, but yet there was still some traffic on them. The 
railroads wanted to shed themselves of this and go to more of a 
core operation. So they sold these lines to----
    Senator Shelby. To run to big lines, in other words.
    Mr. Turner. That is right. To the main line.
    Senator Shelby. Sure.
    Mr. Turner. We can go back to somewhere like Sylacauga, or 
somewhere like that, that they would sell these branch lines, 
and then allow an operator to take over and develop the 
traffic, which they have done a great job.
    Senator Shelby. Well, we have a short line railroad in my 
State, from Meridian, Mississippi, to the paper mill over there 
at Butler.
    Mr. Turner. Yes, sir. You do. It runs from Meridian to 
Linden----
    Senator Shelby. That is right.
    Mr. Turner [continuing]. And then on to Myrtle Wood.
    Senator Shelby. That is right.
    Mr. Turner. That was one of our members.
    Senator Shelby. Sure.
    Mr. Turner. That is a little bit different. That was a 
short line that was owned by the James River Paper Company, and 
the James River Paper Company decided to get out of the 
railroad business, so they sold it to an operator. There are no 
paper barriers. There is some restriction as to delivery of 
some traffic to some of the interchanges, but that is not a 
typical short line that was born in the mid-eighties.
    Senator Shelby. How many short line railroads do we have in 
my State, roughly?
    Mr. Turner. You have 17.
    Senator Shelby. How many do we have nationwide?
    Mr. Turner. We have over 500.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Mr. Turner. Some of these are switching carriers inside of 
paper plants and things like that, but in your case, there are 
17 short lines in your State.

                   problems in wake of major Mergers

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Hamberger, in the wake of the mergers, 
some of the big recent railroad mergers, there have been some 
problems with implementing the Conrail split between CSX and 
Norfolk Southern. There are several bills pending in both the 
House and Senate regarding reauthorization of the Surface 
Transportation Board that detail plans to improve rail 
competition and service. Is it appropriate, in your opinion, 
for Congress to take a more active role in these issues, 
particularly, since some of the rail mergers have created, 
according to shippers and others, serious problems for 
themselves and their customers?
    Mr. Hamberger. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I have never been 
in the position to tell Congress what is appropriate to do or 
not to do.
    Senator Shelby. I said in your opinion.
    Mr. Hamberger. Yes, sir. Obviously, it is appropriate for 
Congress----
    Senator Shelby. You represent the Association of American 
Railroads.
    Mr. Hamberger. Yes, sir. It is appropriate for Congress to 
have oversight and take a look at any issue it deems 
appropriate, and that is an appropriate issue to take a look 
at. I hope that when Congress takes a look at it, they will 
take a look at it through the prism of what I talked about 
earlier today, and that is, what is best for the rail network.
    Now, yes, there have been some problems as a result of the 
Conrail transaction, but I----
    Senator Shelby. What is best for the rail network or what 
is best for the American people?
    Mr. Hamberger. I would suggest to you that the two are very 
closely aligned, and what is best for the rail network is, 
indeed, what is best for the North American economy.
    Senator Shelby. That is what it has to be.
    Mr. Hamberger. Yes, sir. Absolutely. The Surface 
Transportation Board, when it approved the Conrail transaction, 
established a Conrail Transaction Council, which I believe was 
meeting monthly. It just recently began to meet bimonthly every 
other month, because the issues have begun to dissipate. I 
think right after the merger last July 1, the effective date, 
the meetings were perhaps a little bit more vigorous, shall we 
say, as service issues were discussed, but it is my 
understanding, and as I look at the metrics of cars on line, 
and velocity, both the CSX and Norfolk Southern have made 
tremendous strides in getting the operational aspect of that 
transaction put together.

                             Paper barriers

    If I might just follow on one thing, and that is paper 
barriers. Arguments in this town seem to be won and lost 
sometimes on how you define the debate, and the paper barrier 
is nothing more and nothing less than a contractual obligation. 
In fact, in the railroad industry agreement we define it as a 
contractual obligation, incurred when short line carriers 
acquired lines from larger connecting carriers. In most cases, 
those obligations were in there as part of the up-front capital 
costs of buying the line.
    Senator Shelby. Explain what you mean.
    Mr. Hamberger. In other words, you would come in and the 
class one would be selling the short line from ``A'' to ``B,'' 
and instead of charging ``x'' dollars, it would charge a 
substantial discount because of the agreement that the traffic 
that would continue to originate on that short line would 
continue to----
    Senator Shelby. Feed into----
    Mr. Hamberger [continuing]. Feed into that Class I. So it 
is a price of buying the short line. So it is not really 
something that we went out there and said we are going to stop 
you from doing something, it was an arms-length negotiation----
    Senator Shelby. Well, what about where it is a situation 
that the short line existed prior to the Staggers Act?
    Mr. Hamberger. It is my understanding that the paper 
barriers, as Frank said, they are not in----
    Senator Shelby. They do not apply.
    Mr. Hamberger. Right.
    Senator Shelby. They do not apply.
    Mr. Hamberger. Right. But the railroad could have been sold 
to the Class I prior to the Staggers Act.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Mr. Hamberger. There was some of that. So it is really--and 
the thing I was trying to drive at is not only how it came 
about, but that in this agreement we recognize the importance 
of growing the rail network, and so we have agreed, the Class 
Is have agreed that where new traffic originates, the paper 
barrier would not stand in the way of that new traffic, that if 
the Class I could not handle it, or if it was not the most 
efficient routing, the paper barrier would not stand in the way 
of that new traffic.
    Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, could I respond to that----
    Senator Shelby. Sure.
    Mr. Turner [continuing]. Very quickly? The first thing, 
this was in the mid-eighties, and since then, as I have 
mentioned, we have had 40 Class I railroads, you know, in 1980, 
and a lot of routes have been closed, and routes have been 
changed, and all that, so the whole terrain is different. We 
recognize that that is a contractual agreement, and if we 
cannot reach a way to remove this internally, we are going to 
have to look elsewhere for assistance to make this a national 
rail network, not one that is hindered by these paper barriers.

                              Open access

    Senator Shelby. Let me ask you both something. Other 
industries, as we know, and we know they are not railroads, 
such as the telecommunications industry, allow competitors to 
use their networks and infrastructure for a fee, not free now, 
but for a fee.
    Some people have proposed that this be required in the 
railroad industry, and I have been told that Australia is 
committed to providing open access among the country's 
railroads. I believe this policy was instituted about 5 years 
ago, and it is overseen by the National Competition Council. Do 
you have any comments on that, Mr. Hamberger?
    Mr. Hamberger. Well, I do.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Mr. Hamberger. Let me address that in two ways, if I might.
    Senator Shelby. I have not proposed that. I am just 
throwing it out.
    Mr. Hamberger. Mr. Chairman, I am struggling here to find--
--
    Mr. Turner. Well, while he is doing that. We have that. We 
do have haulage rights and provisions for trackage rights in 
this country today. We do. I mean we have CSX operating over on 
Norfolk Southern track, and vice-versa.
    Senator Shelby. I knew you would find some of that.
    Mr. Hamberger. I was going to answer, too. Thank you, 
Frank. Exactly. What is being proposed for the 
telecommunications and utility industries, we already have.
    Senator Shelby. You already have.
    Mr. Hamberger. We have to accept traffic that is presented 
to us to carry. What I was looking for here is a study that we 
have----
    Senator Shelby. But you get a fee from them for using your 
railroad, do you not?
    Mr. Hamberger. Well, you have to negotiate a rate. Yes, 
sir.
    Senator Shelby. In other words, if I had a railroad you 
could not just ride on it for free, could you?
    Mr. Hamberger. That is correct.
    Mr. Turner. We had a study done by Mercer Management, 
several case studies, going throughout the world, and the 
bottom line is, let me just get to the bottom line, that as 
country after country has examined what is the best model for 
privatizing their railroads, they have come to the conclusion 
that the United States system is the best. Mexico, in our own 
hemisphere most recently, 2 years ago privatized three major 
railroads, and after years of investigation, decided that the 
U.S. system was the best.
    The case study that we have from Australia, and you are 
exactly correct in that it provides for open access, the 
results are that open access has not improved rail's market 
share or induced new private investment, a key point, that 
implementing the interstate open access has resulted in 
significant additional costs for incumbent railroads, due to 
loss of coordination between rail operations and 
infrastructure, and because of the establishment of large 
bureaucracies. And finally, maintaining rail economies of 
scales is important to keeping rail competitive with truck, and 
positioning the rail network to be financially self-sustaining.
    Much the same track record in Britain, where the government 
has had to step in because of disagreements between the company 
owning the track and the company leading the locomotives.
    Senator Shelby. We have been joined by Senator Specter, who 
has been in another committee. Senator Specter, do you have any 
comments or questions for these two gentlemen?
    Senator Specter. Well, having come in at the end of their 
testimony, I only have seven questions for Mr. Turner and eight 
for Mr. Hamberger. I would like them sworn first, Mr. 
Chairman----
    Senator Shelby. All right.
    Senator Specter [continuing]. Before I proceed.
    Senator Shelby. Do you really want them sworn?
    Senator Specter. No. If they will affirm, it will be 
sufficient. On a serious vein, I want to compliment you, Mr. 
Chairman, on convening this hearing. This is a very, very 
important subject, one which affects Pennsylvania very, very 
decisively, with what has happened with the division of Conrail 
and the truckers and railroad issue, problems which have 
affected my State for many, many years.
    The big anti-trust case back in the late fifties, early 
sixties, involved a battle between truckers and the railroads, 
and we still have to try to find a way, so I appreciate your 
activism. This is not quite as big a turnout as you got for 
Ford-Firestone, but it is very important.
    Senator Shelby. You know, we started Ford-Firestone last 
week, and it has now moved from this committee to the House 
Commerce Committee, back to our Commerce committee.
    Senator Specter. They are still not catching up with you, 
Senator Shelby.
    Senator Shelby. Gentlemen, thank you for coming. Our third 
panel would be the regulatory authority, Ms. Linda J. Morgan, 
Chairman, Surface Transportation Board. Ms. Morgan, welcome to 
the committee. Your written statement will be made a part of 
the record in its entirety. You may proceed as you wish. I am 
sure you have heard their testimony, have you not, all the 
panels.
    Ms. Morgan. I have, indeed. I have been here since the 
beginning, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

STATEMENT OF LINDA J. MORGAN, CHAIRMAN
    Ms. Morgan. Mr. Chairman and Senator Specter, I am 
appearing at the request of the committee to discuss 
competition in the railroad industry. I will make my oral 
remarks brief. I have submitted written testimony that you are 
kindly including in the record in its entirety. My written 
testimony reviews concerns raised about the rail sector and how 
the Board has responded.

                            Merger problems

    One of the issues that concerns shippers and that has 
concerned me involves the service problems experienced 
throughout the railroad industry in connection with the recent 
round of mergers. I have not been satisfied with where the 
industry's service record has been, but I believe that the 
board has been a positive force in helping, both on a formal 
and an informal basis, to fix problems that have arisen, while 
averting new ones. This was true during the service crisis in 
the West, and it remains true today, as we work to continue 
stabilizing service in the East, and our recent action, which 
was affirmed in court, imposing a 15-month moratorium while we 
revisit the Board's merger policy and rules, was important to 
ensure that existing service problems were not further 
aggravated.

                              other Issues

    The Board has also been a positive force in driving 
substantive changes in response to concerns brought to our 
attention. After our 1998 hearings on access and competition, 
for example, we changed the rules for rate complaints to make 
the process simpler, less burdensome, and more accessible for 
shippers--the so-called market dominance decision that was 
referenced earlier. The railroads have challenged our decision 
in court, but I am confident that the court will find that we 
have acted properly. We also changed our rules so that a 
shipper receiving poor service could obtain relief by using 
another carrier. And more recently, following up on our 4 days 
of hearings on major rail mergers, we are reexamining our 
merger policy and rules.
    There are other issues that certain interested parties 
believe have not yet been fully addressed. In prior 
congressional testimony and in my 1998 letter to Chairman 
McCain and Subcommittee Chairman Hutchison, which is appended 
to my written testimony, I have indicated that legislation 
would be necessary to address those issues if Congress wanted 
to address them.

                           prepared statement

    My position on those issues remains the same today as it 
has been in the past. The Board has stepped up to the plate and 
has responded creatively and aggressively in addressing issues 
that it can address within its authority.
    I would be happy to answer any questions.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Linda J. Morgan

    My name is Linda J. Morgan, Chairman of the Surface Transportation 
Board (Board). I am appearing at the request of the Committee to 
discuss competition in the railroad industry. Over the past 3 years, I 
have testified about that issue and related matters on several 
occasions, before both the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. Additionally, responding to the concerns of Members of 
the Senate Commerce Committee, and in particular Committee Chairman 
McCain and Subcommittee Chairman Hutchison, in the spring of 1998, we 
held 15 hours of agency hearings on access and competition in the 
railroad industry, at which over 60 witnesses testified, and we took 
various actions in response. More recently, in March of this year the 
Board held 4 days of hearings, in which over 120 witnesses 
participated, on major rail consolidations and the future structure of 
the railroad industry, after which we imposed a 15-month moratorium on 
major rail mergers so that we could institute a proceeding, which is 
now pending, to reexamine our rail merger policy and rules.

         I. THE BOARD'S RAIL ACCESS AND COMPETITION PROCEEDING

    At our 1998 hearings, rail-dependent shippers complained that, as a 
result of consolidation in the industry, their competitive options had 
not been expanded, and that available remedies, particularly for 
service failures and rate relief, were burdensome, costly, and 
unresponsive. In an effort to address those concerns, the Board pursued 
a mix of regulatory action and private-sector initiatives directed by 
the Board.
    In particular, at the Board's urging, railroads met among 
themselves and with customers and other interested groups to pursue 
certain private-sector responses. As a result, the large and small 
railroads entered into an agreement intended to ensure more effective 
utilization of smaller railroads in addressing the concerns raised by 
shippers, and I recently sent a letter to both groups requesting that 
they initiate further discussions to strengthen that agreement. In 
addition, the large railroads set up a series of meetings with shippers 
throughout the Nation to address customer service issues, which 
produced among other things an agreement by large railroads to 
publicize, for the first time, carrier-specific performance data, 
building upon data that the Board had itself been collecting for 
service monitoring purposes. Also, with the Board's prodding, grain 
shippers and coal shippers separately reached agreement with the rail 
industry on private-sector mechanisms for resolving disputes.
    On the regulatory front, the Board changed its ``market dominance'' 
rules in order to make the procedures less cumbersome for shippers in 
pursuing rate relief at the agency. Specifically, our decision 
eliminated the review of product and geographic competition from the 
determination of whether a railroad has market dominance over the 
transportation at issue. This decision has been appealed in court, and 
oral argument will be held in the court in November. The Board also 
adopted new rules establishing ways to provide shippers that have 
concerns about poor service with the opportunity to obtain service from 
an alternate carrier.
    Finally, on December 21, 1998, I wrote a letter to Chairman McCain 
and Senator Hutchison (attached as Appendix A) following up on our rail 
access and competition hearings. I summarized the Board's activities as 
to matters within its authority, described above, and suggested actions 
that Congress might wish to take, in areas in which the Board lacks 
authority, to address concerns that had been raised.

                          II. RAILROAD MERGERS

    A. The Recent Round of Rail Mergers.--Although mergers and other 
changes in corporate structure have been going on in the rail industry 
for many decades, there has been substantial rail merger activity since 
the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 was passed, reflecting what has been 
occurring throughout the Nation's economy. In 1976, there were, by our 
calculations, 30 independent ``Class I'' (larger railroad) systems; 
nine of those systems have since then dropped down to Class II or III 
(smaller railroad) status because the revenue thresholds for Class I 
status were raised substantially some years ago; two large carriers 
went into bankruptcy; and the remaining 19 systems have been reduced to 
7 independent systems in the past 24 years. This merger activity has 
not occurred because the Board (or the ICC) has sought out mergers. 
When two railroads file a merger application, we apply certain 
statutory standards to the proposal presented to us and approve the 
merger if it is in the public interest based on those standards and the 
record compiled.
    Under the rules developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, four 
major rail mergers have been approved since I became Chairman in 1995. 
These mergers were approved, however, only after the Board imposed many 
significant competitive and other conditions. From a competitive 
perspective, the conditions attached to the merger approvals have 
assured that no shipper's service options were reduced to one-carrier 
service as a result of a merger. The conditions also have provided for 
substantial post-merger oversight and monitoring that have permitted us 
to review both competitive and operational issues that have arisen. 
Additionally, they have provided for the protection of employees and 
the mitigation of environmental impacts, and our recent decisions have 
provided for the compilation of a ``safety integration plan'' that 
draws on the resources of the Board, the Federal Railroad 
Administration, and the involved carriers and employees. With respect 
to the service problems that have been associated with recent mergers, 
the Board, I believe, has been a positive force in restoring service 
and addressing service problems. And importantly, the merger approval, 
oversight, and monitoring process has evolved and been strengthened 
throughout this last round of mergers to reflect concerns raised and 
lessons learned.
    In varying degrees, each of these mergers has had the support of 
segments of the shipping public, as well as that of employees and 
various localities, and each was considered by many of the interested 
parties to be in the public interest. A variety of shippers actively 
supported the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF) merger, the 
inherently procompetitive Conrail acquisition, and the recent Canadian 
National/Illinois Central (CN/IC) merger. And the Union Pacific/
Southern Pacific merger, which segments of the shipping community 
opposed while others supported it, was necessary, the Board believed, 
not only to prop up the failing Southern Pacific, but also to permit 
the development of a rail system in the West with enough of a presence 
to compete with the newly merged BNSF.
    I know that certain shippers have taken the view that recent 
mergers have inhibited competition. But based on the record developed, 
in approving these four mergers, the Board (and, earlier, the ICC) 
concluded that, with the significant conditions imposed, they would not 
diminish competition and in fact could enhance competition; they would 
produce significant transportation benefits; and they were otherwise in 
the public interest. The Board will continue to exercise its oversight 
authority in accordance with those objectives, and in this regard, we 
currently have three comprehensive merger oversight proceedings under 
way, in which we are monitoring the effectiveness of our competitive 
and other conditions. And we continue to be active in monitoring 
service performance and addressing service problems.
    B. The Railroad Merger Moratorium.--On December 20, 1999, BNSF and 
CN notified the Board that they intended to file an application, on or 
shortly after March 20, 2000, seeking Board approval to bring their 
railroad systems under common control. Given the aggressive 
consolidation and associated disruptions that had occurred in the 
railroad industry during the past several years, and the likelihood 
that the BNSF/CN proposal would set off yet another full, and likely 
final, round of major rail consolidations, the Board issued an order on 
December 28, 1999, waiving the so-called ``one case at a time'' rule 
for the BNSF/CN proceeding and stating that, if the BNSF/CN proceeding 
went forward, the Board would consider not only the direct impacts of 
that combination, but also evidence of the cumulative impacts and 
crossover effects that would likely occur as other railroads developed 
strategic responses in reaction to the proposed combined new system. In 
addition, given the prospect of significant further consolidation 
within the railroad industry, and the Board's concern that the railroad 
industry and the shipping public had not yet recovered from the service 
disruptions associated with the previous round of mergers, the Board 
issued an order on January 24, 2000, opening a proceeding (STB Ex Parte 
No. 582) to obtain public views on the subject of major rail 
consolidations and the present and future structure of the North 
American rail industry.
    As part of the Ex Parte No. 582 proceeding, the Board took written 
and oral testimony from all sectors associated with the rail industry, 
including large and small rail carriers; large and small shippers 
representing various commodity groups; intermodal and third party 
transportation providers; rail employees; state and local interests; 
financial analysts and economists; and Members of Congress and other 
federal agencies. The overwhelming weight of the testimony, 
particularly the testimony taken over the 4 days of oral hearings, was 
that the rail community is suffering from ``merger fatigue;'' that, 
given the experience with past merger implementation, along with the 
current state of service in the industry, more mergers at this time 
would aggravate service problems; that the Board's existing policies 
and procedures are not appropriate for what could likely be the final 
round of mergers; and that fundamental changes to the merger rules and 
policies are needed before any new mergers move forward.
    The Board agreed, concluding in a decision issued on March 17 
(attached as Appendix B) that the industry is not ready and the merger 
rules are not appropriate for what will likely be the final round of 
restructuring of the North American railroad industry that may well 
result in two transcontinental railroads. To avoid the service 
disruptions--beyond those already being experienced--that could have 
developed throughout the rail industry from further consolidation at 
this time, and to allow a broad reexamination of its merger rules and 
policies, the Board put a 15-month hold on the filing of any new 
mergers.
    The moratorium was challenged in court, and on July 14, only a 
month after the oral argument, the court, by a 2-1 decision, upheld the 
agency's action. Although the dissent concluded that the statute 
requires the Board to handle any application that a railroad wants to 
file within specified time frames, the court majority saw the case as 
we did: it understood that we need new rules to address the service and 
competitive issues associated with future mergers; it recognized that 
we could not effectively review new mergers at the same time as we are 
revisiting the rules; and it found that we therefore have the authority 
to impose a moratorium to fulfill our broad statutory obligation to 
determine whether specific merger proposals are in the public interest. 
Given the concerns over the service and competitive issues that would 
be implicated if new mergers were to move forward now, the court found 
that

    ``forcing the Board to [consider new applications] before it has 
had an opportunity to determine where the public interest lies would 
defeat altogether the purpose of the agency's review, whereas allowing 
the Board to focus for a reasonable time upon revising its [merger] 
criteria would likely enable the Board to continue to meet its 
deadlines once it resumes processing applications.''

    Shortly after the court issued its ruling, BNSF and CN withdrew 
their merger proposal.
    C. The Board's Rulemaking to Revisit its Rail Merger Policy and 
Rules.--The Board has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPR) to initiate the process of reexamining its merger rules and 
policy. On October 3, the Board expects to issue a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPR), and, after reviewing comments on the NPR, it will 
issue final rules by June 11, 2001. I cannot say too much about the 
proceeding, as it is still pending, but I can summarize the key 
observations that the agency made as it decided to start the process. 
First, the industry has changed since the existing merger policy and 
rules were approved. It is now more consolidated after the last round 
of mergers, and the benefits associated with prior mergers related to 
reduction in excess capacity and efficiencies are not likely to result 
to the same degree from future mergers; we thus need to look at merger 
benefits differently for the future. Second, with future merger 
proposals likely leading to the final round of consolidation, the 
combined systems would be much larger, and the risks associated with 
failure would increase substantially. With greater consolidation, 
problems could be broader in scope and harder to fix, and there may be 
fewer alternatives to which we can turn; we must make sure that the 
benefits clearly outweigh any potential harm. Third, we have learned 
that service problems can occur with mergers even when carriers plan 
and focus on service; we must look for new and better ways to guard 
against and offset merger-related service problems and to deal with 
them when they occur.
    And after having reviewed comments from over 100 parties filed in 
response to the ANPR from a variety of interests, I can say that there 
clearly will be changes made to our merger policy and rules. As we have 
already indicated, in reviewing future merger proposals, we will look 
at downstream effects, that is, we will consider the likely responses 
of other carriers as the Board reviews a particular merger application 
in the future. And in considering whether a future merger proposal is 
in the public interest, that is whether the benefits outweigh the 
potential harm, we are considering how to define and determine 
benefits, including a review of such issues as whether we should 
require future mergers to enhance competition, whether we should look 
at the extent to which benefits could be realized by other means, and 
whether there should be a more specific accounting of the benefits and 
accountability for benefits claimed. We also are reviewing how to 
define potential harm, including competitive and service harm, and how 
potential harm might be mitigated and offset. Furthermore, we are 
looking at how we address service issues, in particular how we look at 
service improvement as a merger benefit, and how we ensure service 
accountability, guard against service failure as a transaction is being 
implemented, and provide for resolution of service problems if they 
occur. Finally, we will need to address other related matters, such as 
safety, employee concerns, smaller railroad issues, and cross-border 
matters such as trade and defense.

                        III. RAIL SERVICE ISSUES

    Over the past few years, we have used our general oversight and 
specific legal authority, reporting, and specific merger-related 
monitoring to promote service improvement and resolve service problems. 
Among other things, we took unprecedented actions to address the rail 
service crisis in the West. We have required carriers to develop and 
publicize detailed plans for managing consolidations and for addressing 
service issues. We have directed an unprecedented amount of carrier 
reporting (both public and confidential) about carrier service. Board 
representatives are continually in communication with carrier 
management about general service issues, and they work closely on an 
ongoing basis with carriers and shippers to address individual service 
problems on an informal basis.
    I know that carriers have experienced substantial service problems 
notwithstanding our efforts, but I believe that we have been a positive 
and constructive force. With regard to the rail crisis in the West, for 
example, under the umbrella of a 9-month emergency service order, the 
Board required substantial and heretofore unprecedented operational 
reporting, engaged in substantial and heretofore unprecedented 
operational monitoring, and redirected operations in a focused and 
constructive way. The Board was successful in working on an informal 
basis with affected shippers to resolve service problems, and it was 
careful not to take actions that might have helped some shippers or 
regions but inadvertently hurt others. And the Board proceeded in such 
a way as not to undermine, but rather to encourage, important private-
sector initiatives that facilitated and were integral to service 
recovery, such as the unprecedented creation of the joint dispatching 
center near Houston, TX, and the significant upgrading of 
infrastructure designed to prevent future service problems. And in 
connection with the Conrail acquisition in the East, we have engaged in 
extensive pre- and post-implementation monitoring, including the review 
of significant operational metrics and plans, and have continued to 
work constructively with carriers and with shippers to resolve service 
problems.

                          IV. RAIL RATE ISSUES

    Since it was created nearly 5 years ago, the Board has tackled 
several important rail rate matters, and in this regard it has been 
responsive to shipper and other concerns in accordance with the law. In 
particular, we have been committed to resolving formal and informal 
shipper complaints expeditiously, clarifying applicable standards for 
resolution of formal complaints, and leveling the playing field to 
ensure that the formal process is not used simply to delay final 
resolution.
    In particular, the Board has established deadlines for rate cases 
and procedures to expedite the decisional process, and decisions 
resolving large rail rate complaints have refined the standards for 
developing the record in these cases. A few of the rate cases have been 
made possible by the Board's judicially-approved decisions in the 
``bottleneck'' cases, which construed the statute as permitting 
challenges to bottleneck rates (rates for a segment of a through 
movement that is served by a single carrier) whenever the shipper has a 
contract over the non-bottleneck segment. As I have already noted, we 
recently modified the market dominance rules to streamline the process 
for handling rate complaints, and I feel confident that this action 
will be upheld by the court in the appeal brought by the railroads. The 
``constrained market pricing'' (CMP) procedure for determining whether 
or not a rate is reasonable is now a well accepted way of measuring 
rate reasonableness for larger rate cases. Shippers have won 
substantial relief in major rate cases that have been decided by the 
Board. Some new large rate cases are pending, and several others have 
been settled without involvement of the Board.
    The Board has also adopted simplified rules for small rail rate 
cases. However, no such cases have been brought to date under these 
rules. Concerns remain that those rules are still too complex. In my 
letter to Chairman McCain and Senator Hutchison, I explained that the 
Board's rules reflect the statute and the standards that must be 
balanced, but I also recommended that Congress consider adopting a 
single benchmark test or some other simplified procedure for small rate 
cases to address process concerns.

                               V. SUMMARY

    I believe that the Board has compiled a solid record of responding 
in significant ways to concerns raised about the rail sector through 
``common sense government,'' promoting private-sector initiative and 
resolution where appropriate and undertaking vigilant government 
oversight and action where necessary in accordance with the law. The 
focus of any action affecting the rail sector should be on how best to 
achieve adequate rail service at reasonable rates for all users. At the 
same time, we need to ensure an appropriate level of capital 
reinvestment so that carriers are able to provide adequate service with 
a rail system that can be sustained and is able to grow to meet the 
needs of the public. We have learned that the rail system is fragile, 
and there is little margin for error. Any decision that we make now 
will have a profound impact on the transportation system of the future.
    This concludes my written testimony. As I stated earlier, I am 
including a copy of my December 1998 letter to the leadership of the 
Senate Commerce Committee and the Board's March 17 rail merger 
moratorium decision.
                                 ______
                                 

                              Attachment 1

                              Surface Transportation Board,
                                 Washington, DC, December 21, 1998.
The Honorable John McCain,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman McCain and Chairman Hutchison: In our letter of June 
30, 1998, Vice Chairman Owen and I reported to you on the Board's 
recent informational hearings to examine issues of rail access and 
competition in today's railroad industry. After summarizing the 
testimony, the Board responses to the testimony (including the Board's 
April 17 decision, copy attached hereto as Addendum A), and further 
actions that might be taken by Congress, our letter reported on certain 
ongoing private-sector initiatives. The purpose of this follow-up 
letter is to inform you of the outcome of the Board's proceedings and 
the private-sector initiatives undertaken as a result of the hearings; 
and to suggest possible ways in which related issues that are still 
outstanding might be addressed.
    1. Board Proceedings.--As we pointed out in our prior letter, the 
Board initiated rulemaking proceedings addressing market dominance and 
service inadequacies. The Board has completed those proceedings. In 
Market Dominance Determinations--Product and Geographic Competition, 
STB Ex Parte No. 627 (STB served Dec. 21, 1998), the Board repealed the 
product and geographic competition tests of the market dominance rules. 
This change applies to both large and small rail rate cases. In Relief 
for Service Inadequacies, STB Ex Parte No. 628 (STB served Dec. 21, 
1998), the Board issued rules giving shippers and smaller railroads 
opportunities to obtain service from alternate carriers during periods 
of poor service, using either the emergency service or the access 
provisions of the law. Copies of these decisions are attached as 
Addenda B and C.
    2. Railroad Industry Discussions.--One of the issues that arose at 
the Board's hearings was the desire of smaller railroads to eliminate 
industry restrictions on their ability to compete. The Board directed 
the railroads to address this issue through private-sector discussions. 
As our earlier letter noted, the large and small railroads separately 
indicated that they were having some difficulties in reaching 
agreement, but the Board encouraged them to continue their dialogue, 
and indicated that it would take action, as appropriate, if they did 
not reach agreement. We are pleased to report that in September, an 
agreement was reached, portions of which were formally approved by the 
Board. A copy of the Board's press release announcing the agreement is 
attached as Addendum D.
    3. AAR/NGFA Agreement.--In our June 30 letter, we advised you that, 
consistent with the Board's preference that private parties seek non-
litigative dispute resolution mechanisms, the railroads were meeting 
with the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) in an effort to 
arrive at an agreement on a mandatory arbitration program to resolve 
certain disputes. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the 
NGFA recently announced such an agreement. A copy of the AAR/NGFA press 
release describing the agreement is attached as Addendum E.
    4. Formalized Dialogue Among Railroads and Shippers.--Another issue 
that arose at the Board's hearings involved the concern of some 
shippers that railroads had not been adequately communicating with 
them. To address this concern, the Board directed railroads to 
establish formalized dialogue with their shippers and their employees, 
particularly about service issues in general, small shipper issues, and 
any other relevant matters. The railroads have organized and conducted 
discrete and formalized meetings with various shippers and shipper 
groups throughout the Nation. The meetings, which have been attended by 
Chairman Morgan, were held in Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; Atlanta, GA; 
Newark, NJ; and Portland, OR. AAR's letter to the Board describing the 
meetings and the follow-up actions to be taken--including, among other 
things, issuance of performance reports by each of the large railroads, 
development of a plan for facilitating interline movements, and 
continuation of the outreach meetings--is attached as Addendum F. The 
Board, which supports the continued dialogue that the AAR letter 
promises, will be closely monitoring all of these follow-up steps. In 
addition to the AAR letter, a letter from various shippers regarding 
those meetings, and Chairman Morgan's response to that letter, are 
attached as Addenda G and H.
    5. Additional Railroad/Shipper Discussions.--Other shipper concerns 
that were raised at the Board's hearings involved railroad ``revenue 
adequacy'' and the Board's competitive access rules in general. 
Concluding that each of these issues could be better addressed 
initially in a private-sector rather than governmental forum, the Board 
directed railroads to meet with shipper groups to address the issues 
under the auspices of an Administrative Law Judge. Although extensive 
meetings were conducted, the parties could not reach agreement on these 
issues. Attached as Addendum I are copies of the reports that the 
parties submitted to the Board on their recommendations as to these 
issues.
    Revenue Adequacy.--Although the concept of revenue adequacy has 
thus far had minimal real-world impact, the existing judicially 
approved revenue adequacy measurement, which focuses on a railroad's 
return on investment, has been a source of controversy. Based on 
suggestions from railroad and shipper representatives at the Ex Parte 
No. 575 hearing, the Board 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 name a panel and report back to the Board by May 15, 1998. The 
panel was then to report back with final recommendations on July 15, 
1998.
    Shippers opposed this approach, contending that it would be 
expensive and inefficient for them to pay part of the costs of the 
expert panel, while also paying for litigation associated with the 
conduct of the proceeding before the panel and the Board (and, 
presumably, if either side wanted to litigate further, the courts). 
Ultimately, most of the participating shippers recommended that the 
Board itself initiate a new rulemaking looking to adoption of a revenue 
adequacy approach that would permit the Board to consider a variety of 
financial indicators in determining whether railroads are revenue 
adequate.\1\ By contrast, contending that the multiple indicator 
approach advanced by the shippers would not provide enough certainty or 
predictability, the railroads supported the expert neutral panel 
approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The shippers indicated that, given the Board's own resources 
and their own priorities, they would not object if the Board deferred 
this rulemaking until a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Competitive Access.--The Board directed railroads and shippers to 
attempt to find common ground, and to meet, negotiate, and report back 
to the Board by August 3, 1998. After extensive meetings, the parties 
reached an impasse. The principal areas of concern involved the 
definition of terminal areas; the scope of reciprocal switching; 
appropriate compensation to an incumbent carrier; and, perhaps most 
fundamentally, whether access to other carriers ought to be required 
only when an incumbent carrier has acted in some sort of an 
anticompetitive way, or whether it ought to be provided whenever 
additional competition is determined to be in the public interest.
    6. Possible Resolutions of Revenue Adequacy, Competitive Access, 
and Small Rate Case Issues.--The Board appreciates the opportunity to 
assist Congress in addressing the transportation issues that face the 
Nation during these important times and believes that it has 
appropriately addressed matters of concern within the scope of the 
authority given to it by Congress. Nevertheless, it is likely that 
certain legislative proposals will be discussed in Congress during the 
next session. Following are some thoughts on some of the issues as to 
which legislative proposals are likely.
    Revenue Adequacy.--The revenue adequacy issue, in our view, has 
unnecessarily polarized the transportation community. The underlying 
policy objective--that the Board's regulatory approach among other 
goals permit railroads to earn adequate revenues--is a laudable one 
that should be retained. As we see it, however, and as we have 
testified before, the revenue adequacy status of any particular 
railroad has little practical effect. Revenue adequacy is not a factor 
in maximum rate cases prosecuted under the ``stand-alone cost'' (SAC) 
methodology. It is not a factor in construction, merger, or abandonment 
proceedings. Revenue adequacy does play a small role in rate cases 
brought under the ``small case'' guidelines, but to date, no such cases 
have been brought. Therefore, Congress may wish to consider 
legislatively abolishing the requirement that the Board determine on a 
regular basis which railroads are revenue adequate.
    That is not to say that Congress should abandon the concept of 
revenue adequacy. As we have testified before, in order to oversee the 
industry, the Board needs to have some indication of how the industry 
is faring financially. Moreover, revenue adequacy is one of the non-SAC 
constraints in the Board's ``constrained market pricing'' (CMP) 
methodology for handling larger maximum rate cases. Although, thus far, 
all railroad rate cases brought under CMP have been handled under SAC 
procedures, if a ``revenue adequacy'' case were brought, the Board 
would need a basis on which to address it.
    For those reasons, and because Congress may not wish to abolish the 
revenue adequacy requirement immediately, the questions that have been 
raised about the Board's current revenue adequacy methodology cannot be 
ignored. With its credibility on the issue under challenge by several 
shippers, however, the Board, with its limited resources, does not plan 
to undertake the shippers' proposed rulemaking at this time. Rather, 
given the benefits, the Board continues to support the expert panel 
approach that was suggested by both shipper and railroad interests 
during the Board's Ex Parte No. 575 hearings. The shippers are correct 
that someone would need to provide funding for the expert panel; that 
costs rise as layers of litigation are added to the regulatory process; 
and that it is the Board, and not a private expert panel, that is 
charged with establishing regulatory procedures. Nevertheless, the 
Board is willing to make a commitment to give great deference to the 
expert panel, which would be a competent body that would be perceived 
as neutral if selected after agreement among the private parties. If 
the private parties were also to give the expert panel deference, 
rather than to litigate should they disagree with its (and the Board's) 
conclusions, then not only would the parties' confidence in the 
objectivity of the process likely be enhanced, but the overall costs 
also would likely be contained.
    Competitive Access.--In its Ex Parte No. 575 decision served April 
17, 1998, the Board addressed in some detail the implications of the 
competitive access debate. The differences between the railroads and 
the shippers on the Board's competitive access rules are fundamental, 
and they raise basic policy issues--concerning the appropriate role of 
competition, differential pricing, and how railroads earn revenues and 
structure their services--that are more appropriately resolved by 
Congress than by an administrative agency. Moreover, the so-called 
``bottleneck cases,'' which involve issues related to competitive 
access, are still being reviewed in court. For those reasons, although 
the Board has moved aggressively to adopt the new rules described above 
to open up access during times of poor service, the Board does not plan 
to initiate administrative action to otherwise revisit the competitive 
access rules at this time.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Should Congress choose to review the issue, we would note, as 
we did in our April 17 decision, that the shape and condition of the 
rail system that open access would produce is a significant but 
unresolved issue. Certain shippers assume that the replacement of 
differential pricing by purely competitive pricing would reduce the 
rates paid by shippers, and that added competition would result in 
increased infrastructure investment. The railroads, by contrast, 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 could be recovered 
would be reduced. Additionally, as the Board noted in the April 17 
decision, carriers could be expected to seek to maintain an adequate 
rate of return by cutting their costs, which could include shedding 
unprofitable lines and reducing new investment in infrastructure. Thus, 
while certain shipper representatives believe that an open access 
system would ensure better service, concern has been raised that, 
unless smaller railroads were able to fill in service gaps that could 
be created, open access could produce a smaller rail system that would 
serve fewer shippers, and a different mix of customers, than are served 
today, with different types and levels of, and perhaps more selectively 
provided, service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Small Rate Cases.--As you know, the Board has adopted small rate 
case guidelines, which apply in cases in which CMP cannot be 
practicably used. Under these small case guidelines, the Board reviews 
the profits that the carrier obtains from the challenged rate from 
three perspectives: it compares them with the profits that railroads in 
general earn from comparable traffic; it compares them with the level 
of profits that the carrier would need to obtain from all of its 
potentially captive traffic in order to become ``revenue adequate''; 
and it compares them with the profits that the defendant carrier earns 
on all of its potentially captive traffic. Taken together, these three 
comparisons are designed to permit carriers to price ``differentially'' 
as provided under the law, in a way that will promote their financial 
health, while still protecting individual shippers from bearing an 
unfair share of a particular carrier's revenue needs. Although the 
procedures may sound complex, in fact the information needed to make 
this sort of a case is readily available at reasonable cost. Moreover, 
the Board concluded, after reviewing many years of debate, that these 
guidelines are the only procedures that have been identified that 
readily address each of the concerns that the Board must consider under 
the statute.
    Nevertheless, we are aware that certain shippers are concerned 
that, for small cases, anything other than a single benchmark test 
could unreasonably impede access to the regulatory process. If Congress 
agrees, it could adopt specific small rate case standards. As an 
example, it could provide that, for certain types of cases, all rates 
above a specified revenue-to-variable cost ratio, or series of ratios, 
would be considered unreasonable. If this approach were to follow the 
tenets of the existing statute, the specifics of such an approach--for 
example, the cases to which it would apply, and the level or levels at 
which rates might be capped--would have to balance issues such as 
differential pricing and railroad revenue need against the fairness in 
requiring captive shippers to pay substantially higher prices than 
competitive shippers.
    7. The Override of Railroad Collective Bargaining Agreements.--
Another matter that may be presented to Congress next year is the 
question of limiting the authority of arbitrators under the standard 
labor conditions imposed by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) or 
the Board to modify existing collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) in 
the process of implementing approved rail consolidations. This process 
has become extremely controversial since a decision of the Supreme 
Court in 1991. That decision, Norfolk & Western Ry. v. American Train 
Dispatchers Ass'n, 499 U.S. 117 (1991) (N&W), held that the exemption 
from all other laws to carry out approved rail consolidations provided 
by former 49 U.S.C. 11341(a) and carried forward as 49 U.S.C. 11321(a) 
extends to existing CBAs and operates automatically to permit the 
override of CBA provisions as necessary for implementation of an 
approved rail consolidation.
    Present practice for implementing Board-approved rail 
consolidations is for the unions and the railroads involved to 
negotiate agreements to enable implementation of the Board-approved 
transaction. If they are unable to agree, the matter is submitted to an 
arbitrator selected by the parties or the National Mediation Board if 
the parties cannot agree on the choice of an arbitrator. Because the 
arbitrator is acting under section 11321(a), he or she has the 
authority and the obligation to modify existing CBAs as necessary to 
carry out the transaction.
    In the recent Conrail Acquisition\3\ decision, at the request of 
the various labor organizations, the Board specifically declined to 
make a finding in its decision approving the transaction that 
overriding provisions in Conrail CBAs was necessary to carry out the 
transaction. Rather, the Board specifically left the determination of 
necessity to the process of negotiation and, if necessary, arbitration. 
Even more recently, in the Carmen\4\ decision, the Board elaborated on 
the limitations on arbitrators' authority to modify CBAs as permitted 
by the Supreme Court's N&W decision. In Carmen the Board held that 
overrides of CBAs by arbitrators are limited, among other things, to 
the override authority exercised by arbitrators during the period 1940-
1980, an era marked by labor/management peace regarding the 
implementation of rail consolidations. A copy of the Carmen decision is 
attached as Addendum J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern 
Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company--Control and Operating 
Leases/Agreements--Conrail Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corporation, STB 
Finance Docket No. 33388, Decision No. 89 (STB served July 23, 1998).
    \4\ CSX Corporation--Control--Chessie System, Inc. and Seaboard 
Coast Line Industries, Inc. (Arbitration Review), Finance Docket No. 
28905 (Sub-No. 22), and Norfolk Southern Corporation--Control--Norfolk 
and Western Railway Company and Southern Railway Company (Arbitration 
Review), Finance Docket No. 29430 (Sub-No. 20) (STB served Sept. 25, 
1998). This decision was not appealed by any party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nonetheless, the Board is aware that labor representatives oppose, 
and are understandably dissatisfied with, any provision or action that 
permits overriding any existing CBA provisions. If Congress were to 
agree with their position, given the Supreme Court decision in N&W, 
some modification of section 11321(a) so as to exclude CBAs, or some 
other legislative expression, could address labor's concerns in this 
area.
    8. Conclusion.--Again, we appreciate the confidence that Congress 
has shown by allowing us to play a role in this important process, and 
we remain committed to providing a forum for constructive dialogue and 
appropriate regulatory relief. If we can be of further assistance in 
this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
            Sincerely,
                                           Linda J. Morgan,
                                                          Chairman.
                                 ______
                                 

                              Attachment 2

               SERVICE DATE--LATE RELEASE MARCH 17, 2000
                 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION
                          STB EX PARTE NO. 582
               PUBLIC VIEWS ON MAJOR RAIL CONSOLIDATIONS
                        DECIDED: MARCH 16, 2000

                                OVERVIEW

    This proceeding was triggered by a notice filed on December 20, 
1999, indicating that another major railroad merger application was 
imminent.\1\ The railroad industry has consolidated aggressively in 
recent years; now that Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) has been 
divided between CSX and NS, only six large railroads remain in the 
United States and Canada.\2\ In an order issued on December 28, 
1999,\3\ we stated that, if the BNSF/CN proceeding went forward, we 
would consider not only the direct impacts of that combination, but 
also evidence of the cumulative impacts and crossover effects that 
would likely occur as other railroads developed strategic responses in 
reaction to the proposed combined new system. Additionally, given the 
prospect of significant further consolidation within the railroad 
industry, and our concern that the railroad industry and the shipping 
public have not yet recovered from the service disruptions associated 
with the previous round of mergers, we opened this proceeding to obtain 
public views on the subject of major rail consolidations and the 
present and future structure of the North American rail industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ In particular, The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway 
Company and Canadian National Railway Company filed a notice of intent 
to file, on approximately March 20, 2000, an application seeking Board 
authorization under 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 and 49 CFR part 1180 for a major 
transaction (referred to as the BNSF/CN transaction) under which the 
two railroads would be brought under common control.
    \2\ The six are: The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway 
Company (BNSF); Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP); CSX 
Transportation, Inc. (CSX); Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS); 
Canadian National Railway Company (CN); and Canadian Pacific Railway 
Company (CP). Two smaller U.S. Class I railroads (Grand Trunk Western 
Railroad Incorporated and Illinois Central Railroad Company (IC)) are 
affiliated with CN. A third smaller U.S. Class I railroad (Soo Line 
Railroad Company) is affiliated with CP. A fourth smaller U.S. Class I 
railroad (The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS)) remains 
independent but has entered into a comprehensive alliance with CN and 
IC.
    \3\ Canadian National Railway Company, Grand Trunk Western Railroad 
Incorporated, Illinois Central Railroad Company, Burlington Northern 
Santa Fe Corporation, and The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway 
Company--Common Control, STB Finance Docket No. 33842, Decision Nos. 1 
& 1A (STB served Dec. 28, 1999) (published in the Federal Register on 
Jan. 4, 2000, at 65 FR 318).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As part of this proceeding, we took written and oral testimony from 
all sectors associated with the rail industry: large and small rail 
carriers; large and small shippers representing various commodity 
groups; intermodal and third party transportation providers; rail 
employees; state and local interests; financial analysts and 
economists; and Members of Congress and other federal agencies. Certain 
parties expressed support for a radical overhaul of the entire 
regulatory scheme; some parties expressed support for a ``business-as-
usual'' approach to rail regulation in general and rail mergers in 
particular; still others took the view that no more rail mergers should 
be permitted under any circumstances. But the overwhelming weight of 
the testimony, particularly the oral testimony, was that, at a minimum, 
our merger policy must be reexamined--and must be reexamined now--
before any new major mergers are processed. Because we conclude that 
the rail community is not in a position to now undertake what will 
likely be the final round of restructuring of the North American 
railroad industry, and because our current rules are simply not 
appropriate for addressing the broad concerns associated with reviewing 
business deals geared to produce two transcontinental railroads, we 
agree.
    We recognize that the Government is not in the business of drawing 
railroad maps, and we are not attempting to do so in this proceeding. 
We are also aware that the law that we administer generally 
contemplates private initiatives that are then subjected to regulatory 
scrutiny. But we are required to take actions and to fashion 
regulations that advance our mandate--under which we are to approve 
mergers only to the extent consistent with the public interest, and 
under which we are to promote a safe and sound rail system that runs 
smoothly and efficiently to provide service for rail customers--in a 
manner that is consistent with the overall rail transportation policy 
established by Congress.\4\ Not only would it be impracticable for us 
to try to act on a final round of mergers while we are in the process 
of developing new merger rules, it would also be disruptive to the rail 
system and to rail service that remains well below acceptable levels in 
many areas. The disruption would go far beyond the specific interests 
of BNSF and CN and the carriers that compete with them;\5\ it could 
irreparably damage the entire industry, to the detriment of the 
interests of shippers, rail employees, and the national economy and 
defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ The merger provisions of 49 U.S.C. 11324 direct the Board to 
consider the public interest in general and, in particular, the 
adequacy of transportation to the public; inclusion of other rail 
carriers in particular mergers; and financial, employee, and 
competitive issues. The rail transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10101, 
which guides us in our regulatory activities, directs us, among other 
things, to promote safety, efficiency, good working conditions, an 
economically sound and competitive rail transportation system, and the 
needs of the public and the national defense.
    \5\ We fully understand that our mandate is to protect competition, 
not particular competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Therefore, through this decision, we are announcing that, over the 
next 15 months, we will initiate and complete a proceeding that will 
provide new merger rules. To permit the development of the new rules, 
and to ensure that the industry has had the opportunity to fully 
recover from service problems associated with recent mergers without 
the distractions associated with consideration of additional mergers, 
we will maintain the status quo by ordering a suspension of all merger 
activity, categorized as major transactions, until after the final 
merger rules are issued, or a total period of 15 months.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ In particular, within 20 days, we will issue an advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) suggesting areas in which new merger 
rules can be developed addressing the concerns that have been raised. 
(We are not in a position to propose specific rules at this time 
because, while several parties raised broad issues of concern, specific 
rule changes were not the focus of our hearing.) We will provide a 
total of approximately 60 days for comments and replies to the ANPR, 
and then, within an additional 120 days, we will issue a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPR). We will provide a total of 100 days for 
comments, replies, and rebuttal with respect to the NPR, and then, 
within an additional 150 days, we will issue final rules (a total of 
approximately 15 months from now).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               BACKGROUND

    As indicated, our hearing was triggered by the announcement that 
BNSF and CN seek to merge. This announcement came as the rail sector 
and the shipping public have been struggling to recover from the 
disruptions associated with the most recent round of mergers. Those 
consolidations regrettably have been accompanied by a number of serious 
service problems, and, while service levels have shown improvement in 
certain areas, overall, service is clearly not where it should be. 
Promised customer benefits have not yet been fully realized, and 
carrier relationships with customers, rail employees, and local 
communities have been strained. The performance of railroad stock 
market equities has been trending downward since the service problems 
developed in the East, taking a particularly sharp turn downward 
immediately after the BNSF/CN merger proposal was announced. If it 
continues, the downturn in the stock value, reflecting a loss of 
investor confidence, could threaten the capital investment that is 
needed by the rail industry to ensure that service improvements and 
growth can be sustained.
    BNSF and CN have argued that their consolidation proposal should be 
examined on its own merits now, because it is a good one that will 
produce benefits for the shipping public. But regardless of the merits 
of the BNSF/CN proposal standing alone, many parties expressed concern 
that, if the BNSF/CN proceeding goes forward, that proposal will not go 
forward alone. Indeed, the Class I railroads have clearly stated that 
they would find it necessary to respond in kind, and there is a 
substantial possibility that, absent decisive action on our part, in 
the very near future, we will likely be left with the prospect of only 
two large railroads serving North America. We at the Board, like 
members of the shipping public, are seriously concerned about the 
competitive consequences of this level of industry restructuring, and, 
in any event, about whether it would be in the public interest at this 
time, while the industry is still recovering from service difficulties 
and other disruptions associated with the last round of major rail 
consolidations. And so we held a hearing to help us address the 
important issues relating to major rail consolidations and the present 
and future structure of the North American railroad industry.
    At the hearing, several significant themes kept recurring. We heard 
from Members of Congress, federal and state government agencies, 
shippers, and employees about poor service; the threat that another 
round of proposed mergers would further degrade service; and the need 
to let some time pass so that railroads, their employees, and their 
customers can catch their breath before the industry embarks upon what 
will likely be the final round of mergers. We heard from shippers and 
Members of Congress about the threat that another round of mergers 
would pose to competition in the industry, and we heard from a 
significant number of participants about the need for new rules to 
govern future mergers. We heard from Department of Transportation 
Secretary Rodney Slater that the BNSF/CN transaction should not be 
reviewed under a ``business as usual'' approach. And we heard from 
railroads and from members of the financial community about the 
financial instability of the industry, which could be further 
threatened by a new round of major mergers. We will discuss each of 
those issues.

                             THE TESTIMONY

    1. Service Instability.--Rail mergers are pursued to increase 
efficiency and to improve service. At least at the beginning, however, 
service disruptions have accompanied the implementation of recent large 
mergers, and many shippers have experienced substantial adverse impacts 
in connection with the last round of mergers, beginning with the 
combination of the BN and SF systems, proceeding with the UP 
acquisition of the Southern Pacific (SP) system, and ending with the 
acquisition and division of Conrail by CSX and NS.\7\ The overwhelming 
testimony at our hearing indicated that the shipping public has still 
not recovered from those disruptions. Shippers described the problems 
that they faced, and that many continue to face, as a result of their 
inability to obtain reliable service. Railroad chief executive officers 
(CEOs) involved in the last round of mergers testified how difficult 
merger implementation can be, even with the best planning and with the 
experiences of prior mergers to guide them. Small railroads testified 
that their ability to participate in the transportation business has 
been threatened by poor service. A senior rail equity research analyst 
whose firm is not representing any railroad in the newly initiated 
round of rail merger negotiations reported on a survey that he had 
conducted of large institutional investors that he advises. He 
testified that poor service is partially responsible for the lack of 
investor confidence in the railroad industry, and that many investors 
do not want further mergers at this time, nor do they want the 
legislative changes (which they view as reregulation) that they fear 
further mergers will precipitate.\8\ And the regular service 
performance reports provided by the railroad industry indicate that, 
while service is improving on some fronts, overall, it is still below 
where it needs to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ We have also recently approved CN's application to control IC, 
but that transaction, which is largely end-to-end, has not yet been 
fully implemented.
    \8\ Representatives of investment firms that are advising the 
applicants in the BNSF/CN proceeding (who also do not want what they 
describe as reregulation) pointed out that there is no way to know 
definitively what is driving rail stock prices downward, and that the 
drop in rail stock prices could simply be related to many of the same 
factors that are depressing the stocks of companies in other ``old 
economy'' industries. We do not doubt that the drop in rail stock 
prices is attributable to many sources, but it is clear that the 
current service disruptions and the announcement of the proposed BNSF/
CN transaction have played a role. We believe that the potential for 
further disruption that would accompany the initiation of a final round 
of mergers at this time concern investors, who do not currently view 
railroad mergers as a positive because, overall, these mergers have not 
yet produced the good financial results that were promised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That is why many of the shippers testifying--both large and small--
asked us not to permit any further mergers at this time, and certainly 
not without a change in the way in which we evaluate mergers. Similar 
sentiments were expressed by Members of Congress, representatives of 
small railroads, and representatives of railroad employees.\9\ Even the 
CEOs of the large eastern railroads stated that initiation of a new 
round of mergers would require them to focus on structural and 
management changes necessary to protect their own positions in the 
market, rather than on improving their below-par service. In short, in 
light of the service issues attending prior mergers and looming over 
future mergers, we heard widespread concern that any major 
consolidations at this time would not be in the national interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Clinton Miller, testifying on behalf of the United 
Transportation Union (the largest railroad union), alluded to both 
employee dislocations and service disruptions in support of his request 
for a hold on further mergers. Mark Filipovic of the International 
Association of Machinists expressed the view that recent mergers did 
not produce what was promised for railroads, shippers, or employees. 
Michael Wolly, representing three unions, requested a hold on further 
mergers until the issues associated with employee dislocations are 
resolved. And a number of the representatives of rail employees 
expressed concern about the fact that, under the BNSF/CN proposal, a 
major U.S. railroad would become foreign-controlled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. Competitive Issues.--For several years, parties involved with 
the railroad industry have engaged in debate over competitive issues. 
Many shippers are of the view that prior consolidations have left large 
railroads with too much market power, and they seek various remedies to 
``level the playing field.'' In our hearing, there were repeated 
expressions--even from shippers with substantial market power, such as 
United Parcel Service and General Motors--of the view that the rail 
industry is becoming too concentrated.
    Various remedies were suggested to address this concern about 
concentration. Some shippers asked us to revisit the issues that we 
studied in-depth 2 years ago in our proceeding in Review of Rail Access 
and Competition Issues, STB Ex Parte No. 575. They would like us to 
change the rules in a variety of ways so as to promote more rail-to-
rail competition throughout the industry. But short of a complete 
overhaul of the existing regulatory system (which the financial 
analysts and economists testifying at the hearing suggested could 
introduce an additional level of uncertainty and risk into the 
industry, thereby harming shippers by lowering aggregate rail 
investment below those levels necessary for railroads to maintain and 
improve service), a significant number of shippers stated that we need 
to adopt new merger rules to ensure that competition will not be 
curtailed further in the event that the industry seeks to merge itself 
into a duopoly.
    3. New Merger Rules.--Thus, for a variety of reasons--some related 
to service, some related to competition, and some, such as those 
expressed by Transportation Secretary Slater and representatives of 
rail employees, related to safety--there was substantial support at our 
hearing for a broad review of and revision to the rules governing major 
rail mergers. We agree.
    Our existing merger policy guidelines were adopted by the 
Interstate Commerce Commission soon after passage of the Staggers Act 
of 1980. At that time, good government required a merger policy that, 
while recognizing the importance of competition, would encourage 
railroads to formulate proposals that would help rationalize excess 
capacity in the industry.
    The goals of that merger policy have largely been achieved. It does 
not appear that there are significant public interest benefits to be 
realized from further downsizing or rationalizing of rail route 
systems, as there is little of that activity left to do. Looking 
forward, the key problem faced by railroads--how to improve 
profitability through enhancing the service provided to their 
customers--is linked to adding to insufficient infrastructure, not to 
eliminating excess capacity.
    The testimony convinces us that our rules need to be reexamined. 
Given the current transportation environment, and with the prospect of 
a transportation system composed of as few as two transcontinental 
railroads, we may wish to revisit our approach to competitive issues 
such as the ``one-lump theory'' and the ``three-to-two'' question; 
downstream effects; the important role of smaller railroads in the rail 
network; service performance issues; how we should look at the types of 
benefits to be considered in the balancing test, and how we monitor 
benefits; how we should view alternatives to merger, such as alliances; 
employee issues such as ``cramdown;'' and the international trade and 
foreign control issues that would be raised by any CN or CP proposal to 
combine with any large U.S. railroad. As Transportation Secretary 
Slater pointed out, the sheer size of these potential new mergers poses 
unique risks and leaves no margin for error: if these mergers were to 
fail, or lead to service problems, the effects could be devastating for 
both the rail industry and the shippers that depend on rail service. We 
must be sure that our merger review process takes these risks into 
account.
                       discussion and conclusions
    Accordingly, we have concluded that we must revisit our merger 
rules, and that in the meantime we must maintain the status quo by 
directing large railroads to suspend merger activity pending the 
development of new rules. We understand those parties that argue that 
each case should be viewed on its own merits without regard to the 
prospect of future consolidation, but we cannot close our eyes to the 
fact that the mere consideration of any major merger now would likely 
generate responsive proposals that, if approved, could result in a 
North American duopoly.\10\ Before proceeding down that path, we must 
make sure that we have the appropriate guidelines in place to assure 
that we can properly assess and fully protect the public interest in 
each individual case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ The CEOs for BNSF and CN have stated that there is no reason 
why their merger should necessarily instigate any responsive action by 
any other railroad. But recent history shows otherwise; indeed, the UP 
takeover of the SP was a response to the BNSF merger. And CEOs of the 
other major railroads have stated that they would look to future 
mergers of their own as strategic responses to the BNSF/CN transaction. 
Indeed, Richard Davidson, CEO of UP, stated that his company strongly 
considered a merger with CP as a response to the recent CN takeover of 
the IC, but ultimately concluded that it would be better off focusing 
on issues other than mergers under the circumstances prevailing at that 
time. Given the size of the BNSF/CN transaction, we have no reason to 
doubt the assertions of the CEOs of the major railroads that if it goes 
forward, they would have no choice but to seek their own merger 
partners, and that in a short time, we could be faced with the prospect 
of a North American duopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In their oral testimony, the CEOs of BNSF and CN recognized the 
argument that certain new requirements may need to be imposed on future 
merger proposals, but nevertheless urged us to proceed with 
consideration of their merger proposal now, developing any new 
requirements in the context of their application proceeding. We realize 
that administrative agencies can choose to develop new rules either by 
rulemaking or in individual adjudications, but in choosing which course 
to take, we consider what makes sense. Here, it simply makes no sense 
to attempt to develop new merger rules in the middle of what could 
likely be the final round of major railroad mergers.\11\ New merger 
rules will be a major undertaking, and we will not know what the rules 
will look like until the process is over. Yet, under the BNSF/CN 
approach, we could be reviewing merger proposals involving at least 
four, and possibly all six, of the large North American railroads 
before we have had an opportunity to reexamine and reformulate our 
merger policy. The evidentiary filings in such cases are massive, and 
yet none of the parties would know what they would be expected to show 
until new rules are formulated. And then, at the end, once the rules 
are known, it is not only possible, but quite likely, that the merger 
process would have to start all over again. Thus, while BNSF and CN may 
see some benefit to themselves from such a procedure, the process would 
be inherently uncertain, could lead to substantial instability in the 
industry, and thus does not represent good government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ We should note that the representatives of the Departments of 
Agriculture and Defense expressed the view that we should permit no 
major mergers at this time. Moreover, Transportation Secretary Slater 
urged us to make numerous and potentially complex changes to our merger 
rules that, if they are to be applied evenly to all future mergers, 
could not be practically effected in the middle of individual merger 
proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are very serious risks associated with proceeding with 
individual merger proposals at this time, before we have new rules in 
place. The disruption that has beset the railroad industry in 
connection with the last round of mergers could reach unprecedented 
levels. Carriers whose management should be focused on fixing their 
service problems would instead be fixated on finding merger partners, 
defending their proposals, and responding in the regulatory arena to 
other carriers' proposals. Investors, who have forsaken the railroad 
industry in favor of businesses that they have come to believe may have 
more favorable future prospects, could devalue the industry further. 
And railroads could find it more difficult to finance the capital 
improvements necessary to provide the better service that is key to 
their financial revitalization. In short, the already fragile rail 
industry could be further destabilized.
    We understand BNSF/CN's view that holding up their merger 
application proceeding would itself be viewed negatively by the 
financial markets as creating uncertainty. We disagree, as we do not 
see how anything could be more uncertain than moving forward without 
appropriate rules in place at the beginning to govern the proceeding, 
particularly at a time when uncertainty already surrounds the rail 
sector. Furthermore, investors have come to view rail mergers in a less 
than positive financial light, and we can see proceeding with the BNSF/
CN proposal at this time as only adding to that negative environment. 
In this regard, we should note that there is clearly sentiment within 
the financial community--from those analysts who closely followed our 
hearing--that a delay in merger activity, while new rules are 
developed, would tend to reduce uncertainty for rail investors, help to 
stabilize rail financial markets, and provide an impetus for increasing 
rail share prices.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ For example, a Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation rail 
stock analyst, in a March 6, 2000 note to investors, stated that our 
hearing might ``provide some upside for the stocks if it appears that 
the risk of industry consolidation will be pushed further into the 
future by the Surface Transportation Board.'' Another analyst, from ING 
Barings, in a March 14, 2000 note to investors, predicted that the 
Board would impose a merger moratorium, and that, as a result, ``the 
industry is full of many buying opportunities,'' including the shares 
of BNSF. A March 13, 2000 report by a J.P. Morgan analyst expressed the 
view that ``rail stocks would react positively to'' what the analyst 
believed was a likely ``mid-term'' (up to 2 years) hold on further 
mergers. A Donaldson, Lufkin, and Jenrette rail analyst, in a March 14, 
2000 note to investors, explained that rampant pessimism has resulted 
in rail securities that ``are selling at near recessionary levels. It 
is a reversal of some of this pressure that is exactly what we'd expect 
if we are allowed to gain some sense of the regulatory and structural 
outlook for the industry as a result of last week's STB hearings.'' A 
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter stock analyst, in a March 8, 2000 note to 
investors, suggested that a decision by the Board to delay the merger 
process would remove some near-term uncertainty and lead to near-term 
strength in a number of railroad stock prices, including those of BNSF 
and CN. Finally, the Chairman and CEO of Wasserstein, Parella & Co., in 
a March 10, 2000 letter to Chairman Morgan, explained that his firm 
``feels strongly that allowing the proposed merger to proceed would 
place the entire industry in jeopardy,'' since ``the specter of another 
round of rail mergers [at this time], which Wall Street is convinced 
this transaction will precipitate, will accelerate the flight of 
capital'' from the industry. He concludes that the prospect of moving 
forward with the BN/CN transaction at this time ``is a serious threat 
to the industry's financial health, well being and long-term 
prospects.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notwithstanding the serious potential public harms that could 
result from going forward, BNSF and CN argue that they will suffer if 
consideration of their merger proposal is delayed.\13\ Unless they 
expect to escape the new rules that will apply to everyone else, 
however, and to hold other mergers at bay until their own is completed, 
we do not see how their transaction will not be adversely affected by 
the disruption that it would produce throughout the industry. BNSF and 
CN suggest that it is not fair to ``penalize'' them for the failures of 
others.\14\ But our action here addresses industrywide concerns that 
involve all railroads (including BNSF and CN), and in any event, should 
not in any way be construed to be punitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ BNSF and CN also argue that delay will defer the public 
benefits, such as new single-line service, associated with their 
merger. But there are various alternatives to merger that can 
approximate those benefits. Indeed, CN and its partner IC currently 
participate in an alliance with KCS, a smaller Class I carrier, that 
provides all parties many of the benefits of a merger. We note that 
both General Motors and United Parcel Service (two of the largest 
customers of CN and BNSF), which would presumably reap the largest 
benefit from the new single-line service these railroads promise, have 
testified in no uncertain terms that they do not want a merger to go 
forward at this time, as has KCS, whose CEO stated that the carrier 
would not survive as an independent carrier if the BNSF/CN proposal is 
implemented.
    \14\ We note that the BNSF merger, which was characterized by many, 
when it was initially proposed, as a manageable ``end-to-end'' merger, 
had its own share of integration problems, and there was some testimony 
at the hearing concerning service issues on the CN/IC system, which has 
not yet been fully integrated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under 49 U.S.C. 11324, we must consider the public interest in 
addressing rail mergers, taking into account, at a minimum, adequacy of 
transportation to the public; including other rail carriers in the area 
involved; competitive effects; financial impacts on the involved 
carriers; and impacts on employees. In addition, the rail 
transportation policy set out in 49 U.S.C. 10101 directs us, among 
other things, to promote safety, efficiency, good working conditions, 
an economically sound and competitive rail transportation system, and 
the needs of the public and the national defense. For the reasons we 
have discussed, we believe that we can best advance all of these 
objectives by promptly initiating a rulemaking proceeding to adopt new 
rules, as appropriate, and providing a short period for parties to 
adjust to the new rules before proceeding with merger proposals. This 
approach should provide a degree of stability for what is now a very 
fragile industry and permit vital public interest issues to be 
addressed on an evenhanded basis for all merger proposals. To go 
forward with any individual merger proceeding in the meantime would be 
unfair to customers, carriers, employees, and affected communities, and 
would disrupt and distract the industry to the detriment of all of the 
public interest concerns that we are charged with advancing.
    We recognize that our action here is unprecedented. But these are 
not ordinary circumstances, and we see no way of adequately protecting 
the public interest short of the steps we have outlined here. Congress 
has directed us to take such actions as are necessary to carry out our 
statutory mandate, 49 U.S.C. 721(a), and has expressly authorized us to 
take injunctive-type action to prevent irreparable harm, 49 U.S.C. 
721(b)(4).\15\ After considering all of the circumstances, as 
elucidated through our extensive hearings, we find that changes in our 
merger regulations are necessary now and that no major rail merger 
proposals should be filed, or will be considered, until new merger 
rules have been established.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ The legislative history accompanying section 721(b)(4) 
explains that the provision ``explicitly authorizes the [Board] to 
issue unilateral emergency injunctive orders to prevent irreparable 
harm. This power has been asserted and used by the [Interstate Commerce 
Commission] in the past, although not specifically granted by statute. 
The Committee intends to confirm the scope of the former ICC power in 
this regard. . . .'' H.R. Rep. No. 311, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 124 
(1995).
    \16\ Accordingly, for the reasons expressed herein, we hereby 
suspend the ``Notice of Intent to File'' filed in Canadian National 
Railway Company, Grand Trunk Western Railroad Incorporated, Illinois 
Central Railroad Company, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, and 
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company--Common Control, 
STB Finance Docket No. 33842, until such time as new merger rules have 
been promulgated and the period set forth in this Decision has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the 
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
    It is ordered:
    1. Class I railroads are directed to suspend activity relating to 
any railroad transaction that would be categorized as a major 
transaction under 49 CFR 1180.2, pending development of new rules by 
the Board, as outlined in this decision. No filings relating to such a 
transaction will be accepted for 15 months.
    2. This decision is effective on the date of service.
    By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Burkes, and 
Commissioner Clyburn. Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Burkes, and 
Commissioner Clyburn commented with separate expressions.
Chairman Morgan, commenting:
    This decision has been one of the most difficult ones that I have 
had to make since becoming a member of the Surface Transportation Board 
and the Interstate Commerce Commission before it. The Board's action 
here directing the suspension of all rail merger activity for a period 
of time is particularly difficult for me because, as my record 
demonstrates, I do not believe that the government should intervene 
into free market processes without a very good reason for doing so. And 
I also believe that parties should get fair and expeditious 
consideration of matters brought to the Board. But the current problems 
facing the rail sector are so extraordinary that an unprecedented 
response is necessary. Given the financial and service instability that 
exists in the rail sector as a result of the most recent round of major 
railroad consolidations, I cannot in good conscience allow further 
actions to occur that I believe would run the risk of creating more 
disruption and instability to the clear permanent detriment of the 
Nation's transportation system, rail employees, rail customers, and 
communities across the country.
    In this regard, once I decided that a time-out from mergers was 
necessary, I proposed a 2-year waiting period before merger 
applications could be filed. I firmly believe that a period of that 
length is necessary to accomplish all of the goals set forth in the 
Board's decision. A lesser time, in my opinion, will simply block the 
BNSF/CN proposal without fully achieving the immediate and lasting 
stability for which I am striving by taking this unprecedented action. 
Nevertheless, although a 2-year period would do more to allow a 
thorough reexamination of our merger rules and would permit the rail 
sector to adapt to those rules and achieve a firm level of stability 
before processing any more major rail consolidation proposals, overall 
our action here is clearly on the right track.
    While certain interests have favored moving forward with the 
proposed BNSF/CN transaction when filed, many others have been opposed 
to moving forward with any further consolidation at this time, and 
certainly not until our merger rules are revisited. In balancing all of 
these concerns in determining what action would be in the greater 
public interest here, I have focused on the long-term, as well as 
short-term, effects of our actions, and on my concern about what would 
be for the greater good of all railroads, rail customers, rail 
employees and communities across the country. In view of the 
instability in the rail sector, the great risk of further harm from 
continued instability and disruption, and the need to promote the 
greater public good, it is my strong belief that processing mergers at 
this time and for a significant period thereafter would not be in the 
public interest.
Vice Chairman Burkes, Commenting:
    This decision sets in motion a 15-month rulemaking proceeding to 
reevaluate the Board's merger guidelines and imposes a suspension on 
all major merger activity during this period. This upcoming proceeding 
will be extremely important. Much has changed in the railroad industry 
in the nearly twenty years since the majority of our current rules were 
established. I believe that it is long past time to step back and 
revisit those standards.
    The BNSF/CN merger announcement may have triggered this proceeding, 
but it is long since overdue. However, it is unfortunate that it was 
not held prior to their announcement. Consequently, in addition to 
substantive merger rules issues, the application and timing of a 
rulemaking proceeding have also become issues.
    In this proceeding, we have established a 15-month period to 
develop new merger rules. Although this is almost double the period of 
time associated with the Board's last two major rulemaking proceedings 
(Ex Parte Nos. 627 and 628), the issues here are significant and 
complex and will require additional time. Although this proceeding 
could be completed in a much shorter time period, 15 months should be 
more than adequate for a thorough review of our merger rules.
    Several parties have argued for a longer suspension period or 
moratorium, i.e., two or more years. I believe this would be much too 
long of a period of time. After we have issued our final merger rules, 
there would be a minimum of an additional year before any additional 
major railroad mergers could be approved. Moreover, the evidence 
indicates that railroad service has started to improve after the 
disruptions resulting from the past mergers and it is clear that those 
problems started long before the BNSF/CN announcement. In addition, a 
longer period could add to uncertainty for shippers who are considering 
building or relocating facilities or planning to enter into long term 
contracts.
    In terms of application, I believe that the new railroad merger 
guidelines should apply to the proposed BNSF/CN merger and all future 
major railroad mergers. I also believe that, in fairness to BNSF and 
CN, and to all parties, it is important to resolve these issues in a 
timely manner.
Commissioner Clyburn, Commenting:
    I stated in my opening remarks to Ex Parte 582 that this proceeding 
could be a defining moment concerning rail consolidation issues. Four 
full days of listening intently to comments from all sectors of the 
rail industry has only strengthened this belief. We have heard 
testimony from large railroads, small railroads, large and small 
shippers of all types of commodities, rail labor, economists, 
government agencies and Members of Congress. While diverse ideas 
regarding how the Board should address future consolidations emerged 
from the testimony, it was abundantly clear, however, that the time has 
come for a thorough review of the Board's current merger rules. Some 
did suggest that we proceed with future consolidation utilizing the 
same regulatory framework that currently exists, while some others have 
suggested that we ``take a breath'' and impose a moratorium on filing 
merger applications for two years, three years, or an indefinite period 
of time.
    It is clear to me that the rail industry has changed dramatically 
within the past twenty years since the passage of the Staggers Rail Act 
of 1980. Rail consolidations have created a new paradigm in which we 
must now operate. Therefore, I support the Board's decision to 
institute the 15 month rulemaking process to revise our merger rules 
and suspend major merger transactions during this time. Others have 
called for longer periods of time to attempt to address uncertainties--
real, perceived, or otherwise. However, my support of the 15 month 
suspension is based solely on what I believe to be an appropriate time 
frame in which the Board Members and staff can address, appropriately, 
the plethora of complex issues the industry currently faces without 
unnecessarily suspending merger applications. I believe our approach is 
a reasonable one.

    Senator Shelby. Senator Specter.
    Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you for deferring for me for a question or two at the 
outset.

                          CONRAIL ACQUISITION

    Chairman Morgan, you said that you were not satisfied, and 
then after the words ``not satisfied,'' followed by what you 
were not satisfied about, at this juncture, what is your view 
of the desirability? If you had it to do all over again, would 
you like to see Conrail divided between Norfolk Southern and 
CSX?
    Ms. Morgan. I would not undo my decision with respect to 
the Conrail acquisition. I believe that the decision that we 
made was the right one. There was a full record of support for 
that acquisition. There were some who did not support it, as 
you know, but there was an overwhelming record for support, and 
I believe we made the right decision. We have had integration 
problems that have resulted in service difficulties for 
shippers, and the Board has been actively involved in resolving 
those, in monitoring those and resolving them.

                          INTEGRATION PROBLEMS

    Senator Specter. Well, you said there was a full record of 
support. I would say there was a substantial record for 
opposition as well. And you talk about integration problems. 
Are you satisfied with the progress which has been made on 
those so-called integration problems?
    Ms. Morgan. Well, I wish that we had not had the problems 
that we have had, but I think now we are at a position where we 
are seeing service improvement that is sticking. We are seeing 
more reliable service, more stable service in the East. Is it 
where I would like it to be? No, not yet. Do I wish that the 
problems had not occurred? Yes.
    Senator Specter. It is not where you would like it to be 
yet. Do you have a time frame as to when you think you could 
get it to where you would like it to be?
    Ms. Morgan. Well, I think each day I want it to be better 
than it was the day before, so it is----
    Senator Specter. Well, that is obvious, but how long is it 
going to take to work out the problems?
    Ms. Morgan. Well, I think we are at a critical point--we 
are going into the Fall Peak period now, which is a heavy 
season in the rail industry, and that will certainly test both 
systems in terms of whether they are ready to handle the 
increased traffic. That will occur over the next couple of 
months, and that will tell us the state of the systems.
    I believe both systems going into the Fall Peak are in good 
shape to handle the Fall Peak. They have done a lot of 
planning, and we have worked very closely with them, but the 
test will be the Fall Peak, and that will tell us where the 
systems stand.

                                  CSX

    Senator Specter. With respect to this problem about, 
illustratively, a shipper wants to move freight from 
Philadelphia to Chicago, and only, say, CSX goes to Pittsburgh, 
would you support a provision which would require CSX to give a 
rate, Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, so that the customer might 
have a choice from Norfolk Southern and CSX from Pittsburgh to 
Chicago?
    Ms. Morgan. Well, again, that is part of the discussion 
that we have had here today regarding what my statute would 
allow me to do, and what customers would like to have happen. 
The way my statute works now, I do not add a competitor upon 
demand, and there are shippers who would like that to occur, 
but that is not the statute that I implement today. If Congress 
wants that----

                            SENATE BILL 621

    Senator Specter. Senate Bill 621, introduced by Senator 
Rockefeller----
    Ms. Morgan. Yes.
    Senator Specter [continuing]. Would provide that.
    Ms. Morgan. Yes.
    Senator Specter. My question to you was, do you think that 
is a provision which ought to become law?
    Ms. Morgan. Well, I think that what needs to be decided by 
Congress is whether the changes that that bill would make would 
lead to the kind of rail network that we will be comfortable 
with--that is clearly a fundamental change in the policy that 
we have in place today. Congress made a decision about the 
policy that we should have. That is what I am implementing. If 
changes are made in that policy, it will have impacts. There 
may be winners and losers, and Congress just needs to 
understand that before it makes its decision.
    Senator Specter. Well, twice I have tried to get an answer 
from you as to whether you think that would be a good change. 
Let me make a third effort.
    Ms. Morgan. Well, I have answered that in the past. If you 
are asking me, do I with certainty today----
    Senator Specter. You may have answered it in the past, 
there may have been discussions before I got here, but I was 
not here before I got here, and I do not know what you did in 
the past, and I would like an answer to the simple question, do 
you think that there ought to be a compulsion for, say, CSX to 
provide transit from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh so that the 
customer could have the choice between CSX and Norfolk Southern 
for the balance of the ride to Chicago.
    Ms. Morgan. If you are asking me, which I think you are, as 
a general policy matter, every place there is a shipper that is 
only served by one carrier, one rail carrier, if the policy 
should be to add another carrier to serve that customer, that 
is a change in the policy that we have in place today, and if 
you are asking me, am I certain that that will result in the 
kind of rail network that we can all be comfortable with, I 
cannot tell you that I am. I think it requires more study and 
more careful thought before we make that kind of fundamental 
change in the Staggers Act. I have testified to that 
previously, and I am here today to say that.
    Senator Specter. I take that to be a no.
    Ms. Morgan. It is not necessarily a no. It is----
    Senator Specter. A tentative no?
    Ms. Morgan. No, it is not a yes.
    Senator Specter. Well, I thank you for that. That certainly 
does clarify the matter considerably.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Specter, let me see if I understand 
what--from, say, Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, you are talking 
about just back-to-back competition? I do not see anything 
wrong with that.
    Senator Specter. Well, Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, as I 
understand it maybe hypothetically, but I understand it, CSX 
has the sole line, but from Pittsburgh to Chicago, Norfolk 
Southern can compete with CSX, so Senator Rockefeller has an 
idea, and I think it is a good idea, that requires that CSX 
give a customer a rate. This is a lot like deregulation of 
electricity, where I was very surprised at the start to hear 
that electrical companies could come and use somebody else's 
lines, but that is what is going on in America today, and if 
CSX has the only line to Pittsburgh, then they get the transit 
all the way to Chicago, and I would like to see Norfolk 
Southern in a position to compete from the Pittsburgh to 
Chicago line. That is my second choice. My first choice is to 
have Conrail do it, Senator Shelby.
    Senator Shelby. I remember.

                        ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT

    Senator Specter. But that is my second choice. I believe 
that I have Ms. Morgan's view on it. Let me ask you one other 
provision of Senator Rockefeller's bill, which eliminates the 
requirement that evidence of anti-competitive conduct be 
produced when the Surface Transportation Board decides a case 
to allow another railroad access to customer facilities within 
an area served by the tracks of more than one railroad.
    Ms. Morgan. That is the so-called open access provision. 
Again, that is in line with my earlier discussion with you. 
That would be adding competition in a way that I do not believe 
that the current law provides, and, in fact, the courts have, 
in reviewing our decisions, clearly stated that we do not 
implement, at this point, an open access statute. So the 
statute would need to be changed, if that--obviously if you 
wanted to get that----
    Senator Specter. Well, Congress can change it. We all know 
that. Ms. Morgan, why not structure the system so that you give 
the customer an opportunity to get competition between Norfolk 
Southern and CSX from Pittsburgh to Chicago? As long as CSX has 
the only line from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, customers are 
shut out. Why not open up that competitive opportunity from 
Pittsburgh to Chicago, between Norfolk Southern and CSX?
    Ms. Morgan. Well----
    Senator Specter. Senator Shelby has asked the question a 
lot better than I did by five little words: Does current law 
inhibit competition?
    Ms. Morgan. Well, I can answer both of them----
    Senator Specter. That is great.
    Ms. Morgan [continuing]. Both of the questions.
    Senator Specter. Answer mine first.
    Ms. Morgan. When Congress passed the Staggers Act of 1980, 
it assumed that there would be captive shippers, and as part of 
the policy determination that it made in reforming how the 
railroads were regulated, it was assumed that there would be a 
rate structure that would recognize that there would be captive 
shippers and competitive shippers.
    As part of that, there are certain provisions and policies 
that lead us to the kinds of decisions that now certain people 
are uncomfortable with, whether it be the bottleneck decision 
that you referenced, or opening up terminals without 
determining whether there is anti-competitive conduct.
    Clearly, when Congress made the decision in 1980, it 
studied it and made the determination that that was the right 
policy at the time. I think if Congress wants to revisit that 
policy, that is fine, and my answer to your question earlier is 
that that review is fine, but certain questions need to be 
asked and answered comfortably for everyone.
    Now, the question you asked, which is, does the statute 
inhibit competition, I get back to the premise, which is if the 
premise is that we do not have enough competition unless every 
person that is now served by one railroad would be served by 
two railroads, well then our statute does not provide for that.
    If on the other hand people are comfortable that there are 
``captive shippers,'' which is what the Staggers Act assumes, 
then I believe the Board has fulfilled those responsibilities 
and reflected the competitive policy.
    Senator Shelby. If you are basically interested in 
competition, which I think that we are, in certain areas you do 
not have competition, is this not true?
    Ms. Morgan. But again, as I said, when the Congress passed 
the Staggers Act----
    Senator Shelby. I understand what Congress did, but we are 
talking about what the reality is.
    Ms. Morgan. Well, again, but then I get----
    Senator Shelby. Before we deregulated the railroads, there 
had to be, and I was in the House then, and I was on the 
Commerce Committee, in which we dealt with the Staggers Act, we 
talked about competition, among other things, and I believe you 
have to have competition in lieu of regulation. I will take 
competition in lieu of regulation any day or night, but I 
believe we have to have competition of some kind--some kind. 
That is my own opinion.
    Senator Specter. Before Ms. Morgan answered the last 
question I asked her a question as to the policy 
considerations, as to why not give the Pittsburgh to Chicago 
run competition, and it seems to me that it is very, very sad, 
and I hope we are able to act on Senator Rockefeller's 
legislation.
    My sense is that we have had way too many problems arising 
from the division by CSX and Norfolk Southern of Conrail. I 
think it has not worked out well at all, and I think Congress 
has to be much more active in making these policy decisions.
    If Chairman Morgan would care to review her testimony and 
go to the thrust of my questions and start looking for a public 
policy reason, why should CSX have sole control of the 
Philadelphia to Chicago run, when there could be an arrangement 
where CSX would have to offer up Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, 
and then there could be competition. What are the pros and 
cons, policy-wise?
    I would think that the Chairman of the Surface 
Transportation Board could give us a public policy reason 
beyond saying, ``Well, this is what the Staggers Act did, and 
if Congress wants to do it, they can do it, and the evidence is 
not sufficient, and no, that is not a no, but it is not a 
yes,'' but besides saying yes or no, I want to figure out what 
is best for America.
    Ms. Morgan. I am in agreement with you on that.
    Senator Specter. Okay. Well, take a look at my questions 
and your answers and see if you might be a little more 
responsive, but I support what Senator Rockefeller is trying to 
do, Mr. Chairman, and I again thank you for your vigilance in 
focusing this hearing on a long, hot afternoon.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you. I have a statement from Senator 
Bond, who is tied up on another appropriations matter that will 
be made a part of the record, he is for competition here, as 
part of this hearing.
    Chairman Morgan, in December 1998, you wrote to the Senate 
Commerce Committee and said that the Surface Transportation 
Board does not have the authority to increase competition among 
railroads. Is this still true?
    Ms. Morgan. Yes, it is, and it follows on some of your 
questions earlier.
    Senator Shelby. Okay. What additional changes are needed? 
They would be statutory changes, would they not?
    Ms. Morgan. Yes. Again, getting back to your earlier 
question.
    Senator Shelby. Could you do it through Board policy, or 
would you need statutory language?
    Ms. Morgan. Well, as I indicated earlier, we have taken 
several actions at the Board, which we believe have pushed the 
statute in the right direction and pushed the limits of the 
statute, and we have been upheld so far, but, again, if the 
Congress is interested in adding a competitor where a customer 
is served by only one railroad, that is a change in policy and 
that would require a change in the law. That is the gist of 
the----
    Senator Shelby. I alluded earlier to the GAO's February, 
1999----
    Ms. Morgan. Yes.
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. Report, which concluded that 
70 percent of shippers surveyed, quote, ``Believe that time, 
complexity, and cost of filing complaints or barriers'' often 
preclude them from seeking rate relief. Is the complaint 
process broken, Ms. Morgan?
    Ms. Morgan. Well, let me first of all say that we have 
worked very hard at the Board to streamline the process. We 
have put deadlines on the process, we have clarified standards, 
we have resolved cases that have been around longer than they 
should have.
    Senator Shelby. Does it cost much, though? Is it too 
laborious a process?
    Ms. Morgan. Well, I think any time you get into a litigious 
situation, it is unfortunately cumbersome and costly. That is 
just the nature of the business.
    Senator Shelby. Is there any way you can minimize the costs 
to reflect the size of the company bringing the complaint? In 
other words, smaller companies have smaller resources. You know 
what I am talking about.
    Ms. Morgan. Yes. Well, we have standards that apply to 
large rate cases and we have standards that apply to small rate 
cases.
    Senator Shelby. Okay. You are already into that some.
    Ms. Morgan. Right.
    Senator Shelby. Okay. On March 7 through 10 of this year, 
the Surface Transportation Board, that you chair, held a series 
of public hearings about major rail consolidations and the 
future of the rail network. The hearings focused on the board's 
merger policy and the downstream service effects which Class I 
railroad mergers have had on rail service.
    The Senate Appropriations Committee has included language 
in this year's appropriation bill that will require the STB to 
prepare a report, one, that identify the concerns that were 
raised in the March 2000, hearings; two, details the actions 
that the Board will take to address those concerns; and three, 
indicates where the STB lacks the statutory authority to 
effectively address these concerns.
    Will the Board be able to comply with this requirement and 
provide the merger report to this committee by April 1, 2001?
    Ms. Morgan. Well, the merger rulemaking process is still 
under way. We will not have issued final rules until June 2001, 
so it will be difficult for me to report to you before those 
rules come out about what we are in the process of completing.
    Senator Shelby. Would you report as soon as you can----
    Ms. Morgan. Yes.
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. More than----
    Ms. Morgan. I will be able to do that, yes, if that was the 
instruction.
    Senator Shelby. Chairman Morgan, the bottleneck decision, 
the STB's 1999 bottleneck decision allows a railroad to refuse 
to quote a rate for shipping over a segment of a route where 
there is competing service available if any part of that total 
route to be shipped is served by only one carrier.
    Why did the STB believe the bottleneck decision was 
appropriate? Does not this decision have the effect of stifling 
competition, since shippers may not be able to even get a 
competing railroad's rate quote? That has baffled a lot of 
people.
    Ms. Morgan. Yes. I understand that. First of all, let me 
just say that in that decision we did provide some relief for 
the shippers. It is not all of what they sought, but we did 
provide some relief, and we have been upheld, not only on the 
part where we did not provide what they wanted, but also on the 
part where we did.
    But having said that, we viewed that decision as a 
balancing of several interests in the statute. We balanced the 
rate and route initiative that is provided to the railroads 
under the statute against other interests in the statute, and 
we have been upheld in that balancing process.
    Senator Shelby. Ms. Morgan, you have been encouraging the 
railroads to work together toward a privately negotiated 
railroad industry agreement to deal with access restrictions 
and other issues that have been raised by the short lines and 
regional railroads regarding their treatment by the major 
railroads. We have been talking about this.
    Ms. Morgan. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. As I understand it, the privately 
negotiated agreement has been in the works for some time, and 
last month you wrote to the railroads again urging them to 
refocus on reaching some consensus on these issues. How is the 
process moving along? Why do you believe that the Class I 
railroads and short lines will be able to reconcile their 
differences this time around, when they have not before?
    Ms. Morgan. Well, first of all----
    Senator Shelby. Realistically, where are we?
    Ms. Morgan. Well, first of all, I think it was important 
that the smaller railroads and the larger railroads did come to 
an agreement under the umbrella of the Board's directive. That 
was an important step.
    Senator Shelby. Are you optimistic now?
    Ms. Morgan. I am always optimistic----
    Senator Shelby. I know, but are you optimistic?
    Ms. Morgan [continuing]. Or I would not be in this 
position.
    Senator Shelby. But in view of what has gone on in the 
past.
    Ms. Morgan. Well, I think what has gone on in the past is 
that they have been able to enter into----
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Ms. Morgan [continuing]. An agreement, and I am hopeful 
that that same spirit will lead to further private sector 
resolution.
    Senator Shelby. Ms. Morgan, lastly, the Staggers Act allows 
for competition in a rail terminal area by means of either what 
they call terminal trackage rights or reciprocal switching. Can 
you cite some instances where an STB decision has required a 
railroad to grant competing railroad terminal trackage rights 
or reciprocal switching rights?
    Ms. Morgan. Well, in the----
    Senator Shelby. If so, how successful have they been?
    Ms. Morgan. Well, in the context of the merger proceedings, 
we have provided for trackage rights relief, and so forth. 
Outside of the merger context, we have not provided relief. The 
Board has had a few cases, one case that I remember 
specifically, where that relief was denied.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Shelby. We have a vote on the floor in a few 
minutes. I appreciate your testimony and I appreciate your 
indulgence. I am hoping you are going to be able to work out a 
lot of these problems that we have been hearing today. Thank 
you. The committee is recessed.
    Ms. Morgan. Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., Tuesday, September 12, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]

           Questions Submitted to the Office of the Secretary

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                        DOT POLITICAL APPOINTEES

    Question. Please provide the number of political appointees 
currently on board funded in the Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies appropriations bill at the Department and break them 
out by agency. In addition, please provide a timetable for filling any 
of the vacant political positions up to the statutory cap. Please 
provide a listing of the number of political appointees, grade level 
and current salary and compare over the last five years.
    Answer. Listed below is information on the number of political 
appointees currently on board funded in the Department of 
Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill, the timetable 
for filling vacant political positions, and information for the past 
five years on the number of political appointees, grade level and 
current salary.

Department of Transportation Political Appointees

                                                   Currently on board as
        Agency name                                         of 4/15/2000

Office of the Secretary (OST).....................................    48
Office of the Inspector General (OIG).............................     1
United States Coast Guard (USCG)........................................
Transportation Administrative Service Center (TASC).....................
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).............................     6
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).............................     7
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).....................
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)............     6
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).............................     4
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)..............................     3
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC).............     1
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)...............     4
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).........................     1
Surface Transportation Board (STB)................................     3
                                                                  ______
      Total.......................................................    84

   DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TIMETABLE FOR FILLING VACANT POLITICAL
                                POSITIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Recruitment of 4/15/     Estimated
               Title                        2000            appt. date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Deputy Chief of Staff.............  Appointment pending           6/2000
                                     final clearances.
Scheduling/Advance Assistant......  Appointment pending           5/2000
                                     final clearances.
Director of Public Affairs........  Appointment pending           5/2000
                                     final clearances.
Special Assistant (to the Assoc.    Interviewing........          6/2000
 Dir. For Media Relation/Public
 Affairs).
Special Counsel...................  Interviewing........          8/2000
Assistant Secretary for Aviation    Nomination pending            7/2000
 and International Affairs.          clearances in White
                                     House.
Special Assistant (to the A/S for   Appointment pending           5/2000
 Aviation & International Affairs).  final clearances.

  FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Deputy Administrator..............  Nomination pending            6/2000
                                     Senate confirmation.
Associate Administrator for         Interviewing........          7/2000
 Airports.

  FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Director of Policy................  Interviewing........          7/2000
Director of Public Affairs........  Interviewing........          6/2000

  NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
          ADMINISTRATION

Administrator.....................  Nomination pending            7/2000
                                     clearances in White
                                     House.
Director, Office of Public and      Interviewing........          8/2000
 Consumer Affairs.

  FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Deputy Administrator..............  Appointment pending           5/2000
                                     final clearances.

  FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Administrator.....................  Nomination pending            6/2000
                                     Senate Confirmation.

   RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS
          ADMINISTRATION

Deputy Administrator..............  Interviewing........          6/2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    PRESIDENTIAL, SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE NONCAREER, AND SCHEDULE C
                     APPOINTEES AS OF APRIL 15, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Title                        Grade           Salary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Presidential Appointees:
    Secretary..........................            EX-I         $157,000
    Deputy Secretary...................           EX-II          141,300
    Associate Deputy Secretary.........            EX-V          114,500
                                        ================================
Noncareer SES:
    Chief of Staff.....................            ES-4          130,200
    Deputy Chief of Staff..............            ES-1          115,811
    White House Liaison................            ES-1          115,811
                                        ================================
Schedule C:
    Special Assistant to the Secretary.           GS-15          107,207
    Special Assistant to the Secretary.           GS-15           90,280
    Special Assistant to the Secretary.           GS-15           87,459
    Director for Scheduling and Advance           GS-14           71,954
    Special Assistant for Scheduling              GS-13           62,920
     and Advance.......................
    Special Assistant for Scheduling              GS-13           60,890
     and Advance.......................
    Scheduling/Advance Assistant.......           GS-11           45,572
    Director of Drug Enforcement and              GS-15          110,028
     Program Compliance................
    Senior Policy Advisor to the Deputy           GS-15           90,280
     Secretary.........................
    Special Assistant to the Associate            GS-15           87,459
     Deputy Secretary..................
                                        ================================
         EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

Noncareer: SES Director, Executive                 ES-1          115,811
 Secretariat...........................
Schedule C: Deputy Director, Executive            GS-14           79,148
 Secretariat...........................
                                        ================================
         OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Noncareer SES: Director, Office of                 ES-4          130,200
 Civil Rights..........................
                                        ================================
   OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED
          BUSINESS UTILIZATION

Noncareer SES: Director, Office of                 ES-2          121,264
 Small and Disadvantaged Business
 Utilization...........................
                                        ================================
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Noncareer SES: Chief Information                   ES-4          130,200
 Officer...............................
                                        ================================
        OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Noncareer SES: Deputy Director of                  ES-1          115,811
 Public Affairs........................
                                        ================================
Schedule C:
    Special Assistant to the Director..           GS-12           51,204
    Associate Director for Media                  GS-15           87,459
     Relations and Special Projects....
    Associate Director for                        GS-15          110,028
     Speechwriting & Research..........
                                        ================================
    ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET &
                PROGRAMS

Presidential Appointees: Assistant                EX-IV          130,200
 Secretary for Budget and Programs and
 Chief Financial Officer...............
                                        ================================
Noncareer SES: Deputy Assistant                    ES-1          115,811
 Secretary for Budget and Programs.....
                                        ================================
Schedule C:
    Special Assistant and Chief,                  GS-15          110,028
     Administrative Operations Staff...
    Special Assistant..................           GS-14           71,954
                                        ================================
  ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL
                AFFAIRS

Presidential Appointees: Assistant                EX-IV          122,400
 Secretary for Governmental Affairs....
                                        ================================
Noncareer SES:
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for                 ES-2          121,264
     Governmental Affairs..............
    Director, Office of Congressional              ES-1          115,811
     Affairs...........................
                                        ================================
Schedule C:
    Deputy Director, Office of                    GS-15          110,028
     Congressional Affairs.............
    Special Assistant..................           GS-14           74,352
    Senior Congressional Liaison                  GS-15          110,028
     Officer...........................
    Senior Congressional Liaison                  GS-14           74,352
     Officer...........................
    Director, Office of                           GS-15           98,744
     Intergovernmental Affairs.........
    Associate Director, Office of                 GS-14           88,741
     Intergovernmental Affairs.........
    Intergovernmental Liaison Officer..           GS-12           51,204
                                        ================================
            GENERAL COUNSEL

Presidential Appointees: General                  EX-IV          122,400
 Counsel...............................
                                        ================================
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

Schedule C: Special Assistant to the              GS-15          111,713
 Deputy Secretary......................
                                        ================================
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION
                 POLICY

Presidential Appointees: Assistant                EX-IV          122,400
 Secretary for Transportation Policy...
                                        ================================
Noncareer SES:
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for                 ES-3          126,825
     Transportation Policy.............
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for                 ES-3          126,825
     Transportation Technology Policy..
                                        ================================
Schedule C:
    Policy Advisor.....................           GS-15          110,028
    Special Assistant (to the Deputy              GS-12           51,204
     Asst. Secretary for Transportation
     Policy)...........................
    Special Assistant (to the Asst.               GS-15           95,923
     Secretary for Transportation
     Policy)...........................
                                        ================================
  ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AVIATION AND
         INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Noncareer SES: Deputy Assistant                    ES-4          130,200
 Secretary for Aviation & International
 Affairs...............................
                                        ================================
      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Presidential Appointees: Inspector                EX-IV          130,200
 General...............................
                                        ================================
    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Presidential Appointees: Administrator.           EX-II          141,300
                                        ================================
Noncareer SES:
    Chief Counsel......................            ES-4          130,200
    Assistant Administrator for Policy,            ES-3          126,825
     Planning and International Af-
     fairs.............................
    Assistant Administrator for Public             ES-3          126,825
     Affairs...........................
    Assistant Administrator for                    ES-4          130,200
     Government and Industry Affairs...
                                        ================================
Schedule C: Deputy Assistant                      GS-15          110,028
 Administrator for Government and
 Industry Affairs......................
                                        ================================
     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Presidential Appointees: Administrator.           EX-II          141,300
                                        ================================
Noncareer SES:
    Associate Administrator for Policy.            ES-4          130,200
    Chief Counsel......................            ES-4          130,200
                                        ================================
Schedule C:
    Special Assistant..................           GS-14           76,750
    Special Assistant to the Director             GS-15           90,280
     of External Communications........
    Staff Assistant....................           GS-13           62,920
    Special Assistant..................           GS-14           76,750
                                        ================================
    NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
             ADMINISTRATION

Noncareer SES:
    Deputy Administrator...............            ES-1          115,811
    Chief Counsel......................            ES-3          126,825
                                        ================================
Schedule C:
    Director of Intergovernmental and             GS-15           93,101
     Congressional Affairs.............
    Special Assistant..................           GS-13           64,949
    Chief, Consumer Information                   GS-15           95,923
     Division..........................
    Special Assistant..................           GS-15           93,101
                                        ================================
    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Presidential Appointees: Administrator.          EX-III          130,200
                                        ================================
Noncareer SES: Associate Administrator             ES-4          130,200
 for Policy and Program Development....
                                        ================================
Schedule C:
    Director, Office of Public Affairs.           GS-15           98,744
    Senior Advisor to the Administrator           GS-15           95,923
                                        ================================
     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Noncareer SES:
    Deputy Administrator...............            ES-4          130,200
    Chief Counsel......................            ES-4          130,200
    Associate Administrator for Budget             ES-3          126,825
     and Policy........................
                                        ================================
   SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT
              CORPORATION

Presidential Appointees: Administrator.           EX-IV          122,400
                                        ================================
     RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS
             ADMINISTRATION

Presidential Appointees: Administrator.          EX-III          130,200
                                        ================================
Noncareer SES: Director of Program and             ES-1          115,811
 Policy Support........................
Schedule C:
    Senior Advisor.....................           GS-15           84,638
    Senior Advisor.....................           GS-15           90,280
                                        ================================
  BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

Presidential Appointees: Director......            EX-V          114,500
                                        ================================
      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Presidential Appointees:
    Chairman...........................          EX-III          130,200
    Board Member.......................           EX-IV          122,400
    Board Member.......................           EX-IV          122,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             NUMBER OF POLITICAL APPOINTEES 5 YEAR COMPARISON CHART
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       4/15/00   9/30/99   9/30/98   9/30/97   9/30/96   9/30/95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OST.................................................        48        44        42        39        41        44
OIG.................................................         1         1         1         1  ........         1
USCG................................................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
TASC................................................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........       N/A
FAA.................................................         6         6         7         7        10        10
FHWA................................................         7         9         6         3         8        10
FMCSA...............................................  ........       N/A       N/A       N/A       N/A       N/A
NHTSA...............................................         6         7         8         5         4         5
FRA.................................................         4         4         4         4         5         4
FTA.................................................         3         4         4         5         4         6
SLSDC...............................................         1         1  ........  ........         1  ........
RSPA................................................         4         4         4         3         4         4
BTS.................................................         1         1  ........         1  ........         2
STB.................................................         3         3         3         3         6       N/A
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL.........................................        84        84        79        71        83        86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      EGYPT AIR TRAGEDY AND THE ALASKA AIRLINES FLIGHT 261 TRAGEDY

    Question. Please describe the Office of the Secretary's involvement 
in the response to the Egypt Air tragedy and the Alaska Airlines flight 
261 tragedy? Include in the description the incremental cost to the 
department of that involvement.
    Answer. The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings has 
program responsibility for enforcing airline compliance with the 
Aviation Disaster Family Assistant Act, Foreign Air Carrier Family 
Support Act, and the Department's Passenger Manifest Rule. Accordingly, 
that office made inquiries regarding carrier compliance with those 
requirements immediately upon learning of the respective tragedies and 
its review in one case continues. As of April 15, 2000, that office had 
devoted approximately 20 hours of GS-15 attorney time and 2 hours of 
SES attorney time toward its compliance efforts in those cases, which 
equates to an incremental cost of $1,179.

                           CONSULTING SERVICE

    Question. On page 8 of the justification, please provide details on 
the consulting service for the General Counsel's Office.
    Answer. To carry out Departmental responsibilities under the 
Accessibility for All America initiative, consultants will be needed to 
B (1) supplement in house staff in conducting complex investigations 
concerning alleged Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) violations in a manner 
similar to that used by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of 
Justice in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) cases; (2) act as 
expert witnesses, not available inside the government, to testify in 
enforcement proceedings; and (3) develop and operate a clearinghouse to 
facilitate consumer outreach activities. It should be noted that under 
section 707 of the recently-enacted Wendel H. Ford Aviation Investment 
and Reform Act for the 21st Century the Department is required, among 
other things, to investigate each disability-related complaint it 
receives against any airline and conduct outreach efforts, including 
the dissemination of appropriate technical assistance manuals, to 
provide guidance to airlines and disabled passengers in understanding 
their respective rights and responsibilities under the ACAA.

                  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TRAVEL COSTS

    Question. Please provide details on the Office of the Secretary 
travel costs that are anticipated to be paid by the modes.
    Answer. No travel in the Office of the Secretary is anticipated to 
be paid by other modes.

                           S&E TASC EXPENSES

    Question. Please provide the details on $7.355 million OST 
contribution to TASC.
    Answer. The estimate under the Salaries and Expenses appropriation 
is composed of: $927,000 for OST operational share of the Docket 
System; $570,000 for the cost of various activities coordinated through 
the Chief Information Office (CIO) and $5,858,000 requested under the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration for the balance of OST's 
administrative expenses which are assessed to OST as a portion of the 
TASC bill. The composition of the administrative expenses that paid for 
under the Assistant Secretary for Administration includes: worklife 
wellness, facilities service center, information services, space 
management, security operations, information systems management 
consulting, telecommunication services, acquisition services, and human 
resource services.

                           S&E CONTRACT COSTS

    Question. Please provide details on other anticipated contract cost 
in the Office of the Secretary.
    Answer. The majority of the offices that are funded within the 
Salaries and Expenses Appropriation have costs which are coded to the 
``Other Services'' object class. This object class captures many types 
of charges that are for everyday kinds of purchases such as 
subscriptions and training. The majority of the $10,002,000 though is 
associated with contracts and reimbursable agreements. These items are 
described throughout the OST narrative justifications. The requested 
contracts include everything from funding Departmental IT Architecture 
in the CIO's office ($1,100,000) to reimbursing FTA for OST's 
accounting services ($950,000).

                STAFFING IN THE OFFICE OF INTERMODALISM

    Question. Please provide details on total current on-board 
personnel and costs related to the Office of Intermodalism.
    Answer. Listed below are the total on-board personnel and fiscal 
year 2000 salaries related to the Office of Intermodalism:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Title                        Grade       Salary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Deputy Secretary and Director,            ES-5        $114,500
 Office of Intermodalism......................
Deputy Director...............................      ES-3         126,825
Program Analyst Officer.......................     GS-15         110,028
Senior Transportation Specialist..............     GS-15          95,923
Special Assistant to Director.................     GS-15          87,459
Transportation Specialist--Planning...........     GS-13          81,546
Transportation Specialist--Freight............     GS-13          71,954
Senior Office Assistant.......................     GS-12          59,758
Scheduling Advance Assistant..................     GS-11          45,572
Secretary.....................................      GS-9          38,840
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total fiscal year 2000 administrative costs associated with 
personnel in the Office of Intermodalism are as follows:

Personnel Costs and Benefits..................................  $935,218
Travel Budget.................................................    51,500
Other Services................................................     5,922
Supplies and Materials........................................     1,750
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total Fiscal Year 2000 Administrative Costs.............   994,390

    In fiscal year 2001, it is requested that this office be funded at 
$1,317,000 under the Federal Highway Administration's Federal-Aid 
Highways account.

                  OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY

    Question. Does every cabinet office have an Office of Intelligence 
and Security? Please describe the corresponding capability in other 
cabinet offices to the degree it exists.
    Answer. Most, but probably not all Cabinet offices have an 
Intelligence Office, but all have a Security Office or Director. Those 
departments with national security responsibilities, and especially 
those whose interests are threatened by terrorist actions, have a 
direct need for current intelligence. Additionally, departments such as 
Transportation, which are directly involved in international 
negotiations, require the continuous, time-sensitive intelligence 
reporting provided by the Office of Intelligence and Security (OIS)
    Question. How are travel advisories transmitted to the public: 
which agencies develop the advisory and which transmit the travel 
advisories?
    Answer. The Department of Transportation maintains a telephone 
travel advisory line [800-221-0673] to provide notice of threats to 
transportation systems and the traveling public worldwide. The Office 
of Intelligence and Security also issues a Transportation Security 
Information Report (TSIR), as needed, on a variety of issues relating 
to transportation, but these reports are not specifically travel 
advisories. The TSIR is developed by OIS and transmitted by email to 
the department's operating administrations through the Security Working 
Group (SWG). The SWG in turn sends the TSIR to their field elements and 
modal security officials by email or fax.
    Question. The budget justification describes the Office of 
Intelligence and Security as the Secretary's primary representative to 
the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Please discuss the 
relationship between the substantial and corresponding capabilities in 
the Federal Aviation Administration and the Coast Guard to the 
intelligence and law enforcement communities.
    Answer. The FAA and USCG each have routine and on-going liaison and 
exchange with the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Those 
relationships focus on the individual aviation and maritime security 
requirements of those agencies, but do not address the broad range of 
all the other modes of transportation. The Aviation Security 
Improvement Act of 1990 (ASIA >90) specifically identified the need to 
raise the level of attention that these transportation security matters 
received to the Office of the Secretary.
    Question. Please describe the current reimbursable or detailee 
support of the Office of Intelligence and Security.
    Answer. Current reimbursable support include one representative 
from the Central Intelligence Agency and five Coast Guard detailees.
    Question. Please detail the level of travel by the Office of 
Intelligence and Security that is paid for by appropriations to the 
Coast Guard or the Federal Aviation Administration.
    Answer. There is no travel by the Office of Intelligence and 
Security that is paid for by appropriations to the Coast Guard or the 
Federal Aviation Administration.
    Question. Does the FAA and the Coast Guard also support compliance 
efforts with ASIA 90, or is that solely the responsibility of the 
Office of Intelligence and Security?
    Answer. The implementation of ASIA >90 is a joint effort between 
FAA and OIS. The USCG has no compliance requirements related to ASIA 
>90.
    Question. Does the FAA and the Coast Guard also support industry 
directed efforts to address specific information-related protection 
issues?
    Answer. Other than for regulatory purposes, neither the FAA nor the 
Coast Guard support industry directed efforts to address specific 
information-related protection issues.
    Question. Doesn't the FAA and the Coast Guard have similar costs to 
those outlined in the Office of Intelligence and Security justification 
for funding required to update the intelligence division's method of 
access to classified material at CIA?
    Answer. Yes, the FAA is making a similar transition to upgrade 
their classified access and OIS has worked with them and the 
intelligence community to provide a cost effective solution to both 
organizations. USCG already has a more robust capability through their 
military requirements, but is also required to upgrade their systems in 
keeping with a change in the Intelink and CTLink systems.
    Question. Do any other offices or modes have costs related to the 
critical infrastructure protection initiative outlined on page 18 of 
the OST justification? What other modes and offices are involved in 
this initiate?
    Answer. No other offices or modes have costs specifically related 
to the critical infrastructure protection initiative outlined on page 
18 of the OST justification. The $900,000 requested is to continue 
threat and vulnerability assessments of critical transportation 
information systems, develop systems to rapidly disseminate and share 
vulnerability and threat information, and develop and establish an 
information sharing and analysis center (ISAC) in cooperation with the 
Sector Coordinator as mandated by PDD-63. The vulnerability assessments 
will begin with the nation's rail information and communication systems 
and eventually move on to the rest of the nation's critical 
transportation infrastructures. These analyses will build upon those 
physical vulnerability assessments already completed. No other modes 
are conducting comprehensive vulnerability and risk analyses in the 
same effort or manner as OST/OIS. Modal administrations are instead 
focusing on protecting their own mission critical systems, with the 
exception of RSPA as described below. In addition, other modes may be 
conducting awareness training for personnel to enhance security 
awareness internal to their modes; however, none are working with the 
private sector on a Vulnerability Awareness and Education Program as 
directed by PDD-63 for the Transportation Infrastructure as a whole.
    The Research and Special Programs Administration requests $3.4 
million in fiscal year 2001 for a new Transportation Infrastructure 
Assurance R&D. Of this $3.4 million, $1 million will be used for 
Intermodal Terminal Security in support of the Department to develop 
and demonstrate technologies, concepts and procedures for improving the 
security of intermodal freight and the network upon which it travels. 
This includes conducting threat assessments of the transportation's 
physical and information infrastructure at selected ports and 
facilities to develop ``test beds'' as platforms for demonstration of 
security concerns related to intermodal transportation. This effort is 
particular to certain ports and facilities and those threats and 
vulnerabilities associated with them; it does not involve a 
comprehensive vulnerability and risk analyses of the information 
systems of any one critical transportation system as a whole.
    Question. Do any other offices or modes have costs related to the 
chemical/biological agent detection initiative outlined on page 18 of 
the OST justification? What other modes and offices are involved in 
this initiative? Could this initiative be handled centrally by either 
the FAA or the FTA or could the OST participation be funded by 
reimbursable arrangement with either or both the FAA and /or FTA?
    Answer. The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) 
research and development budget contains $2M for detection of chemical 
and biological agents. The RSPA request was developed in conjunction 
with OIS, and does not overlap it. RSPA's request is focused on 
research into advanced detection technologies, while OIS's is focused 
on test and evaluation of detectors already developed for other 
applications. OIS's proposal offers the highest probability of 
identifying readily deployable detectors in the shortest period of 
time. Existing detection technologies, however, typically reflect DOD 
requirements--e.g., open field detection with a relatively high 
tolerance for false alarms. The enclosed nature of transportation 
terminals combined with high probability of disruption (and even 
danger) associated with false alarms in this environment indicate the 
need for substantial testing and, perhaps, some development work to 
optimize promising technologies.
    Question. In the new or expanded initiatives for the CIO, $900,000 
is slated to the CIO involvement in securing IT systems. In addition, 
$900,000 is slated in the Office of Intelligence and Security for 
continuing ``the assessment of critical transportation information 
systems. . .'' If the CIO can do the job for the same amount as it 
takes the office of Intelligence and Security to continue to evaluate, 
would not the effort be better handled by one office or, alternatively, 
by the individual modes specifically maintaining such systems? In 
short, what office has primary responsibility for this effort and what 
is the Department's strategy for addressing the security of critical 
transportation information systems?
    Answer. The CIO's request for $900,000 is strictly for securing 
internal DOT IT systems. The Office Intelligence and Security's request 
for $900,000 is for IT vulnerability assessments of transportation 
systems that DOT does not own but requires to ensure a thorough 
evaluation of the national transportation infrastructure. DOT has 
already completed the physical portion of the assessment. The more 
difficult vulnerability and threat assessments of critical information 
systems remains to be completed, as well as the need to develop systems 
to rapidly disseminate and share threat information with the private 
sector. As directed by PDD-63, The Director, Office of Intelligence and 
Security has been designated by the Secretary of Transportation to 
serve as the Sector Liaison Official.

                          INCREASED BANDWIDTH

    Question. The CIO justification details $15,000 for increased 
bandwidth. What is the out year funding requirement for providing the 
necessary improvements to the existing infrastructure at OST?
    Answer. The cost to increase bandwidth is a one-time cost. 
Therefore, there will be no additional out year funding requirements 
associated with the $15,000 request for increased bandwidth.

                        TRAVEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

    Question. What deficiency and what capability does the new travel 
management system described on page 29 that is not covered by the old 
system?
    Answer. The activity described on page 29 relates to routine 
upgrades and help desk support needed to maintain the existing travel 
management system until it is replaced by a new system. Consequently, 
this does not refer to a particular deficiency in the old system, but 
continued maintenance. Since the contract for the existing system 
expires this fiscal year, DOT plans to conduct a formal solicitation to 
determine whether there are alternative systems available to offer 
streamlined travel management support at a reasonable cost.

       INFLATION UNDER THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

    Question. What are the costs that are inflated on page 30 of the 
justification?
    Answer. The other costs that were increased for inflation under the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration include such items as rent, 
contracts and supplies and materials. Inflation of $179,000 in other 
costs and the $1,000 in travel costs was calculated at 1.4 percent.

                       EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT COSTS

    Question. How were the employee development costs detailed on page 
31 of the justification covered in fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. One of the goals of DOT is to invest at least 2 percent of 
payroll in employee development. The $1.6 million represents the 
additional amount needed for OST to achieve this level of investment. 
In the past employee development was not a separate line item, and in 
fiscal year 2000 funds for employee development were included as a part 
of Other Services, e.g., Acquisition Training, payments to TASC, 
administrative and management services. In fiscal year 2000, employee 
development costs were minimal with only $31,900 specifically 
identified for training.

                           ELECTRONIC POSTING

    Question. How were the electronic posting costs covered detailed on 
page 31 of the justification covered in fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. There were no resources available for this activity in 
fiscal year 2000. Fiscal year 2001 will be the first year for this 
activity.

                         REIMBURSABLE POSITIONS

    Question. What positions are slated for reimbursement on page 30 of 
the justification and what is the justification for using reimbursement 
as opposed to direct appropriation for those positions?
    Answer. The composition of the reimbursable positions included on 
page 30 consist of 11 positions which support the Consolidated 
Personnel Payroll Management Information System (CPMIS), the Integrated 
Personnel and Payroll System (IPPS), and the Management Information 
Reporting System (MIR). These are Departmental systems and the 
operating administrations share in the costs based on population 
serviced. Prior to January 2000, this function was housed in the 
Transportation Administrative Service Center (TASC). The transfer of 
this function from TASC to the Office of the Secretary was necessary 
due to a Congressionally imposed limitation contained in the FAA's 
section of the fiscal year 2000 Department of Transportation 
Appropriations Act that limits FAA's obligations for TASC services. In 
addition to these positions, there are seven other reimbursable 
positions located within the Administrative Law Judges Office which are 
primarily supported by the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal 
Aviation Administration and the Research and Special Programs 
Administration. The Administrative Law Judges Office facilitates 
transportation-related cases for the three operating administrations.

                         WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENTS

    Question. What are the workforce improvement initiatives included 
in the $21,000 request on page 33 of the justification?
    Answer. The workplace improvement initiatives for fiscal year 2001 
will focus on worklife improvements and labor management partnerships. 
Worklife programs continue to be a source of employee satisfaction and 
increased productivity and in order to maintain and enhance our 
program, funding is required to communicate to employees the various 
worklife options available at DOT. Approximately $6,000 is needed for 
development and publication costs of worklife materials including a 
telecommuting guide ``Everything You Need to Know about Telecommuting'' 
and a Leave Administration Handbook. In order to inform employees 
throughout the country of worklife programs, a satellite broadcast is 
planned which will focus on the administration and delivery of 
childcare programs. The projected cost of the broadcast is $6,000. In 
the area of partnership, in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 the 
Department completed Phase I and II of the labor-management climate 
assessments along with a DOT Labor Relations Strategic Plan. The 
resultant action plan will focus on integrating those into a labor-
management partnership handbook as well as providing site-specific 
assistance and training across DOT. Costs associated with these efforts 
will be approximately $9,000.

                          EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT

    Question. Please outline the employee development goals and 
deliverables associated with the request on page 33 of the 
justification. If the framework was developed in 1997, what additional 
work needs to be done in this area? Is this initiative focused 
specifically on OST employees, and if not, what funding is requested 
for the modes implementation of the framework?
    Answer. As the Department prepares for tomorrow's workforce through 
workforce planning, it is essential that we invest in the development 
of new employees who will replace those who retire, and that we prepare 
the remaining workforce to master changing conditions so that they can 
do the jobs of tomorrow as well. This investment in learning will 
include identifying and developing options for using technology to 
enhance learning and skill development, and it will be used to create 
an information resource integrating distance learning into an array of 
training options. Funds will be used to support employees in getting 
the necessary competencies identified during the workforce planning 
process and to apply learning to individual and organizational 
performance.
    The Learning and Development Framework promotes a standard, ONE DOT 
method of addressing learning and development activities and contains a 
comprehensive explanation of DOT policies, standards, and requirements 
associated with result-oriented learning. In order to fully embrace the 
intent of this Framework, DOT must create a culture that places a high 
value on skillful employees, managers and leaders, and we must make the 
necessary investment to do so. Such a culture is not, at present, 
universally established at DOT.

                      CONTRACTUAL RENTAL PAYMENTS

    Question. What are the actual contract or anticipated costs for the 
rental payments detailed on page 35 of the justification?
    Answer. Based on monthly General Services Administration fees 
charged to government agencies to cover costs associated with 
government-leased office space, the anticipated contractor costs for 
rental payments will total approximately $319,000.

                     PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND S&E TRAVEL

    Question. What are the travel costs outlined on page 36 of the 
justification used for? What is the consolidated OST travel request? 
Why is it not advisable to appropriate one lump sum for OST for OST 
travel rather than appropriating individual travel allotments to the 
individual offices in OST?
    Answer. When the Secretary travels, he needs Public Affairs support 
to place Secretarial appearances and to handle logistics. He also needs 
on-site Public Affairs support in arranging briefings for media 
interviews while on travel. Finally, he needs on-site Public Affairs 
support during his travels to serve as a link to the OST Headquarters 
Public Affairs Office and the public affairs offices in the agencies.
    As shown on page S&E 7 of OST's justification, the S&E account 
request for travel totals $636,000. This does not include various 
amounts requested under the TPR&D account, the Office of Civil Rights, 
the Minority Business Outreach or under the Essential Air Service and 
Rural Airport Improvement Fund accounts. The Office of the Secretary 
has not requested individual travel allotments in each OST office. The 
request is for a consolidated appropriation. The budget only displays 
the plans per office as requested by the Subcommittee.

                         OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

    Question. Please discuss why travel is the most efficient means of 
processing investigations by the Office of Civil Rights and the 
selection process by which claims would be identified for in-person 
investigation by the office.
    Answer. Obtaining testimony through face-to-face interviews 
provides the best results and ensures that investigations are legally 
sufficient, technically adequate and completed in a timely manner. Less 
expensive techniques such as telephone interviews and the exchange of 
written interrogatories through the mails significantly reduce the 
quality and timeliness of the investigative process.
    DOCR's six Regional Directors determine which claims are to be 
investigated on-site and which claims are to be processed using ``desk 
investigation'' techniques. Generally, the more simple, single issue-
single basis complaints can be processed using ``desk investigation'' 
techniques, which include telephone interviews, interrogatories through 
the mails, etc. The more complex, multiple issue-multiple bases 
complaints will usually be processed through on-site investigations. 
Also, those claims that present unique, precedent-setting or sensitive 
matters, such as sexual harassment and hostile work environment 
allegations, are best processed through on-site investigations.
    Question. How is the current work load slated to be covered by the 
proposed contract mediators being handled (page CR-7 of the 
justification)?
    Answer. The proposed contract mediators are being handled in the 
same manner as our collateral duty mediators. The Equal Employment 
Specialist who will manage our Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 
Program will determine when mediation is appropriate. The first option 
will be to use our own collateral duty mediators. However, since there 
are currently 1,150 active formal complaints, we do not anticipate that 
our collateral duty mediators will be able to handle all the requests 
for mediation. We would then turn to contract mediators to handle the 
remaining requests for mediation.
    Question. What is the training request for the Office of Civil 
Rights investigators?
    Answer. In November 1999, the EEOC issued new requirements to the 
Federal Sector Discrimination Complaint Processing Regulations, 29 
C.F.R. 1614. The recent regulatory changes affected all aspects of the 
internal EEO complaint process, requiring that DOT's internal policies 
and procedures governing discrimination complaint processing be 
revised. Therefore, receiving training to stay abreast of these new 
requirements is essential for our investigators. In addition, the 
Office of Civil Rights will hold an annual Civil Rights Investigators' 
training conference to remain current on the recent regulatory changes, 
to update technical compliance skills and knowledge, and to review 
internal DOT compliance policies and procedures. The training request 
will also be used for professional development and to attend EEOC 
Technical Assistance Seminars to update the investigators on the latest 
developments and changes to the Federal Sector Discrimination 
Complaints Processing Regulations, 29 C.F.R. 1614, et al.
    Question. What part of the $500,000 for automated tracking systems 
outlined on page CR-7 of the justification is to buy new systems?
    Answer. None of the $500,000 is to buy new systems. The $500,000 
will be used as follows: $350,000 will be used for the enhancement/
expansion of the three current tracking systems, i.e., the internal 
Case Management System (CMS), the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises 
(DBEs) Appeals System, and the external case tracking system (XTRAK); 
$100,000 will be used for a System Administrator to maintain the three 
automated tracking systems; and, $50,000 will be used for the Section 
508 Compliance Project, which requires DOCR to be in compliance with 
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
    Question. What is the pre-complaint stage noted on page CR-7 of the 
justification for CMS? When was CMS procured, installed and 
operational? What capability is the Office of Civil Rights seeking that 
it currently lacks in the request for CMS?
    Answer. Regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission require that the pre-complaint stage (also known as the 
``informal stage'') of the EEO process be satisfied before an aggrieved 
person files a formal complaint. The complainant must contact an EEO 
Counselor in the relevant Operating Administration (OA) and participate 
in the pre-complaint process during which attempts could be made to 
resolve the concerns raised. The CMS was developed, installed, and 
operational during fiscal year 1996. Currently, CMS tracks only the 
formal complaint process, which begins after the pre-complaint/informal 
stage and ends prior to the post-determination (EEOC/legal) stage and 
access to the system are available only by DOCR, which is responsible 
for the formal complaint process. Thus, CMS does not provide a single 
data source for tracking and monitoring the entire EEO complaint 
process. The fiscal year 2001 enhancement to CMS will create a 
comprehensive EEO case management system that will save time, cut 
costs, and improve the efficiency of the EEO process by expanding the 
scope to incorporate both the pre-complaint stage (including 
Alternative Dispute Resolution) and post-determination (EEOC/legal) 
stages and allowing data input, access, and report generation by the 
Operating Administrations civil rights and legal offices.
    Question. How is system administration currently being handled for 
the three automated tracking systems for the Office of Civil Rights?
    Answer. Currently, limited system administration functions are 
handled by a limited staff resource. The Office of Civil Rights does 
not have the staff resources necessary for a system administrator to 
provide dedicated support for technical assistance, to correct 
problems, and to generate reports.
    Question. Has the Department explored funding a DOT civil rights 
web site by reimbursable agreement with the modes or having the largest 
civil rights case generator in the Department provide an umbrella web 
site for the Department?
    Answer. Yes, we have explored this concept with the modes. The 
Office of Civil Rights is anticipating that once this basic web-site is 
operating that the modes will then contribute to sophisticated 
improvements to the web-site, which would greatly enhance 
communications among the civil rights offices.
    Question. Why is the request for final agency decision writing flat 
while every other request for the office anticipates a growing 
workload? Does the Department anticipate that a low percentage of final 
decisions will be forthcoming from the anticipated higher caseload?
    Answer. On November 9, 1999, the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC) revised the Federal Sector Discrimination Complaint 
Processing Regulations, 29 C.F.R. 1614. One key change made to the 
regulations delegated to EEOC Administrative Judges the authority to 
issue final decisions following an administrative hearing. Prior to 
this change, Administrative Judges could only issue recommended 
decisions to agencies, who would then issue final agency decisions 
adopting, amending or rejecting the recommended decisions. Considering 
this change, we anticipated that a greater number of complainants would 
opt to have their cases heard and decided by an EEOC Administrative 
Judge rather than request that the agency issue a final agency 
decision. Thus, we projected that there would be fewer final agency 
decisions written by the agency.
    Question. What was the aggregate Office of Civil Rights travel 
request for fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000? 
What is the aggregate Office of Civil Rights travel request for fiscal 
year 2001?
    Answer. The Office of Civil Rights travel request was $141,000 in 
fiscal year 1998, $186,000 in fiscal year 1999, $195,000 in fiscal year 
2000 and $278,000 in fiscal year 2001.
    Question. What obsolete equipment is slated for replacement on page 
CR-9?
    Answer. The Office of Civil Rights plans to spend approximately 
$50,000 on replacing obsolete and unserviceable office equipment. 
Several regional offices will be replacing copier machines and computer 
equipment that they have had since 1995. Investigators will need 
replacement laptop computers for their off-site interviews. 
Headquarters anticipates the need for replacement equipment as well.

                       MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

    Question. What are the requested FTE and travel funds anticipated 
for the office of Minority Business Outreach?
    Answer. The Minority Business Outreach (MBO) line of business 
within the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
(OSDBU) requested $3 million dollars for fiscal year 2001 for 
contractual support to assist small, women-owned, Native American and 
other disadvantaged business firms in securing contracts and 
subcontracts resulting from transportation-related Federal support. It 
also supports partnerships under cooperative agreements with minority 
educational institutions (comprised of historically black, Hispanic and 
Native American colleges and universities), trade associations, and 
chambers of commerce.
    No FTE's are requested for this activity. $75,000 in travel funds 
are requested in fiscal year 2001 the same level as fiscal year 2000. 
The requested travel funds are for staff to monitor and manage the 
Office's three main lines of business: Advocacy, Outreach and Financial 
Services and to participate in various small and disadvantaged business 
enterprise (S/DBE) conferences and seminars. The funding also provides 
funds for transportation for the Minority Business Resource Center 
(MBRC) Advisory Committee meetings which are held annually.

               DEPARTMENT WIDE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TRAVEL

    Question. What funds are requested for advisory committee travel 
department wide? Please break out this cost by individual advisory 
committee?
    Answer. The estimated fiscal year 2001 cost for advisory committee 
members' travel, is as follows:

Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics.................    $4,000
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee........................     4,500
Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Advisory Committee...........    43,000
ITS-America...................................................    30,000
Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee..................    25,000
Minority Business Resource Center Advisory Committee..........     4,800
National Boating Safety Advisory Council......................    35,000
Navigation Safety Advisory Council............................    28,000
Adv. Board to the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp........    11,500
Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Committee..........     9,500
Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee.................    11,000
Marine Transportation.........................................   200,000
Great Lakes Pilotage..........................................    15,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   421,300

Note: This travel estimate is included under DOT's total planned 
advisory committee request of $1,133,100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    TPR&D OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

    Question. Doesn't requesting the ``other administrative costs'' 
detailed on page TPR&D to be funded through TASC shift that costs to 
the modal administrations and OST indirectly rather than reflecting 
those costs as part of the TPR&D budget? If this mechanism is 
appropriate for ``other administrative costs,'' isn't it equally 
appropriate for the entire cost of TPR&D?
    Answer. No shifting of TASC costs to the modal administrations or 
OST indirect payments were reflected in the request. Administrative 
costs within the TPR&D budget are divided into three categories as 
shown on page TPR&D-6. They are Personnel Compensation & Benefits, TASC 
Payments, and Other Administrative Costs. The ``other administrative 
costs'' as detailed on page TPR&D-19 have nothing to do with the TASC 
provided services of printing, graphics, facilities management, etc., 
but rather are other direct costs of travel, supplies, subscriptions, 
and equipment used in direct support of TPR&D funded personnel, studies 
and projects.

                    RURAL TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVE

    Question. Please provide copies of any white papers or other 
products developed by the Policy Office resulting from the leadership 
described on pages TPR&D-10 and 11 of the justification relating to the 
Rural Transportation Initiative.
    Answer. Attached are copies of the Secretary of Transportation's 
Serving Rural America Rural Transportation Initiative dated May 1999, 
the U.S. Department of Transportation Serving Rural America Rural 
Program Guide, and Rural Transportation, An Annotated Bibliography, 
February 1999, prepared jointly by USDA and the Department.
    [Clerk's Note.--The above mentioned materials can be found in the 
subcommittee files.]

                 MODERNIZATION OF AVIATION DATA SYSTEMS

    Question. Why is the modernization of aviation data systems 
requested in OST (page TPR&D B 17) as opposed to being the 
responsibility of BTS?
    Answer. OST is the most intensive analytical user of aviation data 
within the Department. As such, OST depends heavily upon aviation data 
to administer all of its aviation responsibilities. Some of the current 
data systems date back to the pre-deregulation era and do not 
adequately reflect the present environment within the U.S. and 
international aviation industries. Because of their intensive use of 
the data and their constant awareness of aviation issues, OST users are 
in the best position to determine what new data or data changes are 
needed to provide them with the critical information necessary to 
administer the Department's aviation programs. At the same time, OST is 
working closely with BTS, the Administrator of the aviation databases, 
to ensure that the transition to the new aviation data environment will 
be effective and efficient.

                        DOCKET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

    Question. Why is the full text search capability being requested as 
an appropriation as opposed to being incorporated as a cost to be 
allocated to the users of the system? Wouldn't the primary 
beneficiaries of such a capability be the legal representatives of the 
industry seeking to support or oppose various proceedings related to 
the filings?
    Answer. The Department of Transportation requests full-text search 
capability for the DMS as an appropriation because it does not have the 
statutory authority to levy user fees for system usage.
    In addition, the beneficiaries are much more than just the legal 
representatives of industry. DMS experienced over 1.6 million on-line 
hits in fiscal year 1999. Those using the DMS include large 
manufacturers; transportation providers; state and local governments; 
labor organizations; community planners; and safety, environmental and 
other public interest groups. It is also important to note that people 
who could make effective use of this service include DOT employees, 
other Federal agency employees, and Congressional staff. DMS provides 
these customers with easy and convenient opportunities to fully 
participate in DOT rulemaking and adjudicatory processes. Better 
participation means that more effective public policy decisions are 
made.

                          OVERFLIGHT USER FEES

    Question. How much revenue has been collected from overflight user 
fees to date in fiscal year 2000? Has the Department re-estimated the 
anticipated revenues from these fees for fiscal year 2000 or 01 due to 
this experience?
    Answer. The Department has not collected any user fees to date. The 
Department has not re-estimated the anticipated revenues at this time. 
The FAA still anticipates collecting $5 million in fiscal year 2000 and 
$22.1 million in fiscal year 2001 as shown in the budget request.

                ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE EMPLOYEE EXPENSES

    Question. Please provide a salary and administrative cost history 
for the EAS program for the past five fiscal years.
    Answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal years--
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                   1997    1998    1999    2000    2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel Compensation..........  ......     710     767     800     840
Benefits........................  ......     140     112     117     125
Travel..........................  ......      10      15       6      15
Other services..................  ......       5      67     140     220
Supplies and materials..........  ......      10      15       2      10
Equipment.......................  ......      10      17       5      10
                                 ---------------------------------------
      Total.....................  ......     885     993   1,070   1,220
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             COMMUTER RULE

    Question. What has the ``commuter rule's'' impact on EAS service 
provider fleet mix done to the cost of providing EAS service subsidy?
    Answer. It is difficult to isolate with precision the effects of 
the Commuter Safety Rule on subsidy costs as the airline industry is a 
very dynamic one. However our best analysis is that there are basically 
three ways in which the effects come into play. First, the additional 
costs of training, hiring additional personnel such as pilots, 
mechanics, dispatchers, trained weather observers, etc. are 
legitimately passed on to the EAS program in the form of higher unit 
costs with no concomitant increase in revenues. Thus the contracts for 
currently subsidized EAS communities require increased subsidy when 
they come up for renewal.
    Second, The commuter rule and the resulting higher operational 
costs, have forced carriers serving about 10 communities that had 
previously served them on a subsidy-free basis to file notice to 
suspend those subsidy-free services. In those cases we must prohibit 
the carrier from suspending service and compensate it for any losses 
that it can document.
    Finally, the higher level of safety mandated by the ``commuter 
rule'' has forced the rapid retirement of the 19-seat aircraft, mainly 
the Beech 1900, and the Fairchild Metro II and Metro III aircraft. 
Since newer replacement aircraft are much more expensive to acquire and 
operate, this has resulted in fewer carriers participating in the EAS 
program.

                    AIRLINE OPERATIONS AT LOVE FIELD

    Question. On February 1, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit upheld Departmental orders holding that 
operations at Love Field in Dallas, TX, are governed by the Wright and 
Shelby Amendments and not by local agreements. As a result, nonstop 
service in any size aircraft can be operated at Love Field to points in 
Mississippi, Alabama, and Kansas and jets with 56 or fewer seats can be 
operated from Love Field to any destination. Considering the history of 
litigation brought against any party attempting to offer service at 
Love Field:
    I hope that the Department will continue its actions to halt any 
further interference with flights authorized by Federal law. Are you 
proceeding to prevent any additional state court challenges? What is 
the status of the Federal court proceeding?
    Considering the behavior of those dominating this market, are you 
closely monitoring actions that they may take to drive competitors out 
of Love Field? Will you act quickly to address all forms of anti-
competitive behavior directed at these new operations?
    Now that the Court of Appeals has confirmed that jets with 56 seats 
or less can operate from Love Field to any destination, will you take 
the appropriate steps to ensure that new carriers at Love Field can 
operate to all airports within the United States?
    What would you estimate that it has cost the American taxpayer to 
enforce the Federal laws concerning airline service at Love Field?
    Answer. The Department intends to continue its efforts to block 
interference with the Love Field flights authorized by Federal law. At 
the Department's request, the Justice Department filed a Federal 
district court suit against the City of Fort Worth and American 
Airlines to block them from using on-going state court proceedings to 
stop airlines from operating longhaul Love Field flights. The Justice 
Department recently filed motions for summary judgment and a permanent 
injunction against the defendants in this case. In the Federal court 
case, Fort Worth has asked the Supreme Court to review the Fifth 
Circuit decision. The Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Board and 
American are also likely to seek Supreme Court review. The Government 
will vigorously oppose these petitions. American and Fort Worth have 
represented that they will not seek to block the longhaul Love Field 
services authorized by Federal law while the Supreme Court is 
considering the petitions for review.
    The Department will be monitoring American Airlines' competitive 
responses to new service at Love Field. The Department will address any 
anti-competitive behavior directed at new Love Field services. The 
Department is firmly committed to assuring that all airlines have a 
fair opportunity to compete in the marketplace while avoiding any 
unnecessary interference with vigorous competition.
    As noted, the Department has taken steps to ensure that airlines 
can operate the Love Field services authorized by Federal law and will 
take further action if necessary.
    The Department is unable to provide an estimate of the cost of 
enforcing the Federal laws governing Love Field service that would be 
useful. The Department does not record the time spent by employees on 
different projects. Estimating the cost would be difficult because 
several employees in different offices of the Department were involved 
in the enforcement efforts, as were attorneys from two different 
divisions of the Justice Department.

                   ALLEGED ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES

    Question. The Committee is advised that in May of 1999 information 
was submitted to the Department of Transportation by AirTran Airlines 
alleging that anti-competitive practices are being directed against the 
airline at its Atlanta hub and elsewhere. AirTran requested that the 
Department exercise its authority by conducting a review of these 
allegations. Please advise whether that review has been initiated and, 
if so, what the status of that review is currently.
    Answer. To improve our understanding of the issues raised by 
AirTran, we have had discussions with AirTran and Delta 
representatives, and have conducted an extensive informal review of 
Delta's competitive responses to AirTran's operations at Atlanta. As 
part of its ongoing review process, the Department has requested Delta 
provide information in response to questions about specific conduct.

                  DOT'S PERFORMANCE AND BUDGET LINKAGE

    Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to 
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its 
budget request?
    Answer. The Department's performance planning process fully links 
the agency's annual performance goals to its mission, strategic goals, 
and program activities in its budget request. The following 
hierarchical model is used by the Department to link activities to 
outcomes based upon agency mission and strategy: Mission--Strategic 
Goal--Strategic Outcome--Performance Measure--Annual Performance Goal--
Program Activity. The following illustration demonstrates this linkage. 
The Department's basic enabling law, codified at 49 U.S.C. 101(a), 
includes safety as a core Departmental mission; thus transportation 
safety is one of the five overall Departmental strategic goals. Six 
strategic outcomes provide more specific expressions of how this 
strategic goal will be achieved--one of which is ``Reduce the number of 
transportation-related deaths.'' An array of performance measures 
supports this general strategic outcome; and several operating 
administrations within the Department worked to achieve these measures. 
For example, NHTSA, FHWA, FMCSA, FAA, and Coast Guard, worked together 
on an array of programs to encourage safer operator behavior, safer 
vehicle technologies, safer transportation infrastructure, and better 
safety response systems. Achievements for a specific fiscal year are 
established as annual performance goals for these organizations, to 
chart their performance relative to these performance measures. In the 
fiscal year 1999 DOT Performance Report, provided to Congress on March 
31, 2000, an appendix arrayed operating administration program 
activities by strategic goal, displaying how requested budgetary 
resources linked to each. This information, and separate operating 
administration performance plans, became an integral part of the 
justification material in the office of the secretary's and operating 
administrations' budget requests for fiscal year 1999, and in 
subsequent years since.
    Question. Could you describe the process used to link your 
performance goals to your budget activities?
    Answer. At the beginning of the budget formulation process, the 
Secretary meets with top management from all of the operating 
administrations. Funding initiatives proposed by the operating 
administrations are evaluated and prioritized based on their relative 
contribution toward meeting the Department's outcome goals. The highest 
priority initiatives are included in the Department's annual budget 
request to OMB. It should be noted that the Department's performance 
goals are to a large extent outcome goals. As such, one goal is 
supported by many budget activities. For example, our goal to reduce 
highway fatalities and injuries is supported by the programs of the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration, safety funding and highway 
infrastructure improvements by the Federal Highway Administration and 
safety messages delivered by all Departmental leaders.
    Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what 
lessons did you learn?
    Answer. The major difficulty encountered in introducing a 
performance-based budget process was in changing the Department's 
overall thought process in producing budget justifications that explain 
not just what an operating administration plans to do with the 
resources requested, but also describes expected results to be achieved 
according to specific agency performance goals. This budget process has 
been used for the last two years and the quality of the analysis has 
improved significantly in this second year. A key lesson is that it 
takes time and constant attention to make performance budgeting work.

             DOT'S PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND BUDGET LINKAGE

    Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance 
measures to its budget?
    Answer. Yes. Appendix II of the Department's fiscal year 2001 
Performance Plan contains a summary table of estimated obligation 
amounts for each operating administration, and program activities 
within each administration's budget request.
    Question. Does each account have performance measures?
    Answer. Yes. Please refer to the notes at the end of Appendix II to 
DOT's fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan.

            DOT'S PERFORMANCE PLANNING AND BUDGET STRUCTURE

    Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure 
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget 
justification?
    Answer. The account and activity structure in the budget varies by 
operating administration, but generally it is not organized by outcome 
area but rather by grouping similar kinds of activities, or activities 
with a common funding mechanism. Given the relationship between program 
activities and outcomes--multiple programs promote single outcomes and 
single programs promote multiple outcomes--perfect alignment is not 
possible. Improvements in the existing structure will be recommended as 
it becomes apparent that they would be useful.
    Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account 
structure for fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposed, and Congress 
approved, consolidation of two Federal Railroad Administration accounts 
into a new Safety and Operations account. This change better reflected 
the nature and the interrelationships of the existing Office of the 
Administrator and Railroad Safety accounts. This is reflected in DOT's 
fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan, Appendix II.
    Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities 
described under that account structure?
    Answer. No.

                   DOT PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND DATA

    Question. How were performance measures chosen?
    Answer. Performance measures were chosen to provide the information 
needed to determine if DOT programs are achieving the desired strategic 
outcome goals. Data availability was also a consideration. If 
developing a database for a candidate performance measure appeared to 
require excessive cost and time, an alternative measure was selected.
    Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection 
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
    Answer. The cost of data collection and verification was one of the 
factors considered in selecting performance measures. DOT's hope is to 
incrementally improve data so that cost can be minimized over time.
    Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which 
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first 
performance report in March 2000?
    Answer. DOT's performance report/plan uses established data systems 
for most of its performance information. Most of these systems can 
provide preliminary results that are both timely and sufficiently 
accurate for communicating in our GPRA Program Performance Report. The 
number of measures without data is minimal. The Department has data for 
97 percent of its 1999 measures. The remaining 3 percent consisted of 
three performance goals for which data were not available in time for 
the first performance report. The states and the Environmental 
Protection Agency provide the data for these three goals (pavement 
condition, highway congestion and mobile source emissions). In last 
year's ``dry run'' report, the Department had data for only 63 percent 
of its goals. The ``dry run'' taught valuable lessons about where data 
problems existed, allowing the Department to target the areas of most 
concern and ensure their readiness for March 2000.

                       KEY DOT PERFORMANCE GOALS

    Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year 
1999 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use 
to track program results?
    Answer. The answer to this question must be prefaced with the 
observation that all DOT Performance Plan performance goals and 
measures are important, since they broadly represent many additional 
performance goals and measures in each of the eleven departmental 
operating administrations. The following subset of fiscal year 1999 
Performance Plan output or outcome measures are important in tracking 
overall DOT performance toward the five strategic goals:
    Safety.--Transportation-related fatalities (outcome); 
Transportation-related injuries (outcome); and Transportation Incidents 
(outcome).
    Mobility.--Highway Pavement Condition (output); Highway Congestion 
(outcome); Aviation Delay (outcome); Impediments to Port Commerce 
(outcome); Amtrak Ridership (outcome); and Transit Ridership (outcome).
    Economic Growth and Trade.--Flight Route Flexibility (output); and 
International Air Service (outcome).
    Human and Natural Environment.--Mobile Source Emissions (outcome); 
Wetland Protection and Recovery (output); Aircraft Noise Exposure 
(outcome); Maritime Oil Spills (outcome); and Hazardous Material Spills 
(outcome).
    National Security.--Sealift Capacity (outcome); Coast Guard 
Military Readiness (output); and Drug Interdiction (outcome).
    Critical Infrastructure Protection (output--not established as a 
measure until fiscal year 2000, but added due to its enduring 
importance in providing a proper answer to this question).
    Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider 
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how 
well'').
    Answer. As explained in detail in each major subdivision of DOT's 
fiscal year 1999 Performance Report, and as assessed by the General 
Accounting Office (see its report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation, and House Committees on Transportation and 
Infrastructure (GAO/RCED-98-180R), the majority of DOT's performance 
goals are outcome-oriented. Furthermore, each performance goal and 
related performance measure is rationally related to eventual 
achievement of longer-term strategic goals or objectives. See the 
previous question for how each key measure is characterized.
    Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and 
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is 
linked.
    Answer. Please refer to the following table. [Attachment 1]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.013
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.014
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.015
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.016
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.017
    
             DOT OUTCOME MEASURES AND MANAGING FOR RESULTS

    Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts 
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include 
a significant number of outcome measures?
    Answer. The agency makes a decision at the beginning of each fiscal 
year's performance planning process to use outcome measures wherever 
possible. Output measures are used only if a good outcome measure for a 
strategic outcome goal cannot be identified.
    Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the 
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that 
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
    Answer. Yes. The Department of Transportation has made great 
strides over the past several years in ensuring that program managers 
focus on outcomes.
    Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures 
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and 
external customers.
    Answer. The Department has identified customer service management 
as one of its key Corporate Management Strategies in its Performance 
Plan, and is currently developing a customer satisfaction measurement 
program. When it is implemented, it will measure both internal and 
external customer satisfaction. Some of the customer groups that will 
be included in the measurement program include the traveling public, 
transportation workers, grant recipients, and DOT information users.

                       DOT PERFORMANCE BUDGETING

    Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 1999 
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 1999 budget?
    Answer. Program performance was considered throughout the budget 
formulation process for the Department's fiscal year 1999 budget. For 
example, the Department requested $975 million--an 18 percent percent 
increase--for aviation safety programs, including initiatives designed 
to help achieve the Department's goal of reducing aviation fatalities 
by 80 percent by 2007. And the Administration's ambitious goals for 
drug interdiction, based on two years of record level seizures by the 
Coast Guard, were reflected in the increased funding requested for 
Coast Guard's operating expenses. These are programs with demonstrated 
successes, and specific expected levels of performance in fiscal year 
1999.
    Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by 
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact 
the change would have on the level of program performance and the 
achievement of various goals?
    Answer. Yes. For each of the last two years, the Department has 
submitted revisions to its goals based on appropriations action.

                       DOT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

    Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and 
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis, 
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired 
results?
    Answer. In some cases we do and in others we don't. In the 
instances where we rely on data reported by states, it is more 
difficult and costly to receive performance data on a regular basis.
    Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior 
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers too?
    Answer. To the extent that information is available, it is 
available to multiple management levels. The best examples can be found 
in the two largest operating agencies of the Department: FAA and Coast 
Guard. Operating data are garnered and aggregated at intervals 
throughout the fiscal year, and are visible by managers throughout both 
organizations.
    Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various 
performance-related data located throughout your various information 
systems?
    Answer. Unfortunately, no. See Appendix I to DOT's fiscal year 1999 
Performance Report and fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan.

                      DOT BUDGET ACCOUNT STRUCTURE

    Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that 
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to 
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity 
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their 
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to 
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
    Answer. Generally, no. In general, DOT's and operating 
administrations' budgetary accounts and program and financing schedules 
are sufficiently straightforward for properly relating funding to 
performance. To the degree that issues arise, it is generally where one 
activity creates progress toward multiple outcomes. For instance, an 
investment in transportation infrastructure has impacts not only on 
mobility, but also in safety, and economic growth. Another example is 
found in investments in capital equipment for the Coast Guard, where 
ships, aircraft, and command and control investments contribute to many 
different outcomes.
    Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account 
structure were modified?
    Answer. At this point, the Department does not recommend making 
changes in the budget account structure. But, as the Department 
continues to evolve and refine overall long-term strategy and annual 
performance plans, it may become apparent that changing some aspect of 
the Department's budget account structure will allow more efficient 
operations, and greater simplicity and clarity in presenting resource 
requests to Congress, and in reporting performance results from those 
investments.
    Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you 
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and 
to this committee than the present structure?
    Answer. See the previous answer.
    Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for 
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
    Answer. See the previous answer.
      linking performance measurement systems to financial systems
    Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement 
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not 
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various 
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to 
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost 
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
    Answer. The majority of cost accounting expertise at DOT resides 
within the individual modal administrations. For example, FAA is in the 
process of developing a cost accounting system, which will be fully 
implemented by 2002. As a new departmental accounting system is 
installed over the next few years, it will significantly enhance DOT's 
managerial cost accounting capability. The new system will enable DOT's 
modal administrations to apply cost accounting standards to specific 
functions.
    Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by 
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by 
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to 
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred 
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one 
known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is 
calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status 
of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting 
requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
    Answer. DOT is aggressively implementing a new financial management 
system known as ``DELPHI'' which contains Activity Based Costing 
functionality. Current implementation plans are that the last operating 
administration will be converted to DELPHI in June, 2001. During fiscal 
year 2002, the department will able to fully implement this new 
functionality to improve overall departmental financial and performance 
management systems.
    Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee 
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including 
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits, 
and depreciation?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely 
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs 
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these 
activities?
    Answer. Yes. But it is also important to remember that DOT largely 
has outcome, not output, goals. Many variables may affect the 
achievement of these goals. DOT does not in all cases control all the 
variables that influence program outcomes and therefore does not always 
have complete control over the ultimate achievement of the department's 
strategic goals or objectives.
    Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each 
activity and result?
    Answer. DOT will be better able to show the per-unit cost of 
activity inputs. Cost of achieving results is more difficult to pin 
down, since many of DOT's partners and stakeholders have influence 
equal to or greater than the department in achieving strategic goals or 
objectives.
    Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any 
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated 
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead 
costs fully allocated to goals?
    Answer. In most cases, program and modal overhead costs are 
reflected in the dollars associated with specific performance goals. 
For example, $449 million is requested for the maritime search and 
rescue program, to help achieve the Department's goal of saving at 
least 85 percent of all mariners who are in imminent danger. This sum 
includes operating expenses; acquisition, construction and 
improvements; and research and development, as well as an allocated 
portion of the Coast Guard's administrative expenses for staff 
functions such as procurement, personnel, legal, and executive 
leadership of the organization. Overall, about 98 percent of the 
estimated obligations for fiscal year 2001 are considered part of the 
direct program level, and are allocated based on the primary purpose of 
the program. The remaining two percent are indirect costs, including 
primarily Coast Guard retired pay, FAA staff offices for operations, 
and OST salaries and expenses.

               PERFORMANCE PLANNING AND REGULATORY REFORM

    Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform 
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with 
the development of the agency's performance plan.
    Answer. The Department is committed to improving the rulemaking 
process and to minimizing the regulatory burden on the transportation 
community. This commitment is documented in the Corporate Management 
Strategies section of the performance plan and report. In 1999, the 
Department implemented electronic participation in rulemaking and met 
with industry and the general public to identify what could be done to 
improve the rulemaking process. These efforts will continue in fiscal 
year 2000 and 2001.

                 EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON DOT PERFORMANCE

    Question. Does your fiscal year 1999 performance plan--briefly or 
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that 
could influence goal achievement?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare, 
anticipate and plan for such influences?
    Answer. Although DOT cannot control its operating environment, by 
clearly identifying the factors that need to be considered in 
developing and implementing programs, managers are prepared to meet the 
challenges presented. For example, one external factor that is expected 
to have a significant influence on transportation is the growth of the 
elderly population. This is being considered by DOT management in the 
selection of initiatives that focus on ways to make travel for this 
group safer and easier, e.g., easier to read signing, changes in 
passenger boarding and alighting time for aviation, rail and transit 
vehicles.
    Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource 
estimates?
    Answer. External factors can have a significant impact on resource 
estimates. For example, a major environmental catastrophe--such as a 
hurricane, earthquake or oil spill--could significantly impact resource 
requirements.

                  PROGRAMMATIC OVERLAP OR DUPLICATION

    Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the 
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
    Answer. No. The authorization and appropriations structure of the 
department and its operating administrations are such that no 
duplication or overlap exists. However, the Department has closely 
evaluated responsibilities where coordination is necessary. An example 
of this is the recent program evaluation on hazardous materials.
    Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or 
duplication?
    Answer. See previous question.

            MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND PERFORMANCE REPORTING

    Question. Should agencies address management challenges and 
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans, 
and if so, how?
    Answer. Yes. DOT has gone to great lengths to integrate the 
department's and operating administrations' approach to addressing 
management issues in conjunction with achieving strategic objectives. 
In the few areas where results have not met expectations, the 
Department is undertaking reviews of performance strategies and will 
find better ways to achieve stated outcomes.

                         AGENCY DECISIONMAKING

    Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to 
guide decision-making?
    Answer. DOT has a history of using performance measurement in 
managing programs, particularly measures of the safety, condition, and 
performance of the transportation system. GPRA has expanded the use of 
performance measures and has led to two key advances: the integration 
of program performance measures into a single DOT performance plan, and 
a closer linkage of performance measures to the budget process. For 
example, NHTSA has tied individual program performance to intermediate 
outcomes, e.g., increasing seat belt use; and to overall outcomes, 
e.g., reducing fatalities and injuries. These ``top level'' outcomes 
are also integrated into the Department's Performance Plan. Budget 
justifications, in turn, have used performance measures to justify the 
allocation of resources and the specific results that programs seek.
    Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so, in what 
ways?
    Answer. As DOT employees gain more experience in managing for 
results, and in linking resources to outcomes, the thought processes 
underpinning the Results Act will become more a part of daily activity. 
As a result, overall DOT performance is expected to continuously 
improve.
           AGENCY PERFORMANCE AND THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS

    Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration 
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given 
that: to what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature 
to allow for these kinds of uses?
    Answer. The department has devised the best set of performance 
measures based on current knowledge of which departmental activities 
and outputs most strongly influence progress toward achieving strategic 
goals or objectives. These measures can and will be improved upon in 
the ensuing years. DOT's performance data illustrate to senior decision 
makers what things are going well, and where the areas of improvement 
lie; where strategies need re-examination, or where different levels of 
resources need to be applied; and to guide overall resource allocations 
during the annual budget process. Program evaluations are utilized to 
confirm the linkage between activities and effects. Additionally, the 
department will continue to set performance goals sufficiently high so 
that not every one of them will be attained.
    Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making 
estimates for certain activities or lack of data that might affect the 
accuracy of resource estimates?
    Answer. DOT exerts influence over highly complex human and 
technological systems, throughout many levels of government and with 
the private sector. Resource estimates, and performance estimates, will 
always be subject to some level of uncertainty. But, the Department 
expects that some uncertainties will be reduced over time as 
performance, budgeting, management, and financial systems become better 
integrated.

                        WAIVERS OF REQUIREMENTS

    Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory 
administrative requirements?
    Answer. DOT has a waiver policy/process in place that allows DOT 
employees to request waivers to existing, internal administrative 
procedures that officials within the Department have the authority to 
waive. The DOT Waiver Policy was developed in 1998 in response to the 
President's Executive Memorandum of 4/21/98, ``Streamlining the 
Granting of Waivers''. All employee waivers that have been requested 
are listed on the DOT Waiver Website (waiver.dot.gov) by Operating 
Administration (OA) and each OA has a point of contact for waivers. The 
Department now has 74 waivers posted, 56 of those are from the USCG. 
Examples of some of the waivers posted include: eliminating or reducing 
paperwork for payroll/personnel functions; changes in delegated 
approval levels for organizational changes; modifications to 
requirements regarding USCG uniforms; and modifications to procurement 
requirements.
    Question. Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of 
transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific 
accountability commitments?
    Answer. No. We have no such plans at this time.

                         DOT STRATEGIC PLANNING

    Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you 
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan 
issued on September 30, 1997?
    Answer. As provided by the Government Performance and Results Act, 
DOT is in the midst of updating the department's strategic plan 
referred to in the question. A new Strategic Plan will be published 
later this year.

                      FUTURE PERFORMANCE REPORTING

    Question. The Department is to be commended for the concise and 
efficient performance report and performance plan. The document is 
quite useful and the presentation is clear and well organized. In 
future publications of the Performance Report and Performance Plan, 
please provide the immediate three year prior goal targets and actual 
results as well as the current fiscal year target and the prospective 
target for the next fiscal year. Please provide for the record, the 
1997, 1998, and 1999 goals and actual results as well as the target for 
the current fiscal year and the prospective target for fiscal year 2001 
in a table that simply lists the strategic goal, the individual (sub-
goals) under that strategic goal (performance progress reports) and the 
requested information by year.
    Answer. As data on actual results are obtained, the department will 
publish these in annual performance reports. In the meantime, please 
refer to the following table, which is extracted from the DOT fiscal 
year 1999 Performance Report and fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan. 
Note that there were no specific GPRA goals in 1997 and 1998. 
[Attachment II]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.024

                        ATLANTA OLYMPICS FUNDING

    Question. Please provide a comprehensive breakout of all federal 
transportation funding provided to support the 1996 Atlanta Summer 
Olympics. Please indicate from which agency and account the funds were 
appropriated and in which legislation the funding was provided; 
describe the use of each line item appropriation; and characterize the 
eligible uses of the funds provided.
    Answer. The information is included in the table below. 

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.025
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.026
    
                                 ______
                                 

       Questions Submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                      TOWER AND CENTER OPERATIONS

    Question. Please provide a table outlining total operations handled 
by towers and en route center controllers over the past ten years. 
Please also include the numbers of controllers in each category with 
the operations numbers.
    Answer. The following table provides the information requested.

                                     TOTAL OPERATIONS BY TOWERS AND CENTERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Centers                       Towers
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Block
                     Fiscal year                         Aircraft    update     Airport     Instrument     BU
                                                         handled      (BU)     operations   operations  staffing
                                                                    staffing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990.................................................   37,464,206     6,680   63,668,880   46,866,201     7,965
1991.................................................   36,137,766     6,912   61,485,577   45,042,293     8,064
1992.................................................   36,474,871     6,945   61,471,727   45,643,834     8,202
1993.................................................   37,419,173     6,775   60,108,153   45,699,597     8,195
1994.................................................   38,839,795     6,632   60,298,149   46,733,058     8,321
1995.................................................   40,149,335     6,452   57,973,853   47,048,407     8,162
1996.................................................   40,419,365     6,331   54,409,886   46,628,546     8,029
1997.................................................   41,375,392     6,425   53,256,154   48,128,137     8,163
1998.................................................   43,196,004     6,639   52,987,600   49,272,910     8,327
1999.................................................   44,654,427     6,607   55,068,646   51,110,257     8,295
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WENDELL H. FORD AVIATION INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

    Question. Given the FAA reauthorization legislation the President 
just signed, please provide a revised budget request for FAA operations 
constrained to the overall Budget Authority (BA) and Outlay constraints 
of the President's overall BA and Outlays levels for the FAA in the 
aggregate. To the extent that additional funds are desired by the 
administration for FAA operations above the levels permitted by the 
President's budget request (BA and Outlays) less the FAA 
reauthorization bill's protected accounts, please reflect offsets from 
other Transportation accounts. Failure to provide such a revised budget 
request in the immediate aftermath of the President's endorsement of 
the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 
Century (FAIR-21) approach will constitute a tacit approval of making 
up any resource shortfall with corresponding reductions in the FAA 
operations appropriation.
    Answer. The levels of funding provided in FAIR-21 are authorization 
levels. Since no direct spending is provided in FAIR-21, actual 
budgetary resources, including obligation limitations, are provided by 
annual appropriations acts. FAIR-21 did not amend the Congressional 
Budget Act, nor did it create new discretionary spending categories 
such as were created in the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21). In addition, the ``protected accounts'' referred to 
in the question are changes made in both House and Senate floor 
procedures for action on future Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriation Bills. These procedures only apply to the standing rules 
of House and Senate and do not impact the levels requested by the 
President for the FAA, nor do they influence whether or not the 
President would sign or veto an appropriations bill. Due to the reasons 
stated above, there is no plan to amend the President's fiscal year 
2001 budget request for the FAA.

                  AIR TRANSPORTATION OVERSIGHT SYSTEM

    Question. Last June the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a 
report on FAA's new safety inspection program called the Air 
Transportation Oversight System (ATOS). While GAO supported ATOS in 
principle it found several problems with the way it was being 
implemented. These included lack of adequate advance training and 
guidance for inspectors, lack of sufficient travel funds, and the 
incompatibility of the ATOS database with the tracking system FAA has 
spent nearly $100 million developing over the past several years. As a 
result, GAO recommended that ATOS not be extended to other airlines 
until these problems are remedied. What progress has FAA made in 
addressing these problems, and what are your plans for further 
expanding ATOS to cover more airlines?
    Answer. The lack of adequate advance training and guidance for 
inspectors has been addressed. The ATOS Certificate Management Office 
(CMO) has developed and delivered several three-day ATOS 
standardization seminars designed for principal inspectors and data 
evaluation program managers. These seminars have been lauded by 
participants for their content and ability to convey the intent of ATOS 
and the processes the Agency uses to inspect air carriers. In addition, 
the ATOS CMO developed a one-day seminar for the other 500 ATOS 
certificate management team members. As for enhanced guidance, in 
December 1999, the ATOS CMO published guidance for developing 
comprehensive surveillance plans, for planning, conducting, and 
reporting both safety attribute inspections and element performance 
inspections, for ensuring data quality, and for surveillance reporting. 
All of this guidance is available on the ATOS Web site. This new 
guidance greatly enhances the understanding of ATOS implementation.
    The Flight Standards ATOS CMO has been working to secure additional 
funding. The budget plans through fiscal year 2002 have identified 
appropriate levels of funding to accommodate ATOS travel requirements.
    All of the issues will be addressed before the Flight Standards 
Service extends ATOS to other airlines. The ATOS CMO has addressed many 
of the problems incurred in the Phase 1 version of ATOS and an effort 
is underway to complete the development of all eight modules of the 
ATOS model. As a result of these efforts, and dependant upon the ATOS 
funding situation, the tentative plan for ATOS expansion is slated for 
fiscal year 2003.
    Question. In particular, how have you addressed the database 
incompatibility problem, and how will you ensure that such lack of 
internal coordination will not occur again?
    Answer. There is an effort currently underway to link the ATOS data 
with the Safety Performance Analysis System and to accommodate an ATOS 
data query capability. This effort is slated for completion in June 
2000. In addition, the ATOS CMO is establishing processes to ensure it 
is coordinated on and therefore cognizant of all automation issues 
related to ATOS.

                            CONTRACT TOWERS

    Question. We worked last year to fashion a very good Department of 
Transportation (DOT) bill and the President signed it. Now, we 
understand DOT may propose to cut off funding for nearly half the 
contract towers across the country in a couple of months. The contract 
tower program is very important from an aviation safety perspective and 
it is providing significant ATC cost savings. In fact, audits by the 
DOT Inspector General validate the important benefits of the program 
and suggest that it might make sense to expand it. I am baffled DOT is 
even considering a funding reduction and want you to explain why DOT 
may propose action that could adversely affect aviation safety and will 
penalize a program that is solidly justified from a benefit/cost 
standpoint.
    Answer. Withdrawing Federal funding from contract towers without 
commercial services was one of many options being considered in 
response to the agency's budgetary shortfalls. This option is no longer 
under consideration.
    Question. Please provide the number of operations handled at 
contract towers by year over the past ten years. In addition, please 
provide the number of controllers at contract towers by year over the 
same period.
    Answer. The approximate number of operations handled at contract 
towers, by year, over the past ten years are listed below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Federal
                                                              contract
                Fiscal year                   Operations     tower (FCT)
                                                            staffing \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 \2\..................................       1,187,023  ............
1991......................................       1,560,433  ............
1992......................................       1,666,935  ............
1993......................................       1,648,008  ............
1994......................................       1,884,369          195
1995......................................       4,446,574          456
1996......................................       7,499,099          664
1997......................................      10,413,335          837
1998......................................      12,270,742          838
1999......................................      13,0737,42         864
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Staffing numbers for contract towers were not formally kept prior to
  1994, when the program was nationalized.
\2\ Database information is available beginning with January 1990.
  Therefore, fiscal year 1990 only is for January through September
  1990.

                       OVERFLIGHT FEE COLLECTIONS

    Question. How much is anticipated for collection in overflight user 
fees in fiscal year 2000 and in fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2001 President's budget assumes collections 
of $5.1 million in fiscal year 2000 and $22.1 million in fiscal year 
2001.
 funding for development of global positioning system (gps) approaches
    Question. Please provide the breakout of FAA operations funding 
associated with development of GPS approaches?
    Answer. FAA Operations funding for development of GPS approaches is 
$6,044,000. The breakout follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
11xx...............................  PC&B/Overtime/Flight     $3,311,394
                                      Time.
12xx...............................  PC&B/PCS/Flight Time..      693,991
21xx...............................  Travel/PCS............       28,700
22xx...............................  PCS...................        4,500
25xx...............................  Contract Service/         1,720,425
                                      Flight Time.
26xx...............................  Supplies/Flight time..      284,990
                                                            ------------
      Total................................................    6,044,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         AIRPORT SECURITY COSTS

    Question. Please provide a breakout of airport security and related 
costs included in the FAA Operations, Facilities and Equipment (F&E), 
and Airport Improvement Program (AIP) requests.
    Answer. The breakout of airport security and related costs in 
fiscal year 2001 for FAA Operations, F&E, and AIP appropriations are as 
follows:

Operations..............................................    $144,328,000
F&E:
    Activity 5..........................................       2,500,000
    Explosives Detection Technology.....................      97,500,000
    Facility Security Risk Management...................      19,339,000
    Aviation Safety Analysis System.....................       2,109,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      F&E Total.........................................     121,448,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
AIP: Grants in Aid to Airports..........................      16,000,000

                          FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT

    Question. Please breakout the reimbursements/allocations of full-
time permanent employment for the three years listed on page 9 of the 
justification by office.
    Answer. The information is listed below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                          Appropriation                             1999 actual    2000 estimate   2001 estimate
                                                                    employment      employment      employment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations:
    Air Traffic Services:
         Air Traffic............................................          24,087          23,795          23,795
        NAS Logistics \1\.......................................           1,070           1,060             466
        Systems Maintenance.....................................           9,259           9,142           9,344
        ARS.....................................................             166             182             182
        Flight Inspection \1\...................................             610             610             392
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Air Traffic Services........................          35,192          34,789          34,179
                                                                 ===============================================
Aviation Regulation & Certification:
    Flight Standards............................................           4,605           4,557           4,597
    Aircraft Certification......................................           1,009           1,024           1,048
    Accident Investigation......................................              28              30              30
    Rulemaking..................................................              25              26              26
    Planning, Direction & Evaluation............................              34              35              35
    Aviation Medicine...........................................             280             294             294
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, AVR.............................................           5,981           5,966           6,030
                                                                 ===============================================
Civil Aviation Security.........................................           1,136           1,155           1,221
Research & Acquisitions.........................................             573             581             551
Airports........................................................             477  ..............  ..............
Commercial Space Transportation.................................              31              34              69
Administration..................................................           1,289  ..............  ..............
Financial Services..............................................  ..............             128  ..............
Human Resources.................................................  ..............             161  ..............
Region & Center Operations......................................  ..............             994  ..............
Staff Offices...................................................             547             562           1,989
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operations......................................          45,226          44,370          44,039
                                                                 ===============================================
Facilities & Equipment..........................................           2,699           2,762           2,804
Research, Engr. & Devel.........................................             361             411             411
Grants-in-Aids for Airports.....................................  ..............             485             503
Aviation Insurance..............................................               3               3               3
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Direct.............................................          48,289          48,031          47,760
      Total, Reimbursable \1\...................................             363             513           1,345
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, FAA................................................          48,652          48,544          49,105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Employment Levels for NAS Logistics and Flight inspection decrease in fiscal year 2001, and Reimbursable
  levels increase, due to the proposal to transfer aircraft. Maintenance and Logistics Center operations into
  the Franchise Fund.

                 AVIATION RULEMAKING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    Question. FAA has had a history of being slow in issuing rules to 
safeguard aviation safety. Examples include the updating of rules 
governing aviation repair station, and the use of flight data recorder 
information. In 1991, the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) 
was founded to move rules through the rulemaking process more quickly. 
Has ARAC met this goal? Are any steps to better achieve the stated goal 
being considered?
    Answer. The ARAC was chartered to provide advice and 
recommendations to the FAA's rulemaking activity with respect to 
aviation related issues. Because ARAC provides advice and 
recommendation based on consensus from the aviation industry the 
process of rulemaking, in some instances, is expedited. The 
incorporation of the ARAC's recommendations into proposed rulemaking 
often results in fewer comments being received during the notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) comment period. For example the training and 
qualifications issues group of the ARAC forwarded to the FAA a 
recommendation regarding certification requirements for aircraft 
dispatchers. The FAA accepted the recommendations and subsequently 
published an NPRM incorporating ARAC's recommendation. As a result, the 
NPRM received only four comments in support of the NPRM thereby 
expediting the rulemaking process because the FAA did not have to 
expend resources addressing the comments and possibly change the 
proposed rule based on the comments.
    However, the activities of ARAC do not circumvent the normal 
coordination process or public rulemaking procedures. In the 
development of an ARAC recommendation or the development of a proposed 
rule by the FAA, a considerable amount of resources are expended in 
order to ensure that issues are thoroughly analyzed and consensus is 
reached. The ARAC has found that attempts to reach consensus in certain 
areas can be time-consuming, given the diverse interests of the public. 
In fact, some ARAC working groups have been deliberating for several 
years. In those kinds of instances, the FAA has allowed the ARAC to 
forward recommendations without draft rulemaking documents. In 
addition, the FAA has adopted the policy of chartering some ARAC tasks 
to state specifically that consensus recommendations need not include 
draft rulemaking documents. Instead, the ARAC may request a consensus 
technical report.
    The FAA continues to streamline the rulemaking process and has 
gained efficiencies, however, staffing remains an issue. The FAA plans 
to issue approximately 50 priority rulemaking projects, 250 exemptions, 
and process 30 petitions for rulemaking requests this year. The 
Agency's five-year plan contains over 250 rulemaking projects that are 
critical to enhancing aviation safety.

                          COST FREE FACILITIES

    Question. The FAA has recently reversed its decades-old practice of 
paying below-market rates for FAA facilities located on airport 
property, opting to force airport sponsors to furnish space to the 
Agency without cost. What consideration has the Agency given to the 
effect this change will have on the financial situation at airports--
particularly smaller airports--that have grown to rely on this rental 
revenue over the past several decades?
    Answer. There will be no change for many airports since these 
airports did not charge rent to FAA for cost-free facilities. Other 
airports will need to address the revenue change and for the most part, 
the loss of revenue for individual airports is in the thousands of 
dollars, while the impact to the FAA could be much more significant. In 
addition, it is important to note that the cost-free provisions are 
based in statute. The FAA's actions are intended to fairly, equitably, 
and consistently apply these statutory requirements.
    Section 47107(a)(12) of title 49, United States Code, states ``the 
airport owner or operator will provide, without charge to Government, 
property interests of the sponsor in land or water areas or buildings 
that the Secretary decides are desirable for, and that will be used 
for, constructing at Government expense, facilities for carrying out 
activities related to air traffic control or navigation.'' This 
requirement has been in statutes beginning with the Federal Airport Act 
of 1946 and included in each similar legislation including the Airport 
and Airway Development Act of 1970 and the Airport and Airway 
Improvement Act of 1982.
    Up until the early 1980's the FAA received such facilities on a 
cost-free basis except in those instances in which the airport 
constructed a facility on our behalf. Since the statute provides that 
the construction of the facility must be at Government expense, the FAA 
entered into leases to reimburse airports for the capital costs for the 
construction. Since the early 1980's, however, the statutory provision 
has not been applied consistently, but the FAA has continued to receive 
facilities rent free at many airports.
    In addressing this inconsistency in the application of the 
requirement, the FAA recognized that many airports would not be able to 
absorb the loss of revenue readily. FAA took care to minimize the 
immediate financial effect on airports in a manner consistent with our 
responsibilities as a steward of Federal taxpayer dollars. First, FAA 
will be applying its rights to rent-free space only at the expiration 
of existing leases involving the payment of rent for property interests 
that would qualify for rent-free treatment. Since the FAA and the 
airport negotiated these leases in good faith, the FAA will take no 
action to terminate these leases before their expiration. Second, even 
for airports with leases expiring, the FAA delayed implementation of 
the enforcement of the statutory requirements until the beginning of 
fiscal year 2001, to provide airports with adequate time to deal with 
the reduction in their cash flow. Thus, for airports with leases that 
expired in fiscal year 1999, FAA personnel are authorized to negotiate 
one-year extensions, with rental payments as a transitional measure, 
directed to achieving full compliance with statutory requirements.
    Finally, the statutory provision does not give the FAA an unlimited 
right to occupy airport property without compensation. The airport is 
entitled to compensation for utilities and janitorial services provided 
to the FAA. The FAA may also enter into a lease agreement with the 
airport sponsor under which the sponsor performs alterations of space 
and reimbursed by the FAA. The provision only applies to air traffic, 
weather-reporting and air navigation facilities. Other FAA operations 
would pay rent.
    Question. If airports are unable to absorb these costs, they will 
be forced to pass them on to other airport users because AIP grant 
assurance require airports (Airport Advisory Number 24) to have a fee 
and rental structure that make the airport as self-sustaining as 
possible. Has the FAA studied the impact of this change on other 
airport users?
    Answer. The requirement for the provision of cost-free land and 
building space is based on statute. Section 47107(a)(12) of title 49, 
United States Code, states ``the airport owner or operator will 
provide, without charge to Government, property interests of the 
sponsor in land or water areas or buildings that the Secretary decides 
are desirable for, and that will be used for, constructing at 
Government expense, facilities for carrying out activities related to 
air traffic control or navigation.'' The self-sustaining provision is 
contained in the same statute.
    For many airports, there will be no change, as these airports did 
not charge rent to FAA for cost-free facilities. Other airports will 
need to address the revenue change. However, it should be noted that 
since the assurances have been inconsistently applied, many of these 
airports have received Federal funds over the past 10-20 years. Also 
for the most part, the loss of revenue for individual airports is in 
the thousands of dollars, while the impact to the FAA's budget could be 
much more significant.
    Question. If this change is adopted, won't the FAA face the 
perverse incentive to locate the facilities appropriately located off 
airport property--such as Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACONS)--on 
airport property to save money at the expense of airports? Has the FAA 
studied the effect this would have on airport traffic, airport master 
development plans, and airport operations?
    Answer. The statutory provisions in Section 47107(a)(12) of title 
49, United States Code, cover essentially two areas: cost-free land or 
cost-free space in existing buildings. Generally, the FAA has not 
sought space in airport buildings--either on a free or reimbursable 
basis, but only cost-free land. Airports normally provide cost-free 
land for FAA to construct its facilities. Since there has been no 
change in the FAA's access to cost-free land, there would be no 
additional incentive to locate facilities on the airport that could be 
located off airport.
    There should be no effect on airport traffic, airport master 
development plans and airport operations. If FAA needs to locate some 
facilities on the airport, it will be due to operational necessity and 
not to save money. Many facilities such as airport towers, landing 
aids, and weather sensors must be located on airport property.

                        UNIVERSAL ACCESS SYSTEM

    Question. Section 102(b) of the FAA Reauthorization Bill authorized 
$8 million for the voluntary purchase and installation of Universal 
Access Systems (UAS). The legislative history directs the FAA to work 
with organizations representing airports and airline pilots to rapidly 
deploy the continuously--updated data needed on approved flight crew 
members that will allow universal access systems to properly operate. 
It also directs the Agency to partner with industry to develop the 
universal data and standards needed to make such security systems 
quickly available, and utilize digital networks that are designed for 
airport sponsors and therefore maximize the incentives to deploy 
universal security systems on a voluntary basis. Does FAA have an 
official position on the direction suggested on this issue in the FAA 
Reauthorization legislation?
    Answer. The FAA is encouraging voluntary participation in a UAS 
through cooperative agreements between airports and air carriers. Using 
funds previously appropriated, FAA tasked the joint government-industry 
UAS working group of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) to 
develop the standards and protocols for a UAS. A test program using an 
airline central database and two participating airports was successful. 
The UAS working group went on to complete an implementation plan and a 
few airports have linked to the central database. However, opposition 
to wide implementation of UAS was expressed in the working group. The 
ASAC subsequently voted to retire the working group at its meeting on 
May 13, 1999. FAA remains willing to assist airport operators that may 
request AIP funds for the installation of UAS.

                                TRAINING

    Question. What cuts have been made in the training activity at the 
FAA Academy in Oklahoma City? What cuts have been made in other FAA 
training programs? Please provide a table with the anticipated 2000 
budget request training levels for all FAA training activities and the 
resulting training level in that fiscal year, as well as the 
anticipated fiscal year 2001 budget request for training levels for all 
FAA training activities.
    Answer. Some FAA training activities, including air traffic 
training at the Academy, have been cut this year due to the budget 
shortfalls the Agency is facing. The only major cut that has been 
imposed at the Academy is in the Air Traffic training program. 
Additional training funds for the Air Traffic program at the Academy is 
included in the supplemental funding requested by the President. The 
fiscal year 2000 current estimate for training reflects the 
appropriation below the request level. Absent the $77 million 
supplemental request, training is expected to be about $4 million less 
than the request level. The following table displays the amounts 
assumed in fiscal year 2000 request, current fiscal year 2000 estimate, 
and amounts in the 2001 President's budget.

                     FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION TRAINING COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Total training program
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                               LOB                                                Current fiscal
                                                                    Fiscal year      year 2000      Fiscal year
                                                                   2000 request    estimate \1\    2001 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Traffic Services:
    Air Traffic.................................................     $41,638,000     $38,952,000     $48,500,000
    NAS Logistics...............................................         296,842         506,074         516,196
    Systems Maintenance.........................................      43,990,998      38,700,000      53,831,000
    Flight Inspection...........................................       3,400,000       3,941,423       4,000,544
    ARS.........................................................  ..............          70,755          85,728
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, ATS................................................      89,325,840      82,170,252     106,933,468
                                                                 ===============================================
Aviation Regulation & Certification:
    Flight standards............................................      44,492,000      44,492,000      56,709,000
    Certification...............................................       6,200,000       6,200,000       7,496,000
    Accident Investigation......................................         574,000         837,000         872,000
    Rulemaking..................................................          80,000          80,000         100,000
    PD&E........................................................          76,000          65,000          65,000
    Medical.....................................................         240,000         291,000         296,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, AVR................................................      51,662,000      51,965,000      65,538,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Civil Aviation Security.........................................       4,200,000       3,878,700       4,968,700
Research and Acquisitions.......................................       1,711,070       1,406,000       1,427,090
Airports........................................................         892,000  ..............  ..............
Commercial Space Transportation.................................          21,000          25,100          37,300
Region/Center Operations........................................  ..............       2,069,448       2,100,490
Human Resource Management.......................................      11,000,000      12,470,000      13,700,000
Financial Services..............................................  ..............         136,000         950,000
Staff Offices:
    AOA.........................................................  ..............           8,000          10,000
    ACR.........................................................  ..............          22,760          25,036
    APA.........................................................  ..............          15,000          15,000
    AGI.........................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
    API.........................................................  ..............          41,500          61,000
    AGC.........................................................           6,000             500             500
    ASY.........................................................  ..............           9,000          15,000
    AIO.........................................................  ..............         502,500         509,535
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................           6,000         599,260         636,071
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Operations.........................................     158,817,910     154,719,760    196,291,119
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes Administration's $77 million supplement request.

                            CONTRACT TOWERS

    Question. Last year, before the House Appropriations Subcommittee, 
Administrator Garvey and Acting Administrator Belger testified that the 
fiscal year 2000 budget request envisioned $20 million in savings. Has 
the FAA achieved those $20 million in savings as outlined in the House 
testimony last year? The FAA also noted that the contract tower program 
avoids some ``$30 million a year in costs that we would otherwise incur 
if we were operating those facilities.'' What is the status of the 
report to the Committee relating to the contact tower program that the 
FAA has been delinquent on for so long. Please indicate which offices 
that need to sign off on that report have failed to clear the report.
    Answer. Providing air traffic control service at low activity 
towers via contract support has generated savings of approximately 
$250,000 per tower or $30 million per year. The fiscal year 2000 and 
the fiscal year 2001 budgets utilize these savings to meet increased 
air traffic staffing requirements in other areas. The report to the 
Committee is in internal coordination.

                              COST SAVINGS

    Question. Last year, the FAA Administrator testified in the same 
hearing, ``I think it is absolutely critical and important (to contain 
costs). We are putting every measure that we can in place to contain 
costs--we always have to be looking at ways to keep those costs down. 
As Ken Mead and others have said, it is particularly challenging when 
you have a budget that is made up primarily of personnel costs. We have 
to recognize that as we look at some of the efficiencies. I put a lot 
of hope on the kind of efficiencies we have talked about in our 
contract negotiations and our agreed-upon contract with National Air 
Traffic Controller Association (NATCA). Asking people to take on more 
responsibilities as well as some of the other efficiencies that we have 
talked about are very important.'' To date, the subcommittee is unaware 
of any significant cost savings that have emerged at the FAA due to 
increased efficiencies. Please provide a list and quantify them for the 
Subcommittee. In addition, the Subcommittee views the cost control 
measures that the FAA has taken to be on the order of one time annual 
savings--cutting training, travel, slowing hiring or replacement 
personnel. What savings has the FAA instituted that have significant 
efficiencies in the out years? Please provide a list and quantify the 
out years savings.
    Answer. During fiscal year 2000, the FAA has taken several actions 
to operate within the reduced funding levels provided for the 
Operations appropriation. First, a hiring freeze has been imposed, 
which the Agency estimates will result in staffing levels about 800 
below the fiscal year 1999 levels and over 2,300 below the levels 
estimated in the fiscal year 2000 President's budget. There are some 
delays in hiring taking place, particularly in Airway Facilities and 
Aviation Regulation and Certification, but the savings associated with 
the delays, which are one-time, are over and above the savings 
mentioned above.
    In addition to the staffing reductions, the agency has made 
reductions to travel, contracts, supplies, and equipment. None of these 
reductions should be considered one-time. There are no funds included 
in the fiscal year 2001 budget to restore these reductions so they will 
carry-over into future years just as cuts in prior years have. The 
reductions will be offset by whatever programmatic increases are 
approved through the appropriation process, but the programmatic 
increases included in the budget are not restorations, they are 
expansions of current initiatives or new requirements.
    As mentioned in the question, most of the Operations appropriation 
goes toward payroll costs. These costs represent about 75 percent of 
total Operations costs. As a result, staffing represents the major 
component of any effort to reduce costs. The Agency has significantly 
reduced staffing since fiscal year 1992. The Agency has also reduced 
our non-payroll costs since fiscal year 1992 after accounting for 
inflation and added costs for such things as contract weather, contract 
towers, contract maintenance, charting, and the Canine program.

                 SAVINGS IN THE OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Amount
                                                  saved in     Out year
                     Item                       fiscal year    savings/
                                                 2000 (from   year (from
                                                 99 levels)  92  levels)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staffing Reductions (includes Contract Tower        145,497      434,336
 and Flight Service Stations).................
Travel and Transportation Reductions..........        5,600       52,100
Rents, Communications, and Utilities..........  ...........       43,773
Supplies......................................        3,600       19,700
Contracts.....................................        3,300   \1\ 55,500
Equipment.....................................       26,600       33,800
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      184,597     639,209
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Represents savings after adjusting contractual cost for the new
  requirements/initiatives that the Agency must now pay for.

                            ONBOARD STAFFING

    Question. Please provide a listing by line of business and by major 
organization within each line of business, comparing the current 
onboard staffing levels to those shown in the fiscal year 1999 column, 
the fiscal year 2000 column, and the fiscal year 2001 of the 
President's budget.
    Answer. The listing is provided below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                                                                         2000 col.    2001 col.
                                                               Feb. 2000   Fiscal year   of fiscal    of fiscal
                        Appropriation                           onboard    1999 actual   year 2001    year 2001
                                                               employment   employment     Pres.        Pres.
                                                                                           budget       budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations:
    Air Traffic Services:
        Air Traffic.........................................       23,888       24,087       23,795       23,795
        NAS Logistics \1\...................................        1,034        1,070        1,060          466
        Systems Maintenance.................................        9,100        9,259        9,142        9,344
        ARS.................................................          166          166          182          182
        Flight Inspection \1\...............................          590          610          610          392
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Air Traffic Services....................       34,778       35,192       34,789       34,179
                                                             ===================================================
    Aviation Regulation & Certification:
        Flight Standards....................................        4,483        4,605        4,557        4,597
        Aircraft Certification..............................          974        1,009        1,024        1,048
        Planning, Direction & Evaluation....................           86           87           91           91
        Aviation Medicine...................................          276          280          294          294
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, AVR.....................................        5,819        5,981        5,966        6,030
                                                             ===================================================
Civil Aviation Security.....................................        1,124        1,136        1,155        1,221
Research & Acquisitions.....................................          524          573          581          551
Airports....................................................          463          477  ...........  ...........
Commercial Space Transportation.............................           32           31           34           69
Administration..............................................  ...........        1,289  ...........  ...........
Region & Center Operations..................................          977  ...........          994  ...........
Human Resource Management...................................          155  ...........          161  ...........
Financial Services..........................................          124  ...........          128  ...........
Staff Offices:
    Office of the Administrator.............................           49           52           57           57
    Civil Rights............................................           16           16           16           37
    Government and Industry Affairs.........................            9           10           11           11
    Public Affairs..........................................           29           33           33           33
    Policy, Planning, and Int'l Av..........................          129          136          137          137
    Chief Counsel...........................................          266          265          273          282
    System Safety...........................................           35           35           35           35
    Human Resources.........................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          161
    Financial Services......................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          167
    Region & Center Operations..............................  ...........  ...........  ...........          994
    Chief Information Officer...............................           45  ...........  ...........           75
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Staff Offices...............................          578          547          562        1,989
                                                             ===================================================
      Total, Operations.....................................       44,574       45,226       44,370      44,039
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2001 staffing for NAS Logistics and Flight Inspection are reduced due to the proposal to include
  aircraft maintenance and Logistics Center operations in the Franchise Fund.

                      END-OF-YEAR STAFFING LEVELS

    Question. Please provide a listing by line of business and by major 
organization within each line of business, comparing the current 
planned end of year fiscal year 2000 staffing levels to those shown in 
the fiscal year 2000 column of the President's budget request, compared 
to the fiscal year 1999 actual levels.
    Answer. This listing is provided below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                    Fiscal year    Current plan    2000 col. of
                          Appropriation                             1999 actual     for fiscal      fiscal year
                                                                    employment       year 2000      2001 Pres.
                                                                                                      budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations:
    Air Traffic Services:
        Air Traffic.............................................          24,087          23,795          23,795
        NAS Logistics...........................................           1,070           1,060           1,060
        Systems Maintenance.....................................           9,259           9,142           9,142
        ARS.....................................................             166             182             182
        Flight Inspection.......................................             610             610             610
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Air Traffic Services............................          35,192          34,789          34,789
                                                                 ===============================================
    Aviation Regulation & Certification:
        Flight Standards........................................           4,605           4,557           4,557
        Aircraft Certification..................................           1,009           1,024           1,024
        Planning, Direction & Evaluation........................              87              91              91
        Aviation Medicine.......................................             280             294             294
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, AVR.........................................           5,981           5,966           5,966
                                                                 ===============================================
Civil Aviation Security.........................................           1,136           1,155           1,155
Research & Acquisitions.........................................             573             581             581
Airports........................................................             477  ..............  ..............
Commercial Space Transportation.................................              31              34              34
Administration \1\..............................................           1,289  ..............  ..............
Region & Center Operations \1\..................................  ..............             994             994
Human Resource Management \1\...................................  ..............             161             161
Financial Services \1\..........................................  ..............             128             128
Staff Offices:
    Office of the Administrator.................................              52              57              57
    Civil Rights................................................              16              16              16
    Government and Industry Affairs.............................              10              11              11
    Public Affairs..............................................              33              33              33
    Policy, Planning, and Int'l Av..............................             136             137             137
    Chief Counsel...............................................             265             273             273
    System Safety...............................................              35              35              35
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Staff Offices...................................             547             562             562
                                                                 ===============================================
      Total, Operations.........................................          45,226          44,370          44,370
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Administration ceased to exist after fiscal year 1999. For fiscal year 2000, the DOT appropriations bill
  made region center operations, human resources, and financial services separate line items.

                                GSA RENT

    Question. How much is included in your fiscal year 2001 request for 
GSA rent, broken out by line of business?
    Answer. The amount of GSA rent identified for fiscal year 2001 is 
$91,798,018. Listed below is the breakout by line of business and staff 
office.

                                                     Distribution of GSA
        Lines of Business and Staff Offices                    Rent Cost

AGC.....................................................      $3,179,871
API.....................................................       1,621,721
AGI.....................................................         149,387
APA.....................................................         369,179
ACR.....................................................         723,373
AHR.....................................................       4,677,464
ABA.....................................................       4,266,202
ASY.....................................................         442,459
AIO.....................................................         451,177
ARC.....................................................       3,312,151
ATS.....................................................      36,621,036
ARA.....................................................       9,392,393
AVR.....................................................      16,587,477
ARP.....................................................       4,110,170
ACS.....................................................       5,591,176
AST.....................................................         302,780
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      91,798,018
                              travel costs
    Question. Please provide any update of the tables on travel costs 
that started on page 454 through 457 of last year's House hearing 
record.
    Answer. The tables on travel costs follow:

TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS AND THINGS OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--
                                        --------------------------------
                                            1999       2000       2001
                                           actual    estimate   estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training travel........................     32,754     26,702     34,838
Job performance travel.................     49,101     58,625     68,337
Other travel...........................      8,436      8,137      7,940
Transportation of things...............     20,658     22,026     19,959
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................    110,949    115,490    131,074
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year
                 Object Class Codes    ---------------------------------
                                              1998             1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     21Continental US Travel--Site       $31,604,494      $28,015,124
        Visit
     21Continental US Travel--             6,218,827        4,722,841
        Information Meeting
     21Continental US Travel--Speech         361,092          257,965
        or Presentation
     21Continental US Travel--             1,475,824        1,116,888
        Conference Attendance
     21Continental US Travel--               435,830          331,550
        Relocation of Employees
     21Continental US Travel--to             361,374          259,988
        Seek Residence Quarters
     21Nonforeign US Travel--To Seek          26,934            2,527
        Residence Quarters
     21Continental US Travel--               177,013          181,127
        Special Mission Travel
     21Continental US Travel--              (232,851)        (164,796)
        Emergency Travel
     21Continental US Travel--Other       11,720,581        8,838,463
        Travel
     21Overseas Travel--Site Visit         7,097,638        7,262,226
     21Overseas Travel--Information          779,749          578,631
        Meeting
     21Overseas Travel--Speech or             86,698           52,100
        Presentation
     21Overseas Travel--Conference            49,519           34,249
        Attendance
     21Overseas Travel--Relocation            49,323           47,779
        (PCS)
     21Overseas Travel--Entitlement          246,761          199,092
     21Overseas Travel--Special                   33   ...............
        Mission
     21Overseas Travel--Emergency              9,045            3,509
     21Overseas Travel--Other                447,401          416,771
     21Continental US Travel--                14,783           10,881
        Expenses for Interviews
     21Continental US Travel--                   292   ...............
        Relocation Of New Appointees
        and Student Trainees
     2180 percent Optional Reduced    ...............           5,260
        Rate (TDY)
     21Training Travel--Non-Gov Long-          1,817           74,513
        Term (LT) College
     21Training Travel--Non-Gov LT             3,155           30,110
        Private
     21Training Travel--Non-Gov              129,578          147,945
        Short-Term (ST) College
     21Training Travel--Non-Gov ST         6,974,792        4,908,785
        Private
     21Training Travel--Gov LT--              77,243           90,461
        Internal
     21Training Travel--Gov LT--               1,757           38,383
        Interagency
     21Training Travel--Gov ST--          25,308,090       27,106,832
        Internal
     21Training Travel--Gov ST--             501,570          356,971
        Interagency
     21Lease of Aircraft                      59,901           13,684
     21Rental of Motor Vehicles,           4,504,145        4,776,549
        Government
     21Rental of Motor Vehicles,             540,241          567,160
        Commercial
     21OH Dist--Travel                           279   ...............
     21Lost Discounts--Travel         ...............              43
     21Late Payment Interest                  10,072            6,772
        Penalty--Travel
     22OH Dist--Transp                ...............           8,203
     22Mail & Messenger Services--           461,205          398,184
        Freight
     22Mail & Messenger Services--               209              466
        Freight WCF
     22Rental--Trucks & Other              9,687,347       12,813,510
        Equipment
     22Transp. of ADP Equipment                7,372           11,505
     22Transp. of Government               3,738,877        4,093,326
        Property
     22Transp. of Government                  25,615              367
        Exhibits
     22Transp. of Household Goods          4,403,033        3,080,113
        For Employees
     22Transp. of Privately-Owned             88,536          184,408
        Vehicles
     22Transp. of Things--Other               85,351           63,020
     22Lost Discounts--Transp.                   117              242
     22Late Payment Interest                     338            5,092
        Penalty--Transp
                                     -----------------------------------
             Travel and                  117,541,000      110,948,819
              Transportation Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Also provide a listing of the use of the FAA G-IV 
aircraft, the cost of the operation of the aircraft by trip, and the 
overhead costs attributed to that aircraft for hangering and 
maintenance as well as the marginal maintenance and staffing costs 
directly attributable to that aircraft.
    Answer. Below are the overhead costs attributed to the aircraft in 
fiscal year 1999.

Hangering.....................................................  $280,404
Maintenance...................................................   714,649
Marginal Maintenance..........................................   376,282
Direct Staffing...............................................   336,609
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total................................................... 1,707,944


                                      FAA'S USAGE OF G-IV AIRCRAFT BY TRIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Flight
               Date                           Agency                  Passenger        hours   Rate      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation Flights:
    10/08/98......................  DOC.......................  Cabinet Member......     2.7   2,658    7,176.60
    12/01/98......................  FAA.......................  Security (hazmat)...     7.3   2,658   19,403.40
    12/02/98......................  FAA.......................  Security (hazmat)...     6.4   2,658   17,011.20
    12/03/98......................  FAA.......................  Security (hazmat)...     6.5   2,658   17,277.00
    12/04/98......................  FAA.......................  Security (hazmat)...     4.0   2,658   10,632.00
    12/15/98......................  FAA.......................  Security (hazmat)...     6.9   2,658   18,340.20
    12/16/98......................  FAA.......................  Security (hazmat)...     6.0   2,658   15,948.00
    12/17/98......................  FAA.......................  Security (hazmat)...     6.0   2,658   15,948.00
    12/21/98......................  FAA.......................  Security (hazmat)...     8.6   2,658   22,858.80
    04/22/99......................  FAA.......................  Security (hazmat)...     5.4   2,658   14,353.20
    04/26/99......................  FAA.......................  Tech Center.........     2.7   2,658    7,176.60
    05/28/99......................  DOT.......................  Cabinet Member......    12.2   2,658   32,427.60
    05/30/99......................  DOT.......................  Cabinet Member......    13.2   2,658   35,085.60
    06/02/99......................  NTSB......................  Board Member........     4.2   2,658   11,163.60
    06/03/99......................  DOT.......................  Cabinet Member......     8.6   2,658   22,858.80
    06/04/99......................  DOT.......................  Cabinet Member......     4.2   2,658   11,163.60
    06/11/99......................  NTSB......................  Board Member........     9.5   2,658   25,251.00
    06/15/99......................  FAA.......................  Security (hazmat)...     5.6   2,658   14,884.80
    06/16/99......................  FAA.......................  Security (hazmat)...     4.2   2,658   11,163.60
    07/10/99......................  FAA.......................  Staff...............     2.4   2,658    6,379.20
    07/14/99......................  NTSB......................  Board Member........     5.0   2,658   13,290.00
    07/15/99......................  NTSB......................  Board Member........     4.6   2,658   12,226.80
    07/29/99......................  FAA.......................  Stars Program.......     2.1   2,658    5,581.80
    07/30/99......................  FAA.......................  Airshow support.....     3.9   2,658   10,366.20
    07/31/99......................  FAA.......................  Airshow support.....     3.7   2,658    9,834.60
    08/01/99......................  FAA.......................  Airshow support.....     3.4   2,658    9,037.20
    08/17/99......................  FAA.......................  Tech Center.........     5.0   2,658   13,290.00
    08/20/99......................  FAA.......................  Tech Center.........     4.8   2,658   12,758.40
    09/02/99......................  FAA.......................  Administrator.......     4.0   2,658   10,632.00
                                                                                     --------        -----------
      Total.........................................................................   163.1          433,519.80
                                                                                     ========        ===========
Reimbursable Flights:
    10/05/1998....................  FEI.......................  Fed Students........     2.7   2,658    7,176.60
    10/19/1998....................  NASA......................  Dep. Administrator..     3.9   2,000    7,800.00
    10/20/1998....................  NASA......................  Congressional            3.9   2,000    7,800.00
                                                                 Staffers.
    10/22/1998....................  NASA......................  Dep. Administrator..     3.9   2,000    7,800.00
    10/22/1998....................  NASA......................  Staff...............     3.2   2,000    6,400.00
    10/23/1998....................  NASA......................  Staff...............     2.8   2,000    5,600.00
    10/29/1998....................  NASA......................  Dep. Administrator..     4.6   2,000    9,200.00
    11/07/1998....................  NASA......................  Staff...............     3.8   2,000    7,600.00
    11/09/1998....................  NASA......................  Dep. Administrator..     3.3   2,000    6,600.00
    11/10/1998....................  NASA......................  Dep. Administrator..     2.0   2,000    4,000.00
    11/24/1998....................  DOE.......................  cabinet.............     4.0   2,658   10,632.00
    12/07/1998....................  NASA......................  Staff...............     3.5   2,000    7,000.00
    12/08/1998....................  NASA......................  Staff...............     2.4   2,000    4,800.00
    12/10/1998....................  NASA......................  Congressional            3.9   2,000    7,800.00
                                                                 Staffers.
    02/28/1999....................  DOJ.......................  cabinet.............     7.3   2,658   19,403.40
    03/03/1999....................  DOJ.......................  cabinet.............     4.6   2,658   12,226.80
    03/04/1999....................  DOJ.......................  cabinet.............     6.5   2,658   17,277.00
    03/13/1999....................  Office VP.................  VP wife.............     9.8   2,658   26,048.40
    03/15/1999....................  Office VP.................  VP wife.............     1.2   2,658    3,189.60
    03/17/1999....................  Office VP.................  VP wife.............     1.0   2,658    2,658.00
    03/21/1999....................  Office VP.................  VP wife.............    11.8   2,658   31,364.40
    03/25/1999....................  Office VP.................  VP wife.............     4.9   2,658   13,024.20
    03/27/1999....................  Office VP.................  VP wife.............     3.3   2,658    8,771.40
    05/03/1999....................  NASA......................  Congressional            5.7   2,000   11,400.00
                                                                 Staffers.
    05/04/1999....................  NASA......................  Staff...............     2.0   2,000    4,000.00
    05/04/1999....................  FEMA......................  Congressional.......     5.4   2,658   14,353.20
    05/06/1999....................  NASA......................  Staff...............     2.0   2,000    4,000.00
    05/13/1999....................  NASA......................  Staff...............     6.3   2,000   12,600.00
    05/19/1999....................  NASA......................  Staff...............     2.1   2,000    4,200.00
    05/21/1999....................  NASA......................  Staff...............     2.1   2,000    4,200.00
    06/17/1999....................  FEMA......................  Director............     5.0   2,658   13,290.00
    06/18/1999....................  FEMA......................  Director............     2.5   2,658    6,645.00
    06/24/1999....................  NASA......................  Administrator.......     1.5   2,000    3,000.00
    06/25/1999....................  NASA......................  Administrator.......     1.6   2,000    3,200.00
    07/07/1999....................  NTSB......................  Board Member........     2.0   2,658    5,316.00
    07/19/1999....................  NASA......................  Administrator.......     1.8   2,000    3,600.00
    07/20/1999....................  NASA......................  Congressional            1.7   2,000    3,400.00
                                                                 Staffers.
    07/21/1999....................  NASA......................  Administrator.......     1.7   2,000    3,400.00
    07/22/1999....................  NASA......................  Administrator.......     1.9   2,000    3,800.00
    08/03/1999....................  USMS......................  Prisoners...........     9.6   2,658   25,516.80
    08/04/1999....................  USMS......................  Prisoners...........     6.9   2,658   18,340.20
    08/05/1999....................  USMS......................  Prisoners...........     7.8   2,658   20,732.40
    08/11/1999....................  DOJ.......................  Staff...............     1.6   2,658    4,252.80
    08/12/1999....................  St Lawrence Seaway........  Congressional            2.7   2,658    7,176.60
                                                                 Staffers.
    08/13/1999....................  NASA......................  Staff...............     3.4   2,000    6,800.00
    09/13/1999....................  FEMA......................  Director............     4.1   2,658   10,897.80
    09/21/1999....................  FEMA......................  Director............     2.3   2,658    6,113.40
                                                                                     --------        -----------
      Total.........................................................................   182.0          434,406.00
                                                                                     ========        ===========
Training:
    04/19/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     5.3   2,658   14,087.40
    04/20/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     5.9   2,658   15,682.20
    06/01/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     5.9   2,658   15,682.20
    08/30/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.3   2,658    8,771.40
    08/31/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     5.1   2,658   13,555.80
                                                                                     --------        -----------
      Total.........................................................................    25.5           67,779.00
                                                                                     ========        ===========
Pilot Currency, Proficiency, and
 Testing:
    10/05/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     2.5   2,658    6,645.00
    10/06/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.7   2,658   12,492.60
    10/06/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.6   2,658   12,226.80
    10/08/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.0   2,658    7,974.00
    10/09/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     2.3   2,658    6,113.40
    10/14/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.9   2,658   10,366.20
    10/21/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.4   2,658    9,037.20
    11/05/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.4   2,658   11,695.20
    11/12/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     1.3   2,658    3,455.40
    11/20/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.5   2,658   11,961.00
    11/23/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.9   2,658   13,024.20
    11/25/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     1.9   2,658    5,050.20
    11/27/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.4   2,658    9,037.20
    12/09/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     1.9   2,658    5,050.20
    12/21/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     1.2   2,658    3,189.60
    12/22/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.5   2,658    9,303.00
    12/23/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.1   2,658   10,897.80
    12/29/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.5   2,658    9,303.00
    12/31/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.8   2,658   10,100.40
    02/18/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.2   2,658    8,505.60
    02/19/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.9   2,658   10,366.20
    02/22/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.3   2,658   11,429.40
    02/24/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.0   2,658   10,632.00
    02/25/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     2.1   2,658    5,581.80
    02/26/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.5   2,658    9,303.00
    03/05/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     1.3   2,658    3,455.40
    03/12/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.1   2,658    8,239.80
    03/22/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     5.7   2,658   15,150.60
    03/30/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     5.3   2,658   14,087.40
    04/01/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.7   2,658   12,492.60
    04/02/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     2.0   2,658    5,316.00
    04/21/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.7   2,658   12,492.60
    04/29/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.4   2,658   11,695.20
    05/07/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.7   2,658    9,834.60
    05/11/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.7   2,658    9,834.60
    05/11/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     1.9   2,658    5,050.20
    05/12/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     5.6   2,658   14,884.80
    05/18/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.0   2,658    7,974.00
    05/24/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.3   2,658    8,771.40
    06/08/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.1   2,658   10,897.80
    06/10/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.5   2,658    9,303.00
    06/22/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.1   2,658   10,897.80
    06/23/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.6   2,658    9,568.80
    07/07/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.6   2,658    9,568.80
    07/08/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     5.9   2,658   15,682.20
    07/09/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.2   2,658   11,163.60
    07/10/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     2.9   2,658    7,708.20
    07/12/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     5.3   2,658   14,087.40
    07/13/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     5.2   2,658   13,821.60
    07/16/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.9   2,658   13,024.20
    07/19/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     1.2   2,658    3,189.60
    07/22/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.4   2,658    9,037.20
    07/23/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.6   2,658    9,568.80
    08/06/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     5.5   2,658   14,619.00
    08/10/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.6   2,658    9,568.80
    08/13/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     2.3   2,658    6,113.40
    08/16/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.0   2,658   10,632.00
    08/23/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.7   2,658   12,492.60
    08/24/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.3   2,658    8,771.40
    08/25/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.9   2,658   13,024.20
    08/26/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.4   2,658   11,695.20
    09/01/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.1   2,658   10,897.80
    09/08/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.1   2,658   10,897.80
    09/10/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.9   2,658   10,366.20
    09/14/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.2   2,658   11,163.60
    09/21/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     2.3   2,658    6,113.40
    09/22/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.3   2,658   11,429.40
    09/23/1999....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     5.0   2,658   13,290.00
    10/27/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     3.9   2,658   10,366.20
    12/18/1998....................  FAA.......................  NONE................     4.2   2,658   11,163.60
                                                                                     --------        -----------
      Total.........................................................................   260.4          692,143.20
                                                                                     ========        ===========
Aircraft Test and Ferry:
    01/04/1999....................  ..........................  ....................     2.4   2,658    6,379.20
    01/04/1999....................  ..........................  ....................     0.8   2,658    2,126.40
    02/09/1999....................  ..........................  ....................     1.8   2,658    4,784.40
    04/12/1999....................  ..........................  ....................     1.5   2,658    3,987.00
    04/16/1999....................  ..........................  ....................     1.3   2,658    3,455.40
    08/18/1999....................  ..........................  ....................     2.2   2,658    5,847.60
    09/24/1999....................  ..........................  ....................     1.5   2,658    3,987.00
                                                                                     --------        -----------
      Total.........................................................................    11.5           30,567.00
                                                                                     ========        ===========
      Grand total...................................................................   642.5           1,658,415
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    TRANSIT SUBSIDY BENEFIT PROGRAM

    Question. Please provide data on the transit subsidy benefit 
program consistent with the information provided on page 470 of the 
fiscal year 2000 House report but also provide for fiscal year 2001 the 
anticipated cost of the transit benefit for employees making more than 
$50,000 a year in salary by metropolitan area.
    Answer. The tables follow.

          ESTIMATED COSTS FOR FAA PARTICIPATION IN THE TRANSIT BENEFIT PROGRAM--FISCAL YEARS 1995-2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Fiscal year                     Headquarters       Regions      Admin. Ex.\1\       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................      $1,141,454        $137,046         $51,964      $1,330,464
1996............................................       1,210,360         225,408          59,506       1,495,274
1997............................................       1,313,022         274,406          94,181       1,681,609
1998............................................       1,486,887         309,165          83,804       1,879,856
1999............................................       1,529,804         320,095         102,460       1,952,359
2000............................................       1,513,358         458,669         112,603      2,084,630
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Admin. Ex. (administrative expense) is for headquarters only.

Note.--The 2000 data are projections. The headquarters and regions costs are based primarily on actual data for
  the period (October through February).

Current Number of Enrollees in FAA's Transit Benefit Program by 
Metropolitian Area \1\

Washington........................................................ 1,919
Chicago...........................................................    98
Kansas City.......................................................    42
Los Angeles.......................................................    32
Denver............................................................    12
Atlanta...........................................................    17
Ketchikan, AK.....................................................    22
New York..........................................................    73
San Francisco.....................................................     1
Honolulu..........................................................     1
Seattle...........................................................   139
Salt Lake City....................................................    25
Boston............................................................    39
Miami.............................................................     9
                                                                  ______
      Total....................................................... 2,429

\1\ Based on data for January and February

Note.--The anticipated fiscal year 2001 cost of transit benefits 
provided to employees in the Washington, DC metro area who make more 
than $50,000 in annual salary will be approximately $890,604. This 
estimate was determined by researching the Washington, DC, FAA 
Headquarters transit benefit program database. This database provides a 
copy of each person's application for these benefits. There are 
approximately 1,919 FAA transit benefit applicants in the Washington, DC 
area. After reviewing 46 percent of all the applications, it was 
determined that 59.5 percent of FAA employees who use this program are 
GS-12 or above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       other services--operations
    Question. Please provide a breakdown of your fiscal year 2001 
``other services'' request, similar in format to last year's House 
report on page 480-481.
    Answer. The table follows.

                OTHER SERVICES--OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year
                                        --------------------------------
                                            1999       2000       2001
                                           actual    estimate   estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-76 contractual services..............         66         94        134
AAC--engineering design and support....  .........  .........  .........
Accident prevention program............  .........  .........  .........
Aeronautical charting services \1\.....     34,412     33,178     36,226
Aircraft airworthiness composite and     .........  .........  .........
 major repairs.........................
Aircraft/simulator rental \2\..........      5,605      5,270      9,070
Audio visual services..................         21         23         24
Automated flight inspection system       .........  .........  .........
 (AFIS)................................
Automation support contract............     14,300     16,611     20,537
Aviation safety analysis system (ASAS).  .........  .........  .........
Center weather services--FAA/NOAA......      7,265      7,800      8,200
Challenge 2000.........................      4,541      4,749      6,866
Contract maintenance \3\...............     81,157     48,393    136,430
Contract physicians....................        215        215        215
Contractual data processing service \4\     25,570     26,046     44,217
Contractual studies....................      6,676      7,195     13,168
Contractual time-sharing teleprocessing      1,523      2,586      2,631
 services..............................
Contractual training services \5\......     19,621     19,310     26,050
Effective secretarial services (ESS)...         33  .........  .........
Employee assistance program services...      1,485      1,600      1,600
Employee involvement program services..  .........  .........  .........
Federal law enforcement training.......  .........  .........  .........
Flight/nonflight training \2\..........     23,267     21,723     33,850
Flight standards district office data          692        100        100
 entry support Contract................
Flight training........................      2,530      2,767      2,657
General working agreement at                20,138     17,611     19,678
 Transportation Systems Center.........
Information Security \6\...............      2,442      4,885     27,450
Janitorial and guard services..........     26,052     30,443     30,755
Contract for personal services for           4,564      4,164      4,174
 clerical functions....................
Leased telecommunications \3\..........     27,522     30,129     38,300
Maintenance of host computer...........     28,000     26,000     26,000
Maintenance of integrated communication  .........  .........  .........
 switching system......................
Master labor contract Tokyo............  .........  .........  .........
Medical clinic service for ARTCC's.....        140        140        140
Medical examinations...................         26         26         27
Handbooks..............................        629        655        705
NAS supply support \3\.................     39,863     41,607     49,732
Not otherwise classified \7\...........    101,238    100,588     94,676
Office of automation technology &           10,950        546        600
 services (OATS).......................
OMEGA..................................  .........  .........  .........
On-the-job training for flight           .........  .........  .........
 inspection and procedures.............
Operation of contract ATC towers \8\...     45,386     56,400     55,300
Overhaul of aircraft engines...........      3,196      2,058      7,305
Physical examinations..................      1,682      1,888      1,893
Project SAFE--Technical training module  .........  .........  .........
 development...........................
Random drug testing....................      2,593      2,720      2,850
AAD-60 support (aircraft) (HANGAR 6)...  .........  .........  .........
Regional support (aircraft)............  .........  .........  .........
Regulatory analysis....................        744        424        688
Repair and maintenance of ADP equipment      4,711      3,709      3,831
Repair/maintenance administrative,           6,400      6,989      7,055
 operating, working, and test equipment
Repair, maintenance and inspection of       20,588     17,506     35,894
 equipment and buildings \9\...........
Security investigations................      1,069      1,132      1,524
Society of automotive engineers........  .........  .........  .........
Storage of household effects...........      1,259      1,204      1,509
Substance abuse program................        200        200         70
Supervisory identification &             .........  .........  .........
 development program services..........
Technical Center:
     Sector operations support contract  .........  .........  .........
    Other engineering support..........  .........  .........  .........
Traffic management system/Enhanced           3,219      3,380     13,023
 traffic management system \10\........
USAF training of K-9 teams.............      8,329      7,690      8,690
Vulnerability Assessments \11\.........        200        223      1,700
Weather observation services...........     38,635     41,120     27,022
Transportation Administrative Services      28,600     24,163     24,959
 Center (TASC).........................
Y2K Contracts..........................      2,252  .........  .........
                                        --------------------------------
      Total, Other Services............    659,607    625,260    827,525
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Aeronautical charting services increase for fiscal year 2001, as
  requested in the budget submission, is for maintenance of digital
  aeronautical radar maps, and NASR Maintenance support.
\2\ Aircraft/simulator rental and Flight/nonflight training increases
  from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001 are due to AVR's technical
  training required increases include in the budget request.
\3\ Contract maintenance, Leased Telecommunications and NAS Supply
  Support increases from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001 are due to
  operationally required increases included in the budget request to
  fund new NAS systems coming on line.
\4\ Contractual data processing service increase for fiscal year 2001,
  as requested in the budget submission, is for fielding a new
  electronic mail system to replace the agency's obsolete lotus cc:mail
  system and to implement a secure and standardized E-mail System.
\5\ Contract training services increase reflects the air traffic budget
  request to expand computer based instructions and on-the-job-training.

\6\ Information Security increase for fiscal year 2001, as requested in
  the budget submission, is to support the establishment and operation
  of a FAA information security program.
\7\ This line item includes miscellaneous items not identified by a
  descriptive object class code.
\8\ Operation of contract air traffic control towers decrease from
  fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001 is due to the FAA's
  discontinuance of the non-beneficial contract towers program as
  reflected in the Budget request.
\9\ Repair, maintenance and inspection of equipment and buildings
  increase from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001 is required for
  maintenance of unstaffed facilities and infrastructure sustainment, as
  requested in the budget submission.
\10\ Traffic management system/Enhanced traffic management systems
  increase funds the operation and maintenance of the Airspace Redesign
  and Analysis Laboratory, as requested in the budget.
\11\ Vulnerability assessments increase reflects a continuance of the
  need for conducting vulnerability assessments and development action
  plans into 2001 as shown in the budget request.

                              SPECIAL PAYS

    Question. Please provide a description of FAA special pays, a 
breakdown, and line of business delineation for each of fiscal years 
1999 through 2001, similar in format to that shown on pages 483-486 of 
last year's House hearing record.
    Answer. Under FAA personnel reform, FAA has implemented changes to 
the premium pay rules to prohibit payment of Sunday pay and night 
differential unless employees actually work the time for which the 
premium pay is paid. The new agreement with the NATCA has changed a 
number of pay provisions. For controllers and field supervisors and 
managers in terminals and centers, the 5 percent operational 
differential provision of the Air Traffic Revitalization Act has been 
eliminated, and replaced with a corresponding increase in base pay of 
4.1 percent. A Controller-in-Charge (CIC) payment has been established, 
which pays a premium of 10 percent of base pay for time in which 
controllers are assigned CIC duties. Other special pay categories 
include:
    Overtime pay (up to 150 percent) paid for time worked in excess of 
eight hours in one day, 40 hours in a week, or 80 hours in a pay 
period. Overtime rates vary depending on position and coverage under 
the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is mandatory under FAA policy 
adopted from 5 United States Code 5542 unless employees receive 
compensatory time in lieu of overtime.
    Sunday pay (25 percent) paid for hours worked on Sunday. This is 
mandatory under FAA policy adopted from 5 United States Code 5546.
    Holiday pay (100 percent) paid for up to eight hours of work on a 
federal holiday. This is mandatory under FAA policy adopted from 5 
United States Code 5546.
    Night Differential (10 percent) paid for hours of work between 6 
p.m. and 6 a.m. This is mandatory under FAA policy adopted from 5 
United States Code 5545.
    Hazardous pay (up to 25 percent) paid for all hours in a shift 
during which the work involves exposure to hazards, physical hardships, 
or working conditions of an unusual nature. Premium pay rate varies 
depending on the types of hazard, hardship, or working condition under 
a schedule issued by the Office of Personnel Management. This is 
mandatory under FAA policy adopted from 5 United States Code 5545.
    Standby pay (up to 25 percent) paid as a percentage of an 
employee's basic rate of pay to employees whose positions require them 
to remain at their duty station in a standby status. This is 
discretionary under FAA policy adopted from 5 United States Code 5545 
in lieu of overtime pay for standby time.
    Operational responsibility differential (5 percent) paid for all 
hours in a pay status to flight service specialists and airway 
facilities technicians involved in direct operation of the air traffic 
system, to flight test pilots, and to certain Academy instructors.
    Currency differential (1.6 percent) paid for all hours in a pay 
status for non-operational controllers who maintain currency in 
controlling traffic.
    Missed meal break premium (50 percent of pay for one-half hour) 
paid to controllers required to work during the fourth to sixth hour of 
their shift without an uninterrupted 30 minute meal break.
    Interim Incentive Pay Program: quarterly payments of 10 percent of 
an employee's basic rate of pay, paid to employees who are assigned to 
a facility and position covered by the Interim Incentive Pay program. 
Payments are intended to address chronic recruitment and retention 
problems at a small number of critical facilities, and will end at the 
time a new compensation system for covered employees is implemented. 
These payments are discretionary under authority granted by Public Law 
104-50.
    A chart follows, which shows total FAA special pay for fiscal year 
1999 and estimated special pay for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 
2001.

                      FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION SPECIAL PAY
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       1999            2000            2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Resp. Differential Pay..............................          44,893          29,607          31,094
Premium Pay-Loss of Meal........................................             447             468             486
Operational Currency Pay........................................             418             438             454
Training in Excess of 40 Hours..................................             443             464             481
Premium Pay-OJT.................................................           2,098           2,199           2,280
Pay Demonstration...............................................              97  ..............  ..............
Interim Incentive/Controller Incentive Pay......................          20,876          47,991          35,986
Overtime Pay....................................................          45,455          53,472          62,096
Holiday Pay.....................................................          52,194          52,519          55,261
Sunday Differential.............................................          45,004          43,456          45,912
Night Differential..............................................          39,555          38,117          40,207
Hazardous Duty Pay..............................................             219             205             210
Post Differential...............................................             222             222             253
Fixed Premium Compensation......................................           1,285           1,282           1,318
Physicians Comp. Allowance......................................             617             622             625
Cash Awards.....................................................           5,277           3,826           4,263
Controller-in-Charge............................................           5,912           6,385           7,025
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total Special Pay.........................................         265,010         281,272        287,949
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Interim incentive/controller incentive pay for fiscal year 2000 includes approximately $14 million in
  retroactive controller incentive pay for fiscal year 1999 for both controllers and facility managers/staff.
  Interim Incentive pay is still received by select Air Traffic, Airway Facilities, and Security staff.

    A chart follows which shows individual line of business estimates 
for special pay contained within their personnel compensation and 
benefits budget requests. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.001

                    FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) COSTS

    Question. Please update the data on agency-wide average FTE costs 
shown on page 495 of last year's House hearing record by providing data 
for fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
    Answer. For the Operations Appropriation, the costs per FTE for 
fiscal years 1997 through 2001 are as follows.

        Fiscal year                                               Amount

1997 actual...................................................   $80,430
1998 actual...................................................    83,750
1999 actual...................................................    90,410
2000 estimate.................................................    99,110
2001 estimate.................................................   107,200

Note.--The figures displayed above were calculated excluding Workers' 
Compensation and permanent change-of-station costs.

                          EMPLOYEE SEPARATIONS

    Question. Please update the table on employee separations, by 
office, as shown on page 498 of last year's House hearing record, by 
providing data from fiscal year 1999 and to date in fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. The table is shown below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    9/30/98       Gains/      9/30/99       Gains/      2/29/00
                     Activity                         EOY     (Separations)     EOY     (Separations)   Current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Traffic Services:
    Controllers..................................     17,756          (117)     17,639          (143)     17,496
    Field Maintenance............................      8,455          (273)      8,182          (238)      7,944
    Other........................................      9,500          (129)      9,371           (33)      9,338
Aviation Regulation & Certification..............      6,181          (200)      5,981          (162)      5,819
Civil Aviation Security..........................      1,160           (24)      1,136           (12)      1,124
Airports.........................................        482            (5)        477           (14)        463
Research & Acquisitions..........................        739          (166)        573           (49)        524
Administration...................................      1,353           (64)      1,289           (33)      1,256
Staff Offices....................................        567           (20)        547            31         578
Commercial Space Transportation..................         29             2          31             1          32
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................................     46,222          (996)     45,226          (652)     44,574
Facilities and Equipment.........................      2,161           538       2,699           (29)      2,670
RE&D.............................................        592          (231)        361            36         397
Aviation Insurance...............................          3  .............          3            (1)          2
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
      Total FAA Direct...........................     48,978          (689)     48,289          (646)    47,643
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Even though ``Administration'' doesn't exist in fiscal year 2000, the Feb 2000 employment for ABA, AHR,
  and ARC are being shown under that line for comparison purposes.

                          operations positions
    Question. Please update the table from page 503-507 of last year's 
House record, showing number of positions assigned to each of your 
offices and regions, similar in format from years past.
    Answer. The table is provided below.

      FAA DISTRIBUTION OF FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS (FTE'S) OPERATIONS
                         APPROPRIATION (DIRECT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal year
                                           -----------------------------
                  Office                      1999      2000      2001
                                            estimate  estimate  estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrator (Including Deputy Admin. &          56        63        63
 Comm. Ctr.)..............................
Chief Counsel.............................       290       290       295
Assistant Administrator for Civil Rights..        14        17        28
Assistant Administrator for Government &          13        12        12
 Industry Affairs.........................
Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs        33        34        34
Assistant Administrator for System Safety.        36        35        35
Assistant Administrator for Policy,                9         9         9
 Planning, and International Aviation.....
    Office of Aviation Policy & Plans.....        58        54        54
    Office of Environment and Energy......        35        33        33
    Office of International Aviation......        18        18        18
    International Area Offices............        57        57        57
Assistant Administrator for Commercial            32        34        52
 Space Transportation.....................
Assistant Administrator for Financial            134       129       148
 Services/CFO.............................
Assistant Administrator for Human Resource       164       160       160
 Management...............................
Assistant Administrator for Region/Center          9         9         9
 Operations...............................
Assistant Administrator For Information           18        56        69
 Services/CIO.............................
REGIONAL OFFICES:
    New England...........................     1,843     1,804     1,808
    Eastern...............................     5,222     5,071     5,101
    Southern..............................     7,487     7,312     7,393
    Southwest.............................     5,158     5,064     5,096
    Great Lakes...........................     6,381     6,298     6,333
    Central...............................     2,415     2,365     2,376
    Northwest Mountain....................     4,102     3,956     3,983
    Western-Pacific.......................     5,491     5,227     5,263
    Alaskan...............................     1,345     1,293     1,297
    Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center.....     1,862     1,879     1,270
    International.........................        55        55        55
Assistant Administrator for Airports......        15  ........  ........
    Office of Airport Planning and                38  ........  ........
     Programming..........................
    Office of Airport Safety and Standards        37  ........  ........
Associate Administration for Civil                53        55        55
 Aviation Security........................
    Office of Civil Aviation Security             38        39        39
     Intelligence.........................
    Office of Civil Aviation Security             76        76        76
     Operations...........................
Office of Civil Aviation Security Policy &        48        46        46
 Planning.................................
Associate Administrator for Regulation and        21        21        21
 Certification............................
    Aircraft Certification Service........       149       154       166
    Flight Standards Service..............       241       235       237
    Office of Aviation Medicine...........        91        93        93
    Office of Rulemaking..................        24        26        26
    Office of Accident Investigation......        29        30        30
    Office of Suspected Unapproved Parts..        15        15        15
Associate Administrator for Air Traffic           12        12        12
 Services.................................
    Director of Air Traffic Program.......        99       112       112
    Air Traffic Airspace Management.......        78        77        80
    Air Traffic Operations................  ........       148       148
    Air Traffic Plans and Performance.....       219       100        99
    Air Traffic Resource Management.......        77        83        86
    Director of Airway Facilities.........        53        53        53
    NAS Transition and Implementation             16        17        17
     Service..............................
    Operational Support Service...........        15        15        15
    Resource Management Service...........        85        86        86
    NAS Operations Service................       129       130       141
    Spectrum Policy and Management Service        21        22        22
    Flight Inspection and Procedures......       607       599       398
    Office of System Capacity and                 13        12        12
     Requirements.........................
    Air Traffic Systems Requirements             169       177       182
     Service..............................
    Associate Administrator for Research &        11        11        11
     Development..........................
    Office Of Business Management.........        26        27        27
    Chief Scientist for Software                   4  ........  ........
     Engineering..........................
Year 2000 Program Office..................         8  ........  ........
    Integrated Program Team for                   15        13  ........
     Information Systems..................
    Integrated Program Team for                   12        12  ........
     Information Technology Services......
    Integrated Program Team for                   13        12  ........
     Information Technology Acquisitions..
    Integrated Product Team for Data               2         8  ........
     Integration and Decision Support.....
    Corporate Information Resource                 3  ........  ........
     Management...........................
Office of Acquisitions....................       160       171       219
FAA Technical Center......................       841       849       867
                                           -----------------------------
      Total...............................    45,899    44,872    44,444
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          WORKLOAD INDICATORS

    Question. Please update the table on pages 527-528 of last year's 
House hearing record for fiscal years 1997-2001.
    Answer. See table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Fiscal year             1997    1998    1999    2000    2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forecast Made in March 1996:
    Domestic Aviation Fuel          14.4    15.0    15.5    16.0    16.5
     Consumption (Billions of
     Gal-  lons)................
    Revenue Passenger Miles        595.7   628.0   655.0   682.9   712.4
     (Billions).................
    General Aviation Hours Flown    23.4    23.7    23.9    24.1    24.5
     (Millions).................
    IFR Aircraft Handled            42.2    43.4    44.4    45.3    46.3
     (Millions).................
    Total Operations at Airports    64.5    65.7    66.7    67.6    68.6
     with FAA and Contract
     Towers (Millions)..........
    Instrument Operations           49.1    50.2    51.1    52.0    52.8
     Handled by FAA and Contract
     Towers (Millions)..........
Forecast Made in March 1997:
    Domestic Aviation Fuel          14.2    14.7    15.3    15.9    16.5
     Consumption (Billions of
     Gal-  lons)................
    Revenue Passenger Miles        608.1   637.4   666.4   696.9   729.8
     (Billions) \1\.............
    General Aviation Hours Flown    25.8    26.3    26.6    26.9    27.2
     (Millions).................
    IFR Aircraft Handled            40.9    41.8    42.5    43.5    44.4
     (Millions).................
    Total Operations at Airports    62.7    63.4    64.1    65.3    66.1
     with FAA and Contract
     Towers (Millions)..........
    Instrument Operations           47.4    48.2    48.9    49.9    50.7
     Handled by FAA and Contract
     Towers (Millions)..........
Forecast Made in March 1998:
    Domestic Aviation Fuel          14.3    14.8    15.1    15.4    16.0
     Consumption (Billions of
     Gal-  lons)................
    Revenue Passenger Miles        607.5   635.3   660.7   688.5   720.3
     (Billions).................
    General Aviation Hours Flown    26.5    26.9    27.3    27.8    28.3
     (Millions).................
    IFR Aircraft Handled            41.4    42.0    42.6    43.2    44.2
     (Millions).................
    Total Operations at Airports    63.4    64.2    65.0    65.9    67.0
     with FAA and Contract
     Towers (Millions)..........
    Instrument Operations           48.5    49.2    49.8    50.6    51.6
     Handled by FAA and Contract
     Towers (Millions)..........
Forecast Made in March 1999:         ACT          ACT \2
                                                       \
    Domestic Aviation Fuel          14.4    14.7    14.9    15.3    15.7
     Consumption (Billions of
     Gal-  lons)................
    Revenue Passenger Miles        608.0   623.0   647.4   671.5   698.0
     (Billions).................
    General Aviation Hours Flown    27.7    28.2    28.7    29.2    29.8
     (Millions).................
    IFR Aircraft Handled            41.4    43.2    44.2    45.2    46.2
     (Millions).................
    Total Operations at Airports    63.7    65.3    66.5    67.7    69.0
     with FAA and Contract
     Towers (Millions)..........
    Instrument Operations           48.8    49.9    50.9    51.9    52.9
     Handled by FAA and Contract
     Towers (Millions)..........
Forecast Made in March 2000:         ACT     ACT  ACT \2
                                                       \
    Domestic Aviation Fuel          14.4    14.9    15.4    16.1    16.6
     Consumption (Billions of
     Gal-  lons)................
    Revenue Passenger Miles        608.0   623.4   652.1   681.1   709.3
     (Billions).................
    General Aviation Hours Flown    27.7    28.1    29.8    30.4    31.1
     (Millions).................
    IFR Aircraft Handled            41.4    43.2    44.7    45.7    46.8
     (Millions).................
    Total Operations at Airports    63.7    65.3    68.2    69.5    70.9
     with FAA and Contract
     Towers (Millions)..........
    Instrument Operations           48.8    50.0    51.8    52.9    54.1
     Handled by FAA and Contract
     Towers (Millions)..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. commercial air carriers (domestic and international) and
  regional/commuters total scheduled passenger traffic.
\2\ Preliminary.

                      LETTER OF INTENT COMMITMENTS

    Question. Please provide a table outlining the letter of intent 
commitments (LOI) made to date by the FAA and the impact for all the 
relevant fiscal years from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2003.
    Answer. The following table depicts total LOI payment schedules by 
fiscal year, including fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2003.

                                AIP LETTERS OF INTENT--LOI APPROVALS BY YEAR--ALL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                 Discretionary    Entitlement        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997............................................................    $150,560,983     $38,379,384    $188,940,367
1998............................................................     127,868,716      43,818,541     171,687,257
1999............................................................     113,741,601      48,478,257     162,219,858
2000............................................................     156,393,300      49,640,722     206,034,022
2001............................................................     140,691,025      47,277,696     187,968,721
2002............................................................     138,953,300      44,673,374     183,626,674
2003............................................................     102,150,300      40,341,528     142,491,828
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          WORKLOAD INDICATORS

    Question. Please update the workload measures for the tables on 
pages 527-536 of last year's House hearing record by adding the data or 
the estimate for the next fiscal year, without deleting the first 
reporting fiscal year on each individual table.
    Answer. The charts follow:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.003
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.004
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.005
    
                 WORKLOAD MEASURES AND INDUSTRY TRENDS

                      DATA FOR LINE GRAPH ON GROWTH IN FAA OPS BUDGET AND AVIATION ACTIVITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Airport       Instrument
                  Fiscal year                    FAA ops budget    IFR aircraft   operations FAA/ operations FAA/
                                                                      handled         contract        contract
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996..........................................     4,642,720,000      40,419,300      61,908,900      47,217,200
1997..........................................     4,952,912,000      41,411,800      63,666,300      48,778,900
1998..........................................     5,252,550,000      43,195,900      65,257,700      49,980,500
1999 \1\......................................     5,586,071,000      44,654,100      68,151,700      51,829,900
2000 (Est)....................................     5,893,390,000      45,653,500      69,462,300      52,928,400
2001 (Est)....................................     6,592,235,000      46,765,500      70,880,900      54,092,500
1996..........................................  ................  ..............  ..............  ..............
1997 (percent)................................              6.68            2.46            2.84            3.31
1998 (pecent).................................              6.05            4.31            2.50            2.46
1999 (percent)................................              6.35            3.38            4.43            3.70
2000 (Est) (percent)..........................              5.50            2.24            1.92            2.12
2001 (Est) (percent)..........................             11.86            2.44            2.04            2.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes supplemental funding of $34.2 million for Y2K-related activities.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.007

                 WORKLOAD MEASURES AND INDUSTRY TRENDS

    The chart below reflects the forecasted controller work force and 
the projected instrument operations (in thousands) at airports with FAA 
traffic control service. The column on the far rights is the instrument 
operations (in thousands) at air route traffic control centers 
(ARTCC's).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      IOPS        IOPS
                 Year                     CWF     (Terminals)  (ARTCC's)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................     17,388     48,128.2   41,411.8
1998.................................     17,756     49,272.9   43,196.0
1999.................................     17,639     51,110.3   44,654.4
2000.................................     17,599     52,087.7   45,653.5
2001.................................     17,599     53,237.8  46,765.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--FAA Aviation Forecasts fiscal years 2000-2011, March 2000
  edition.


                                 CONTROLLER WORKFORCE AND INSTRUMENT OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Percent       IOPS      Percent       IOPS      Percent
                    Year                        CWF      change   (Terminals)    change    (ARTCC's)     change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996........................................   17,080  .........     46,628.5  .........     40,419.4  .........
1997........................................   17,388       1.80     48,128.1       3.22     41,375.4       2.37
1998........................................   17,756       2.12     49,272.9       2.38     43,196.0       4.40
1999........................................   17,639      -0.66     51,110.3       3.73     44,654.4       3.38
2000........................................   17,599      -0.23     52,087.7       1.91     45,653.5       2.24
2001........................................   17,599  .........     53,237.8       2.21     46,765.5       2.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      ACCIDENT AND FATALITY RATES

    Question. Please update the line graph showing the rate of 
accidents per 100,000 departures for part 121 air carriers shown on 
page 554, the table on page 556, and the table on page 558 relating to 
general aviation accidents from last year's House hearing record.
    Answer. The table and line graphs follow.

                           PART 121 CASUALTIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 1997     1998     1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatal........................................        8        1       12
Serious......................................       38       28       57
Minor........................................      128       87      158
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.008
                                                                 
                                                                 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.009
                                                                 
                          ADVISORY COMMITTEES

    Question. Please provide information on FAA's advisory committees 
including the name of the committee, its purpose, and the estimated 
fiscal year 2001 cost as well as the actual fiscal year 2000 cost.
    Answer. The following chart displays each committee, its purpose, 
and the estimated fiscal year 2001 cost as well as the actual year 2000 
cost.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year
                                                     -------------------
              Name                      Purpose         2000      2001
                                                        cost    estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Traffic Procedures Advisory   Reviews air          $44,361   $50,026
 Commit-  tee.                     traffic control
                                   procedures and
                                   practices.
RTCA, Inc., (Utilized as an       Advances the art     300,000   380,000
 Advisory Committee).              and science of
                                   aviation and
                                   aviation
                                   electronic
                                   systems.
Aviation Security Advisory        Examines all areas    89,000    60,000
 Committee.                        of civil aviation
                                   security with the
                                   aim of increasing
                                   safety for the
                                   traveling public.
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory      Provides advice      110,000   105,000
 Commit-  tee.                     and
                                   recommendations
                                   on FAA's
                                   rulemaking
                                   activities.
Research, Engineering, and        Provides advice on   150,000   183,000
 Development Advisory Committee.   aviation research
                                   needs.
Commercial Space Transportation   Provides advice on    41,200    41,850
 Advisory Committee.               all aspects of
                                   U.S. commercial
                                   space
                                   transportation
                                   activities.
Aging Transport Systems           Provides advice on    50,000    50,000
 Rulemaking Advisory Committee.    the aging
                                   transport
                                   airplane systems.
                                                     -------------------
      Total.....................  784,561...........   869,876
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER (FFRDC) SERVICES

    Question. The Committee is aware that the FAA has expressed an 
intention to sole source contract for FFRDC services. Please provide 
the rationale for a sole source contract and a summary of the services 
with estimated cost for each broad category of services anticipated 
under a sole source contract. Concerns have been expressed that the 
current use of the FFRDC by the FAA is more akin to a Systems 
Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) contract than an actual 
independent expert capability. What is the FAA position as relates to 
the need for FFRDC services as opposed to SETA capabilities?
    Answer. In September 1990, as the result of a Memorandum of 
Agreement with the MITRE Corporation, the FAA sponsored MITRE to 
operate a FFRDC. The Sponsoring Agreement was renewed on April 9, 1996 
effective for the five-year period ending April 8, 2001. MITRE operates 
the FAA's FFRDC as an identifiable, separate operating unit.
    The current eight-year research and development contract with MITRE 
Corporation for the operation of the FFRDC was awarded in December 1992 
and expires on November 30, 2000. Prior to extending the contract or 
agreement with an FFRDC, acquisition directives require that the 
sponsoring agency conduct a comprehensive review of the use and 
continued need for the FFRDC. Based on the results of the recently 
completed comprehensive review, it has been reaffirmed that a strong 
need exists for continued support by the Center for Advanced Aviation 
System Development (CAASD). CAASD performs studies, analysis and 
concept formulation for continued advanced aviation research for the 
Capital Investment Plan (CIP) and National Airspace System (NAS). Work 
assignments are approved by the FFRDC Executive Board (FEB) and are 
contained in annual Product Based Work Plans (PBWPs). Support for the 
following FAA programs is included:
  --Free Flight Phase 1
  --Communications Navigation Surveillance Operational Capability
  --Navigation Architecture
  --NAS Architecture Implementation
  --Near Term Procedural Enhancements
  --Airspace Design and Analysis
  --User Performance Planning and Research
  --NAS Integration
  --NAS Infrastructure Management
    Only work that is appropriate to be performed by a research and 
development FFRDC is authorized and approved for incorporation in the 
annual CAASD work plan. Support that is appropriately performed by a 
technical assistance contractor or any other contractor is not approved 
for performance by CAASD. The fiscal year 2000 PBWP is currently under 
development.
    A market analysis was conducted in accordance with the requirements 
of the FAA's Acquisition Management System (AMS) to determine the 
availability of the needed research and analysis services. Evaluation 
criteria included demonstrated technical capability in all of the 
following areas: operations research, computer science, electrical and 
mechanical engineering; demonstrated experience in highly specialized 
simulation and computer modeling techniques and facilities to model 
improvements across a broad spectrum of NAS systems and operations; 
demonstrated capability to provide the main technical linkage between 
the operational and the development requirements of FAA organizations; 
demonstrated capability to support the FAA in rapidly and effectively 
formulating new programs to meet emerging operational needs; 
demonstrated capability to provide rapid response to safety issues 
affecting the aviation community, and Congressional interests and 
mandates; prior experience in support services for the FAA 
communications system, including current programs that require digital 
technology applications; demonstrated capability to provide services 
related to the major operational functions of aircraft separation and 
flight planning, and the problem of ATC system capacity; and background 
knowledge in behavioral science and/or human performance as related to 
the major NAS areas. These capabilities are required of any source 
selected for operation of the FFRDC, because all too often, multiple 
capabilities are needed quickly to meet program needs.
    As a result of this market analysis, it was concluded that MITRE is 
the only responsible source that can provide a comprehensive and 
synergistic approach in all required areas. MITRE has the demonstrated 
capability to meet the interrelated system requirements in the 
functional areas and furnish the experienced professional staff needed 
to complete ongoing CIP and NAS programs.
    The FAA has taken steps to promote the use of subcontractors, where 
appropriate, in specialized technical areas that are in support of the 
major task assignments. The FAA has also taken action to award other 
major contracts in support of the NAS on a full and open competitive 
basis.
    These competitively awarded contracts include the NAS 
Implementation Support Contract (NISC), Technical Support Services 
Contract, the System Engineering Technical Assistance Contract, various 
Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Technical Assistance 
Contracts, and the Air Traffic Systems Development Technical Assistance 
Contract. The level of services called for in these contracts, however, 
do not entail anywhere near the complexity of needed skills and 
knowledge provided by the CAASD in requisite functional areas of 
expertise.

                              RTCA CHARTER

    Question. Please provide a summary of the RTCA charter, the 
organizational and management structure, and a current list of members.
    Answer. FAA Order (1110.77M) constitutes the charter for the 
utilization of RTCA, Inc. as an advisory committee. It describes the 
objectives and scope of activities (to seek solutions to problems 
involving the application of technology to aeronautical operations that 
impact the future air traffic management system); the organization 
(comprised of a general membership, a chairman, a board of directors, a 
Program Management Committee (PMC), a president and a vice president); 
administration (FAA key officials are members of the RTCA policy board, 
the PMC oversees the establishment and workings of the special 
committees, meetings are scheduled, held, and conducted in accordance 
with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act). The charter 
also addresses public participation and availability of records.
    RTCA, Inc. also has its own charter as a not-for-profit 
corporation. Within its charter, the stated objectives address the 
scientific and educational purpose of the corporation, which is to 
advance the art and science of aviation and aviation electronic systems 
for the benefit of the public. The RTCA specific objective list 
includes those also contained in the FAA Order; they are:
  --``coalesce aviation system user and provider technical requirements 
        in a manner that helps government and industry meet their 
        mutual objectives and responsibilities;
  --analyze and recommend solutions to the system technical issues that 
        aviation faces as it continues to pursue increased safety, 
        system capacity and efficiency;
  --develop consensus on the application of pertinent technology to 
        fulfill user and provider requirements, including development 
        of minimum operational performance standards for electronic 
        systems and equipment that support aviation;
  --assist in developing the appropriate technical material upon which 
        positions for the International Civil Aviation Organization, 
        the International Telecommunications Union, and other 
        appropriate international organizations can be based; as well 
        as
  --conduct the Corporation's affairs in a manner such that its 
        integrity remains beyond challenge.''
    The RTCA management and organizational structure is depicted in the 
following chart. It shows the relationship between the Policy Board, 
the Program Management Committee and Special Committee activities, as 
well as the Steering and Select Committee activities.
    The current list of members also follows. It reflects 150 industry 
member organizations, plus 58 international associate members, plus 
five academic associate members, as well as the eight government 
members--for a total of 221. Government members include: Federal 
Aviation Administration, DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems 
Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Center 
for Atmospheric Research, United States Air Force, United States Army, 
Department of Commerce, and United States Navy. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.017

                            RTCA ACTIVITIES

    Question. What activities is the RTCA anticipated to conduct in 
fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. FAA anticipates RTCA involvement in the following 
activities in fiscal year 2001 Special Committees (SC):
  --SC-135--Environmental Testing
  --SC-147--Traffic Alert & Collision Avoidance System
  --SC-159--Global Positioning System
  --SC-165--Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service
  --SC-172--VHF Air-Ground Communication
  --SC-181--Navigation Standards
  --SC-186--Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
  --SC-188--High Frequency Data Link
  --SC-189--Air Traffic Services Safety and Interoperability 
        Requirements
  --SC-190--Application Guidelines for RTCA/DO-178B (Software)
  --SC-192--National Airspace Review Planning and Analysis
  --SC-193--Terrain and Airport Databases
  --SC-194--Air Traffic Management Data Link Implementation
  --SC-195--Flight Information Services Communications
  --SC-196--Night Vision Goggles
    Steering/Select Committees:
  --Free Flight Steering Committee and Free Flight Select Committee
  --Certification Steering Committee and Certification Select Committee
    Policy Board Committees: Future Flight Data Recorders

                   RTCA ACTIVITIES SELECTION PROCESS

    Question. How are RTCA activities selected? How are group members 
selected? What types of Chinese wall arrangements are created to make 
sure that the roles of manager, facilitator, and contractor do not 
become blurred?
    Answer. The determination of activities is the decision of the FAA 
Administrator. The following process is used to select members for the 
various activities: Special Committee members are volunteers who have 
an interest in the subject being addressed by the committee. Members 
can come from across the full spectrum of the aviation community--
government and industry, users and suppliers, labor and management, 
airports, service providers--and often include people from the 
international as well as the domestic segments of the global aviation 
community. The public and the aviation community are notified that a 
new Special Committee is being formed via an announcement in the 
Federal Register. It is important to note that because the committees 
are open and inclusive, anyone may participate at any time without an 
invitation. If, after the committee is organized, RTCA or the committee 
determines that the perspectives of an individual or organization not 
currently participating in the Special Committee are relevant to the 
committee's deliberations, RTCA will extend an invitation to 
participate in the committee's deliberations. All subsequent plenary 
meetings of the committee are announced in the Federal Register. 
(Membership in working groups under Special Committees is generally 
drawn from the Special Committee membership, although others with a 
relevant perspective are encouraged to participate in working group 
activities when appropriate and needed. The results of working group 
activities are provided to the Special Committee for consideration by 
the full committee when the committee meets in plenary session.)
    The membership process and criteria for an RTCA Task Force and 
subordinate working groups parallels that of Special Committees.
    Membership on the Government/Industry Free Flight Steering 
Committee is by appointment. FAA and the RTCA Policy Board identify 
potential Steering Committee members based on their organizational 
responsibilities, professional experience, interest in Free Flight 
issues being considered, and their group ``problem solving'' skills. If 
the desired individual is interested in voluntarily serving on the 
committee and their parent organization concurs with their appointment, 
they are appointed to Steering Committee membership. Steering Committee 
membership is dominated by operationally oriented organization 
representatives given the safety, capacity, and efficiency nature of 
the committee's mission. Some rotation occurs on an annual basis. The 
process is documented and is available for review at RTCA. The Free 
Flight Steering Committee only meets in plenary session. All meetings 
are announced in the Federal Register. All meetings are open to the 
public and the public is afforded an opportunity to express its views 
throughout the meetings.
    Membership on the Free Flight Select Committee (the working arm of 
the Steering Committee) is by appointment. The process and criteria of 
identifying Select Committee members are similar to those used in 
identifying Steering Committee members. Select Committee tasking flows 
from the Steering Committee. Select Committee meetings are not open to 
the public. Select Committee working group membership is usually drawn 
from Select Committee membership; however, as in the case for Special 
Committee working groups, other people with relevant perspectives and 
professional experience can be and are invited to participate in 
working group deliberations. The process is documented and is available 
for review at RTCA.
    Membership for the Certification Steering and Select Committees 
follows the process described for the Free Flight committees.
    There are no arrangements to segregate the roles of participants in 
RTCA activities. The fundamental premises upon which the RTCA 
consensus-based process is based are as follows:
    Acknowledge the inevitability of ``conflict of interest'' among the 
disparate aviation community groups/individuals; for example, 
government and industry, users and suppliers, labor and management, 
commercial and general aviation, airports, and service suppliers.
    Fully consider the diverse interests of these groups/individuals 
and use the RTCA open, inclusive, consensus-based process to develop 
recommendations that remove the parochial views of any one group. The 
resulting recommended course of action serves the best interests of the 
aviation community and the public.

                        CONTROLLER PAY AGREEMENT

    Question. What is the current estimate of the NATCA controller pay 
agreement cost? What percentage of the total dollar value of this 
agreement does the agency calculate will be offset through productivity 
gains and other quantifiable savings resulting from the agreement 
itself? What is the total aggregate savings resulting from the 
agreement to date--what is the cost of the agreement to date?
    Answer. During the first part of fiscal year 1999, the FAA and 
NATCA worked to finalize the rules associated with the various 
productivity articles of the contract and the rules for the new pay 
system. A metrics team was established to identify and track measurable 
results of implementing the contract. Early indications from this 
effort are showing some positive trends, and the FAA will continue to 
refine and analyze this data to provide additional information to 
Congress on the results of this contract.
    There are many indirect results of the contract with NATCA, 
including an improved and more productive working relationship between 
FAA management and NATCA in modernizing the aviation system. An example 
of this partnership is the manner in which Display System Replacement 
(DSR) has been fielded throughout the country, resulting in FAA 
completing many facilities well ahead of schedule. Another example is 
the STARS program; FAA has fielded the first segment at El Paso and 
Syracuse and is working on the advanced configurations of that program.

                           STAFFING STANDARD

    Question. Please provide a table that lists for fiscal years 1995 
through 2001 the staffing standard generated by the FAA systematically-
derived requirement figures, the actual number of controllers, the 
differences, the average compensation per controller, and the aggregate 
cost differential (negative or positive) of the actual staffing level 
compared to the staffing standard multiplied by the average 
compensation in each given year.
    Answer. The following table provides the information requested.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Aggregate
                                                      Staffing  Actual on                Average        cost
                    Fiscal year                       standard    board      AOB-SS   compensation  differential
                                                        (SS)      (AOB)                    per       (dollars in
                                                                                       controller    thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995...............................................     14,232     14,614        382       $81,021     $30,949.9
1996...............................................     14,691     14,360       -331        83,728     -27,717.1
1997...............................................     14,261     14,588        327        86,240      28,200.6
1998...............................................     14,207     14,966        759        92,856      70,326.3
1999...............................................     14,282     14,902        620       104,747      64,943.3
2000...............................................     14,782  \1\ 15,00        218       120,826      26,340.1
                                                                        0
2001...............................................     15,210  \1\ 15,00       -204       124,572     -25,412.7
                                                                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated.

                           BACKFILL OVERTIME

    Question. Please provide backfill overtime data from 1995 through 
2001.
    Answer. The backfill overtime usage for fiscal years 1995 through 
1998 averaged $3-4,000,000 per year.
    In fiscal year 1999, the backfill overtime significantly increased 
to $16,119,040 due to the DSR in eight air route traffic control 
centers.
    It is projected that there will be $17,715,868 spent in backfill 
overtime to support the transition of the remaining ten air route 
traffic control centers and the installation of the Center TRACON 
Automation System (CTAS) at two sites in fiscal year 2000.
    The current projections for fiscal year 2001 in backfill overtime 
are $24,000,000. This figure covers the costs for developmental and 
training activities associated with bringing new systems on-line and 
operational in facilities, such as the Standard Terminal Automation 
Replacement System (STARS) in terminal facilities, and the Automated 
Radar Terminal System Color Displays (ACD) that will be installed in 
fiscal year 2001 at terminal facilities that are not scheduled to 
receive STARS. The current schedule for CTAS includes installation at 
six sites, which requires instructor training, training of the 
controllers, transition in the en route and terminal facilities, and 
developmental activities for future site installations.
    Additionally, there are several large TRACON's scheduled for 
building and occupancy in fiscal year 2001. These facilities include 
Atlanta, Northern California, and Potomac. These facilities will be 
consolidating personnel and cross-training them in the different areas 
to ensure that safety of the air traffic system is not compromised. All 
of the aforementioned programs will require training and transition 
time before the systems can become operational in the air traffic 
environment.

                          CONTROLLER WORKFORCE

    Question. Please update the table from page 571 of last year's 
House hearing record on Controller Work Force (CWF) end of year 
employment for fiscal years 1996 through 2001.
    Answer. The following table provides the information requested. The 
table shows the traffic management coordinators (TMC) and traffic 
management supervisors (TMS) as a separate entry. The TMC/TMS are part 
of the controller work force.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                2000      2001
                                                                  1997      1998      1999    estimate  estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center:
    Controllers...............................................     6,425     6,639     6,607     6,635     6,635
    Ops Supervisors (1st Line Sup)............................       825       812       790       755       755
    TMC/TMS...................................................       558       526       567       553       553
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Center Controller Work Force............................     7,808     7,977     7,964     7,943     7,943
                                                               =================================================
Towers:
     Controllers..............................................     8,163     8,327     8,295     8,330     8,330
    Ops Supervisors (1st Line Sup)............................     1,261     1,276     1,177     1,129     1,129
    TMC/TMS...................................................       156       176       203       197       197
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Tower Controller Work Force.............................     9,580     9,779     9,675     9,656     9,656
                                                               =================================================
Centers/Towers Combined:
    Controllers...............................................    14,588    14,966    14,902    14,965    14,965
    Ops Supervisors (1st Line Sup)............................     2,086     2,088     1,967     1,884     1,884
    TMC/TMS...................................................       714       702       770       750       750
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total Controller Work Force.............................    17,388    17,756    17,639    17,599    17,599
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               UNION TIME

    Question. Please provide the estimated time granted by FAA managers 
for union activities for fiscal years 1995 through 2001.
    Answer. Listed below are the estimated hours granted by FAA 
managers for union activities for fiscal years 1995 through 2001.

        Fiscal year                                     Hours (estimate)

1995..........................................................   302,566
1996..........................................................   302,566
1997..........................................................   302,566
1998..........................................................   394,351
1999..........................................................   489,956
2000..........................................................   457,339
2001..........................................................   457,339

                            CONTRACT TOWERS

    Question. How much funding is included in the fiscal year 2001 
budget request to run contract towers. How much was included in the 
fiscal year 2000 budget request? How much is anticipated being spent on 
contract towers in fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2001 includes $55,600,000 for the contract 
tower program. The fiscal year 2000 budget request included $55,600,000 
for the contract tower program. We anticipate spending the full 
$55,600,000 during fiscal year 2000 on contract towers.

                           OPERATIONAL ERRORS

    Question. Please update the table on page 583 of last year's House 
hearing record relating to operational errors at contract towers and 
FAA facilities from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal 2000 (if partial 
year data is available). Do you have confidence in your operational 
error data?
    Answer. The following tables provide the information requested.

                         OPERATIONAL ERRORS FAA-- LEVEL I FACILITIES VS. CONTRACT TOWERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal year
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                           1993    1994    11995   1996    1997    1998    1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Facilities..........................................       4       5       2       4       2       6   \1\ 2
Contract Towers.........................................       2  ......       2       3      10       6      7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The last 22 FAA Level 1 towers were converted to contract towers on October 1, 1999. There were 163 contract
  towers at the end of fiscal year 1999.


                   OPERATIONAL ERROR RATE--FAA LEVEL I FACILITIES VS. CONTRACT TOWERS--CENTER
                                         [Errors per 100,000 Operations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal year
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                           1993    1994    1995    1996    1997    1998    1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Facilities..........................................    0.05    0.03    0.02    0.09    0.10    0.05    0.11
Contract Towers.........................................    0.12  ......    0.04    0.04    0.08    0.05    0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Fiscal year 2000 numbers are not available. At the beginning of fiscal year 2000, all FAA Level I towers
  were converted to contract towers. The data is validated for accuracy by the Air Traffic Investigations Office
  and entered into a database, which is retained by the FAA.

    Question. Are some facilities more a problem with respect to 
operational errors than others? Which ones?
    Answer. There is no defined trend or problem facilities in the 
Federal contract tower program. Operational errors continue to be a 
very rare occurrence. The FAA is working to further reduce this already 
low figure.
    Question. Please update the table on pages 594-598 of last year's 
House hearing recording relating to en route operational errors.
    Answer. The following table breaks down the total number of en 
route operational errors for the past five fiscal years.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Fiscal year
             Facility                                  Location                    -----------------------------
                                                                                    1995  1996  1997  1998  1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
En route operational errors:
    Albuquerque (ZAB).............  8000 Louisiana Blvd., NE Room 1014                20    21    13     7    22
                                     Albuquerque, NM 87109.
    Anchorage (ZAN)...............  5400 Davis Highway Anchorage, AL 99506........     3     2     3     4     9
    Atlanta (ZTL).................  299 Woolsey Road Hampton, GA 30228............    51    36    38    41    52
    Boston (ZBW)..................  Boston ARTCC 35 Northeastern Blvd. Nashua, NH      6    13    12    15    12
                                     03062.
    Chicago (ZAU).................  619 Indian Trail Road Aurora, IL 60506........    28    26    22    36    41
    Cleveland (ZOB)...............  326 East Lorain Street Oberlin, OH............    30    32    27    46    48
    Denver (ZDV)..................  2211--17th Avenue Longmont, CO................    17    11    14    14    20
    Fort Worth (ZFW)..............  13800 FAA Road Fort Worth, TX 76039...........    17    23    16    21    18
    Houston (ZHU).................  Intercontinental Airport 2700 West Terminal       17     7     8     9    15
                                     Road Houston, TX 77032-0032.
    Indianapolis (ZID)............  Indianapolis Int'l Airport 1850 S. Sigsbee        38    39    29    48    55
                                     Street Indianapolis, IN 46241.
    Jacksonville (ZJX)............  811 E. Second Street P.O. Box 98 Hilliard, FL     21    27    27    25    24
                                     32046.
    Kansas City (ZKC).............  250 S. Rogers Road Olathe, KS 66062-1689......    36    20    18    26    26
    Los Angeles (ZLA).............  2555 East Avenue Palmdale, CA 93550-2112......    20    19    24    27    22
    Memphis (ZME).................  3229 Democrat Road Memphis, TN 38118..........    18    21    25    26    21
    Miami (ZMA)...................  7500 N. W. 58th Street Miami, FL 33166........    21    15    14    14    14
    Minneapolis (ZMP).............  512 Division Street Farmington, MN 55024......    10    13    10    14    23
    New York (ZNY)................  4205 Johnson Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779......    40    44    41    46    47
    Oakland (ZOA).................  5125 Central Avenue Fremont, CA 94536-6531....    11    20    17    12    21
    Salt Lake (ZLC)...............  2150 West 700 North Salt Lake City, UT 84116..    11     8     9     9     3
    San Juan CERAP (ZUA)..........  DOT/FAA San Juan CERAP/GPO Section San Juan,    ....     1  ....  ....  ....
                                     PR 00936.
    Seattle (ZSE).................  ARTCC Building 3101 Auburn Way S. Auburn, WA      16     9     3     5     6
                                     98092.
    Washington (ZDC)..............  825 East Market Street Leesburg, VA 20041.....    22    24    25    42    74
                                                                                   -----------------------------
      Total.......................................................................   453   431   395   487  573
                                                                                   =============================
Operational Errors by Calendar
 Year:
    Albuquerque (ZAB).............  8000 Louisiana Blvd., NE Room 1014,               23    17    14     8    26
                                     Albuquerque, NM 87109.
    Anchorage (ZAN)...............  5400 Davis Highway Anchorage, AL 99506........     2     2     4     4    10
    Atlanta (ZTL).................  299 Woolsey Road Hampton, GA 30228............    49    43    33    43    61
    Boston (ZBW)..................  Boston ARTCC 35 Northeastern Blvd. Nashua, NH      6    15    16    15    12
                                     03062.
    Chicago (ZAU).................  619 Indian Trail Road Aurora, IL 60506........    29    24    26    47    46
    Cleveland (ZOB)...............  326 East Lorain Street Oberlin, OH............    34    32    30    47    51
    Denver (ZDV)..................  2211--17th Avenue Longmont, CO................    19    11    13    15    24
    Fort Worth (ZFW)..............  13800 FAA Road Fort Worth, TX 76039...........    20    20    16    18    21
    Houston (ZHU).................  Intercontinental Airport 2700 West Terminal       12     8    11     7    19
                                     Road Houston, TX 77032-0032.
    Indianapolis (ZID)............  Indianapolis Int'l Airport 1850 S. Sigsbee        33    38    33    49    57
                                     Street Indianapolis, IN 46241.
    Jacksonville (ZJX)............  811 E. Second Street P.O. Box 98 Hilliard, FL     25    28    26    23    30
                                     32046.
    Kansas City (ZKC).............  250 S. Rogers Road Olathe, KS 66062-1689......    26    23    20    26    28
    Los Angeles (ZLA).............  2555 East Avenue P Palmdale, CA 93550-2112....    20    17    26    28    22
    Memphis (ZME).................  3229 Democrat Road Memphis, TN 38118..........    20    26    22    25    25
    Miami (ZMA)...................  7500 N. W. 58th Street Miami, FL 33166........    21    16    13    11    18
    Minneapolis (ZMP).............  512 Division Street Farmington, MN 55024......    10    16     7    19    21
    New York (ZNY)................  4205 Johnson Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779......    40    46    44    44    49
    Oakland (ZOA).................  5125 Central Avenue Fremont, CA 94536-6531....    12    23    15    16    16
    Salt Lake (ZLC)...............  2150 West 700 North Salt Lake City, UT 84116..    14     6    10     7     4
    San Juan CERAP (ZUA)..........  DOT/FAA San Juan CERAP/GPO Section San Juan,    ....     1  ....  ....  ....
                                     PR 00936.
    Seattle (ZSE).................  ARTCC Building 3101 Auburn Way S. Auburn, WA      15     9     1     5     6
                                     98092.
    Washington (ZDC)..............  825 East Market Street Leesburg, VA 20041.....    23    18    31    53    75
                                                                                   -----------------------------
      Total.......................................................................   453   439   411   510  621
                                                                                   =============================
Error Rate by Fiscal Year:
    Albuquerque (ZAB).............  8000 Louisiana Blvd., NE Room 1014              1.35  1.33  0.84  0.40  1.07
                                     Albuquerque, NM 87109.
    Anchorage (ZAN)...............  5400 Davis Highway Anchorage, AL 99506........  0.54  0.37  0.51  0.62  1.51
    Atlanta (ZTL).................  299 Woolsey Road Hampton, GA 30228............  2.07  1.47  1.52  1.54  1.86
    Boston (ZBW)..................  Boston ARTCC 35 Northeastern Blvd. Nashua, NH   0.35  0.76  0.68  0.75  0.65
                                     03062.
    Chicago (ZAU).................  619 Indian Trail Road Aurora, IL 60506........  0.97  0.90  0.77  1.29  1.44
    Cleveland (ZOB)...............  326 East Lorain Street Oberlin, OH............  1.10  1.12  0.94  1.53  1.53
    Denver (ZDV)..................  2211--17th Avenue Longmont, CO................  1.19  0.73  0.88  0.86  1.21
    Fort Worth (ZFW)..............  13800 FAA Road Fort Worth, TX 76039...........  0.80  1.08  0.76  0.97  0.83
    Houston (ZHU).................  Intercontinental Airport 2700 West Terminal     0.90  0.37  0.41  0.45  0.74
                                     Road Houston, TX 77032-0032.
    Indianapolis (ZID)............  Indianapolis Int'l Airport 1850 S. Sigsbee      1.77  1.80  1.24  2.00  2.11
                                     Street Indianapolis, IN 46241.
    Jacksonville (ZJX)............  811 E. Second Street P.O. Box 98 Hilliard, FL   1.15  1.44  1.40  1.19  1.09
                                     32046.
    Kansas City (ZKC).............  250 S. Rogers Road Olathe, KS 66062-1689......  1.84  1.01  0.87  1.22  1.19
    Los Angeles (ZLA).............  2555 East Avenue P Palmdale, CA 93550-2112....  1.03  0.96  1.19  1.34  1.06
    Memphis (ZME).................  3229 Democrat Road Memphis, TN 38118..........  0.89  1.06  1.24  1.22  0.97
    Miami (ZMA)...................  7500 N. W. 58th Street Miami, FL 33166........  1.06  0.76  0.70  0.68  0.65
    Minneapolis (ZMP).............  512 Division Street Farmington, MN 55024......  0.50  0.65  0.49  0.68  1.09
    New York (ZNY)................  4205 Johnson Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779......  1.91  2.06  1.87  1.84  1.68
    Oakland (ZOA).................  5125 Central Avenue Fremont, CA 94536-6531....  0.70  1.28  1.08  0.74  1.30
    Salt Lake (ZLC)...............  2150 West 700 North Salt Lake City, UT 84116..  0.77  0.54  0.60  0.58  0.21
    San Juan CERAP (ZUA)..........  DOT/FAA San Juan CERAP/GPO Section San Juan,    ....  0.78  ....  ....  ....
                                     PR 00936.
    Seattle (ZSE).................  ARTCC Building 3101 Auburn Way S. Auburn, WA    1.12  0.65  0.21  0.36  0.42
                                     98092.
    Washington (ZDC)..............  825 East Market Street Leesburg, VA 20041.....  0.94  1.05  1.04  1.71  2.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          CONTROLLER TRAINING

    Question. Please provide estimated obligations under the current 
controller training contract for each of the fiscal years 1996-2001.
    Answer. The following is a breakdown of funding to support the air 
traffic controller training program.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year
                      Activity                       -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1996      1997      1998      1999    2000 \1\    2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Traffic Instructional Services Contract.........   9,572.2  11,920.0  13,893.5  15,494.7  16,700.0  16,700.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes the Administration's fiscal year 2000 Supplemental request.

                         CONTROLLER WORK FORCE

    Question. Please provide a table consisting of the controller work 
force divided into total air traffic activity by year from fiscal year 
1992-2001. Please comment on the trend in this controller productivity 
measure. Has the FAA developed any other metrics to measure controller 
productivity. Please provide a note estimating the number of controller 
staffing years that are incurred by virtue of backfill overtime.
    Answer. The following table provides the information requested:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total      Operations
                Year                   ATCS     operations     per ATCS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992...............................   15,147     143,590,432       9,480
1993...............................   14,970     143,226,923       9,567
1994...............................   14,953     145,871,002       9,755
1995...............................   14,614     145,171,595       9,934
1996...............................   14,360     141,457,797       9,851
1997...............................   14,588     142,759,683       9,786
1998...............................   14,966     145,456,514       9,719
1999...............................   14,902     150,821,483      10,121
2000...............................   15,000     152,105,300      10,140
2001...............................   15,000     155,524,300      10,368
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA does not believe that a good set of productivity metrics 
exists today. The FAA and NATCA are working together to develop an 
accurate set of performance indicators for the air traffic control 
system, including productivity indicators. The FAA expects the report 
to be finished and delivered by the end of May 2000.
    Note.--The estimated numbers of controller staffing years that are 
incurred by virtue of backfill overtime are:

        Fiscal year                                                     
1998..............................................................    44
1999..............................................................   126
2000..............................................................   130

                        CONTROLLER PRODUCTIVITY

    Question. What tools are anticipated to be available in the next 
fiscal year that will enhance controller productivity by virtue of 
increasing the number of operations handled by the average controller 
or by obviating the need for en route or other operations.
    Answer. The following are tools that are anticipated to be 
available in the next fiscal year that will enhance controller 
productivity:
    (1) Traffic Management Advisor (TMA), which provides the en route 
controller with more accurate time-based metering. TMA also allows for 
better, more effective coordination between the en route center and the 
approach control in determining airport acceptance rates.
    (2) Passive Final Approach Spacing Tool (PFAST) provides a runway 
number and a sequence number to the terminal controller on the 
Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS) data block. It will assist the 
controller in determining appropriate runway and sequence number to 
aircraft entering the terminal environment. PFAST alleviates some of 
the cognitive activity associated with manual determination of aircraft 
sequence.
    (3) User Request Evaluation Tool, (URET) is the prototype for the 
Free Flight Phase 1 component, User Request Evaluation Tool Core 
Capability Limited Deployment (URET CCLD). URET provides alert 
notification of potential aircraft conflicts, enabling rapid analysis 
of and response to aircraft requests. It also supports the controller 
by providing electronic flight data management capabilities and 
supporting some reduction in verbal coordination activities. 
Prototyping activities will continue through fiscal year 2001, with 
delivery of the Free Flight component URET CCLD at the keysite Kansas 
City Air Route Traffic Control Center in September 2001.

                      DEPARTURE AND ARRIVAL PAIRS

    Question. What are the average number of controller operations per 
departure and arrival pair by year from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal 
year 2001.
    Answer. The FAA does not maintain data on ``departure and arrival 
pairs.'' To develop a data base of that nature would be labor 
intensive. However, the Agency does maintain a statistic called total 
operations. It is made up of Instrument Flight Recorder aircraft 
handled in centers, terminal instrument operations, and airport tower 
operations. It does not include statistics from contract towers. Using 
this statistic and the addition of the number of center and terminal 
air traffic controllers (ATCS) database, the FAA has calculated the 
number of total operations per ATCS for the fiscal years 1992 through 
fiscal year 2001. The figures for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 
are estimates based on forecasts.
    The following table provides the information requested.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total      Operations
               Year                   ATCS      operations     per ATCS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992.............................     15,147     143,590,432       9,480
1994.............................     14,953     145,871,002       9,755
1995.............................     14,614     145,171,595       9,934
1996.............................     14,360     141,457,797       9,851
1997.............................     14,588     142,759,683       9,786
1998.............................     14,966     145,456,514       9,719
1999.............................     14,902     150,821,483      10,121
2000.............................     15,000     152,105,300      10,140
2001.............................     15,000     155,524,300      10,368
------------------------------------------------------------------------


              AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM (AMASS)

    Question. Please provide the anticipated commissioning dates for 
the AMASS system deployments.
    Answer. The following table reflects AMASS delivery dates and first 
and last operational readiness demonstration (ORD) dates. Following 
completion of the In-service review decision scheduled for 01/01, ORDs 
between San Francisco and Andrews Air Force Base will be in an order 
prioritized by Air Traffic and are expected to occur at a rate of 
approximately three every eight weeks. Commissionings are expected to 
occur, depending on site-specific requirements, two to three months 
after a site's ORD.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Delivery
                       City                            date     ORD date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit...........................................    8/29/97  .........
 St. Louis........................................    1/16/98  .........
FAA Technical Center..............................     3/8/99  .........
San Francisco.....................................    6/15/99       6/01
FAA Academy.......................................    6/22/99  .........
Chicago...........................................     8/5/99  .........
Boston............................................    8/16/99  .........
Los Angeles #1....................................    8/25/99  .........
Los Angeles #2....................................     9/2/99  .........
Salt Lake City....................................    9/10/99  .........
Cleveland.........................................    9/16/99  .........
Seattle...........................................    10/8/99  .........
Newark............................................   10/12/99  .........
Miami.............................................    11/2/99  .........
Minneapolis.......................................    11/5/99  .........
New York--Kennedy.................................   12/10/99  .........
Cincinnati........................................    1/10/00  .........
Kansas City.......................................    1/12/00  .........
Portland..........................................    1/19/00  .........
Pittsburgh........................................     2/2/00  .........
Memphis...........................................    2/10/00  .........
Baltimore.........................................     3/6/00  .........
Philadelphia......................................     3/6/00  .........
New Orleans.......................................    3/16/00  .........
Louisville........................................       3/00  .........
Las Vegas.........................................       4/00  .........
Denver #1.........................................       4/00  .........
San Diego.........................................       4/00  .........
Dallas/Ft. Worth #1...............................       5/00  .........
Dallas/Ft. Worth #2...............................       5/00  .........
Anchorage.........................................       5/00  .........
Denver #2.........................................       5/00  .........
Charlotte.........................................       6/00  .........
New York--La Guardia..............................       6/00  .........
Dulles............................................       6/00  .........
La Guardia NY.....................................       6/00  .........
Houston #1........................................       6/00  .........
Houston #2........................................       7/00  .........
Reagan Washington National........................    \1\ TBD    \1\ TBD
Andrews AFB MD....................................       1/01      9/02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Due to multipath on runways, DCA did not commission its ASDE-3 9/99.
  To mitigate the mulitpath, the ASDE-3 antenna must be relocated. Funds
  have not yet been identified for this task. Commissioning date cannot
  be determined until funds have been allocated. This impacts the AMASS
  commissioning.

                       LEASED TELECOMMUNICATIONS

    Question. Please provide the actual obligations for leased 
telecommunications for the past five fiscal years and the estimates for 
fiscal year 2000 and 2001.
    Answer. The following represent the actual obligation for leased 
telecommunications for fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year1999 and the 
estimates for fiscal years 2000 and 2001:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

        Fiscal year                                                     

1995....................................................     312,477,400
1996....................................................     314,776,900
1997....................................................     314,981,600
1998....................................................     307,835,300
1999....................................................     273,332,200
2000....................................................     277,716,000
2001....................................................     355,819,000

                   IMPLEMENTATION OF OVERFLIGHT FEES

    Question. Please reprint your reply to last year's question on the 
implementation of overflight fees (page 717 of the House hearing 
record) and respond to that question for the current budget cycle. In 
light of that response, what gives the FAA any confidence that the new 
user fees anticipated in the President's budget request will be 
realized as projected in the President's request, particularly in light 
of the deferral of work on the cost accounting system?
    Excerpt from page 717 of last year's House hearings:

          ``Mr. Wolf. What is your schedule for implementing the 
        currently authorized overflight user fee, and what is your 
        estimate of collections for fiscal year 2000?
          [The information follows:]
          Our schedule has been driven by the overall schedule for 
        development of the Cost Accounting System. The necessary cost 
        accounting data should be available within the next two months, 
        and our goal is to have the overflight fees in effect by no 
        later than October 1, 1999. We cannot give a precise estimate 
        of collections at this point, pending availability of the cost 
        accounting information upon which the fees will be based. We do 
        know, however, that the fees and subsequent collections will be 
        lower than those estimated under the previous rule.''

    Answer. With respect to the current budget cycle, we expect to 
publish a new overflight fee document in the Federal Register in the 
spring of 2000. The President's budget for fiscal year 2001 assumes 
collections of $5,100,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $22,100,000 in fiscal 
year 2001.
    The deferral of certain work on the cost accounting system has no 
adverse effect on the FAA's ability to realize $965,000,000 in the new 
user fee revenues assumed in the President's budget. Those revenues 
would come from new cost-based fees for air traffic control services. 
The FAA already has good cost information of over $2,000,000,000 for en 
route and oceanic services, and would build upon this information to 
derive the new fees proposed in the President's budget.

                      OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL

    Question. Please provide detail as to how the increase requested 
for the Office of the Chief Counsel is to be used? What level of 
contract legal support is currently being utilized by the FAA?
    Answer. The Office of the Chief Counsel will primarily use the 
increase to fund staff for support efforts in personnel and rulemaking 
matters. AIR 21 restored Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) and 
Office of Special Counsel (OSC) jurisdiction over personnel actions 
taken by FAA supervisors and managers. FAA employees are allowed to 
appeal adverse actions to MSPB. Actions appealable to the MSPB/OSC 
involve serious personnel actions.
    The Safer Skies agenda goals and initiatives have identified safety 
interventions that will require additional advisory circulars, rules, 
guidance and policy letters. Each of these will require legal review. 
Backlogs in domestic Airworthiness Directives (AD's) and international 
AD's Mandatory Continued Airworthiness Instructions are continuing and 
can be expected to grow with the increased workload. Additional legal 
expertise in the regional counsel office will help keep backlogs to a 
minimum.
    The FAA is not currently utilizing any contracted legal support; 
the existing legal staff consists of FAA employees.

               NEW PROGRAMS REQUESTED IN FISCAL YEAR 2001

    Question. Please provide a list, with corresponding fiscal year 
2001 funding, of all new programs, projects, or activities in the 
fiscal year 2001 F&E budget request not requested in fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. Listed below are the fiscal year 2001 programs not 
requested in fiscal year 2000.

Free Flight Phase 2.....................................     $50,000,000
Terminal Applied Engineering............................       6,700,000
Mode-S..................................................       1,974,000
Low Cost Airport Surface Detection Equipment............       8,400,000
Weather Message Switching Center Replacement............       2,500,000
ILS-Replace GRN-27......................................       1,000,000
Gulf of Mexico Program..................................       1,900,000
Distance Learning.......................................       2,200,000

                              NAS HANDOFF

    Question. What level of NAS handoff funding was requested in 
Operations for fiscal year 2000 and what is currently anticipated to be 
funded out of the Operations account? How much NAS handoff funding is 
requested for fiscal year 2001 in Operations? In F&E?
    Answer. The FAA's increase for NAS handoff in fiscal year 2000 was 
$85,500,000. The table, below, shows the disposition of the 
appropriated funds.
    Approximately 81 percent of the funds appropriated for NAS Handoff 
had to be reprogrammed to cover operational shortfalls within the 
affected lines of business. The NAS Handoff costs were either funded by 
the F&E appropriation for another year, or were funded at greatly 
reduced levels within the operations base funding for existing NAS 
systems.

                                FISCAL YEAR 2000 PRESIDENT'S REQUEST--NAS HANDOFF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fiscal year
            Budget activity                 2000      Congressional   Appropriation     Reprogram    Net program
                                          request        action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation and Certification..........   $3,730,000  ..............      $3,730,000     -$3,730,000  ...........
Civil Aviation Security...............    1,800,000       -$713,000       1,087,000      -1,087,000  ...........
Air Traffic Services..................   79,970,000     -15,050,000      64,920,000     -51,958,000  $12,962,000
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total FAA.......................   85,500,000     -15,763,000     -69,737,000     -56,775,000   12,962,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fiscal year 2001 request for NAS handoff is $135,426,600, all 
in the Operations appropriation. The distribution by line of business 
is: $2,900,000 for Regulation and Certification; $3,388,000 for Civil 
Aviation Security; and $129,138,600 for Air Traffic Services.

                    PERCENTAGE OF F&E BUDGET REQUEST

    Question. What percent of the F&E budget request for fiscal years 
1999 through 2001 was for FAA salaries by year? What percentage for 
direct research, development, or procurement of items to sustain or 
modernize the NAS? What percentage is for overhead?
    Answer. The percentages are listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year
                                                 -----------------------
                                                   1999    2000    2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries........................................      12      14      13
Direct research.................................       1       1       1
Development.....................................       1       2       3
Procurement.....................................      86      83      83
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overhead charges do not apply to the F&E appropriation.

                  APPROVED COST AND SCHEDULE BASELINES

    Question. Please provide a listing of each baselined F&E program 
providing a notation as to when the baseline was established and 
whether such baseline is either the first or second baseline for the 
program. In addition, please display the cost baseline, the schedule 
baseline, and the current status of the program against such baseline.
    Answer. The baselined listing follows:

                                              [Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Schedule baseline (last
   Program name baseline date      Total F&E cost baseline            ORD)                  Current Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 programs initiated after
 October 1996:
    Host and Oceanic Computer     $424.1..................  9/99 (Phase I)..........  Phase I completed.
     System Replacement (HOCSR)
     May 1998.
    FSAS Operational and          Initial: 174.7..........  Initial: 8/01...........  Baseline under review.
     Supportability System        Re-baseline: 222.2        Re-baseline: 9/02
     (OASIS) December 1996.       Re-baseline: 249.5        Re-baseline: 5/05
    Safety Performance and        32.3....................   9/03...................  No change.
     Analysis System (SPAS)
     August 1997.
    Free Flight Phase One April   628.8...................  12/02...................  No change.
     1999.
    Controller Pilot Data Link    159.9...................  12/05...................  No change.
     Communications-Build 1/1A
     October 1998.
    Next Generation Air/Ground    407.6...................  9/08....................  The program is currently
     Communication System May                                                          being restructured due to
     1998.                                                                             budget deferrals.
    FAA Telecommunications        205.7...................  12/08...................  No change.
     Infrastructure July 1999.
    Systems Engineering and       ........................  ........................  Contract to be awarded in
     Technical Assistance                                                              June 2000.
     Contract (SETA II) June
     1999.
    Facility Security Risk        148.3...................  9/05....................  No change.
     Management February 1999.
    NAS Infrastructure            Initial: 100.8..........  9/00....................  The FAA re-baselined the
     Management System--Phase I   Re-baseline: 60.3                                    program and has submitted
     March 1997.                                                                       a basis of determination
                                                                                       to Congress.
    ACQUIRE December 1996.......  5.6.....................  9/98....................  Completed 12/98.
    Local Area Augmentation       Initial: 536.1..........  Initial: 12/06..........  Baseline under review.
     System January 19998.        Re-baseline: 718.5        Re-baseline: 10/11
    Air Traffic Control Beacon    282.9...................  9/04....................  Baseline under review.
     Interrogator Replacement
     August 1997.
    NAS Implementation Support    1337.0..................  9/07....................  No change.
     Contract October 1996.
30 programs initiated prior to
 October 1996:
    Display System Replacement    1,055.3.................  5/00....................  The program is reporting a
     May 1996.                                                                         $48.0M under-run to its
                                                                                       cost baseline.
    Common ARTS (ARTS IIA, ARTS   86.1 (ARTS IIIE)........  1/99 (ARTS IIIE)........  The last ARTS IIIE ORD was
     IIIE) March 1997.            109.8 (ARTS IIE)          4/00 (ARTS IIE)            completed in 6/99. The
                                                                                       last ARTS IIE ORD is
                                                                                       scheduled to be complete
                                                                                       in 5/00.
    Standard Terminal Automation  1,076.1 (ceiling).......  10/05 (ceiling).........  A new cost/schedule
     Replacement System January                                                        baseline was presented to
     1996.                                                                             the Joint Resources
                                                                                       Council in 10/99. The
                                                                                       current estimate for the
                                                                                       cost baseline is $1402.6M
                                                                                       with a Last ORD of 9/08.
                                                                                       The revised APB is under
                                                                                       review and will be
                                                                                       approved shortly. The
                                                                                       primary reason for the
                                                                                       increase is computer-
                                                                                       human interface
                                                                                       modifications to the
                                                                                       system which require
                                                                                       significant custom
                                                                                       software development.
    Oceanic--Build 1 July 1996..  73.2....................  10/99...................  The Last ORD slipped to 6/
                                                                                       00 due to New York Center
                                                                                       priorities for deployment
                                                                                       of DSR and HOCSR over MS-
                                                                                       ODL.
    Portable Performance Support  45.7....................  9/04....................  No change.
     System (PPSS) October 1998.
    Integrated Flight Quality     18.7....................  9/01....................  No change.
     Assurance (IFQA) October
     1998.
    Voice Recorder Replacement    1,452.9.................  5/00....................  The program is reporting
     Program January 1994.                                                             an underrun of $40.5M.
                                                                                       The schedule reflects the
                                                                                       Last ORD for VTABs.
    Radio Control Equipment       260.4...................  12/01...................  The Last ORD has slipped
     October 1998.                                                                     to 6/02 due to budget
                                                                                       deferrals.
    Back up Emergency             54.1....................  Initial: 4/04...........  Baseline under review.
     Communications Replacement                             Re-baseline: 2/09
     October 1998.
    Voice Recorder Replacement    29.4....................  5/02....................  The Last ORD has slipped
     Program October 1998.                                                             to 6/04 due to budget
                                                                                       deferrals.
    Potomac TRACON July 1999....  92.4....................  6/03....................  No change.
    No. Cal TRACON October 1999.  88.1....................  7/02....................  No change.
    Atlanta TRACON October 1999.  62.2....................  8/01....................  No change.
    CAEG Replacement October      18.5....................  4/02....................  No change.
     1999.
    Aeronautical Center-TSF/LSF   31.0....................  9/04....................  No change.
     April 1999.
    Wilcox Cat II/III ILS         14.3....................  12/99...................  Program Complete.
     Replacement October 1998.
    AN/GRN-27 ILS Replacement     87.6....................  12/99...................  The Last ORD has slipped
     October 1998.                                                                     to 12/01 due to budget
                                                                                       deferrals.
    Wide Area Augmentation        Initial: 1,006.6........  Initial: 12/01..........  Baseline under review.
     System January 1998.         Re-baseline: 2,978.0      Re-baseline: 12/06
    Airport Surface Detection     249.1...................  11/99...................  The last ORD slipped to 2/
     Equipment October 1998.                                                           02. The schedule slip is
                                                                                       associated with the last
                                                                                       site, Charlotte, which is
                                                                                       a refurbished system
                                                                                       awaiting spare parts.
    Airport Movement Area Safety  Initial: 74.1...........  Initial: 8/00...........  Baseline under review.
     System (AMASS) October 1998. Re-baseline: 151.8        Re-baseline: 9/02
    Mode S December 1999........  467.1...................  10/04...................  No change.
    Terminal Radar Program--ASR-  856.7...................  8/98....................  Completed 8/99.
     9 October 1998.
    Terminal Digital Radar--ASR-  743.3...................  9/05....................  Baseline under review.
     11 November 1997.
    Long Range Radar Program--    415.8...................  6/99....................  Completed 3/00.
     ARSR-4 October 1998.
    Aviation Surface Weather      350.9...................  4/02....................  No change.
     Observation Network (ASWON)
     October  1999.
    Terminal Doppler Weather      393.5...................  12/00...................  No change.
     Radar October 1998.
    WARP Stage 0/1/2/3 October    Initial: 125.6..........  Initial: 7/00...........  The FAA has re-baselined
     1998.                        Re-baseline: 143.6        Re-baseline: 2/01          the program. The cost
                                                                                       baseline increased $17.2M
                                                                                       due to increased
                                                                                       telecommunications
                                                                                       infrastructure costs,
                                                                                       additional time required
                                                                                       to complete deployment of
                                                                                       WARP Stage 1/2, and the
                                                                                       need to continue
                                                                                       providing WARP Stage 0
                                                                                       service to the field
                                                                                       until Stage 1/2
                                                                                       deployment. The Last ORD
                                                                                       slipped to 2/01.
    Upgrade LLWAS to Expanded     43.5....................  10/01...................  The Last ORD has slipped
     Network October 1998.                                                             to 3/02 due to the sub-
                                                                                       contractor defaulting on
                                                                                       the contract to produce
                                                                                       and deliver radio
                                                                                       transceivers for LLWAS
                                                                                       sensors. The cost
                                                                                       baseline increased $3.0M
                                                                                       for contractor
                                                                                       termination costs.
    Integrated Terminal Weather   173.0...................  7/03....................  No change.
     System (ITWS)-Initial
     Operating Capability June
     1997.
    ASR Weather Systems           80.4....................  9/02....................  The Last ORD slipped to 12/
     Processor October 1998.                                                           02 due to a 90-day
                                                                                       extension in the contract
                                                                                       start date as requested
                                                                                       by Northrop-Grumman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               SCHEDULE FOR BASELINING REMAINING PROGRAMS

    Question. Are all major acquisition programs baselined? Which 
programs remain unbaselined, and what is the schedule for completion of 
baselining those programs?
    Answer. All major acquisition programs are either baselined, in 
process or identified to be baselined. There are currently 44 
acquisition programs baselined, accounting for approximately 70 percent 
of the acquisition dollars in the agency's fiscal year 2001 F&E budget. 
The list below identifies those either in process or identified to be 
baselined.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Program name                   Planned completion date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
En Route Communications Gateway          September 2000.
 (Eunomia).
AFSS Voice Switch Replacement..........  May 2000.
Aeronautical Data Link--CPDLC Build II.  TBD.\1\
Power Systems..........................  May 2000.
Information Security...................  TBD.\1\
Runway Incursion (in two phases).......  August 2000.
ASDE-X Non-Radar.......................  TBD.\1\
Oceanic--ATOP..........................  TBD.\1\
Airport Cable Loop.....................  May 2000.
Aeronautical Center--CAMI..............  TBD.\1\
NAS Training Modernization.............  September 2000.
Asset & Supply Chain Management........  September 2000.
Long Range radar Improvements--          TBD.\1\
 Infrastructure Upgrades.
NEXRAD Upgrades........................  TBD.\1\
TDWR Computer Replacement..............  TBD.\1\
Aviation Safety Analysis System........  TBD.\1\
NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM).....  September 2000.
Enhanced Terminal Voice Switch.........  September 2000.
A/G Communications.....................  TBD.\1\
Alaskan NAS Interfacility                August 2000.
 Communications System Satellite
 Network-Phase II.
Sustain Distance Measuring Equipment...  TBD.\1\
NIMS--Phase II.........................  May 2000.
Free Flight Phase II...................  TBD.\1\
En Route Domain Infrastructure (ERDI)..  TBD.\1\
Advanced Airport Security Systems......  TBD.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The baselines on TBD (to be determined) status are those programs in
  the process of having an investment analysis performed. Baselines are
  not established until an investment analysis of the alternatives is
  completed.

            FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT END OF YEAR OBLIGATIONS

    Question. Please update the bar chart on page 783 of last year's 
House hearing record concerning end of year F&E obligations.
    Answer. The bar chart follows: 
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.018
    

                          FREE FLIGHT PHASE 1

    Question. Please update the Free Flight Phase 1 (FFP1) baseline 
schedule on page 804 of last year's House hearing record.
    Answer. The schedule follows. 
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.019
    
                  WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS)

    Question. Please provide the names of the FAA WAAS team members 
working closely with Raytheon on resolving programmatic issues. Who is 
the accountable FAA official for cost and schedule baseline targets?
    Answer. Key team members from FAA's Global Positioning System (GPS) 
Product Team who are working closely with Raytheon on resolving 
programmatic issues include the following:
  --Jack Loewenstein, Integrated Product Team Leader (IPTL) for 
        Navigation Systems
  --Harry Kane, Deputy IPTL
  --Steve Hodges, GPS Product Team Lead
  --Hal Bell, Deputy GPS Product Team Lead
  --Dan Hanlon, WAAS Program Manager
  --Leo Eldredge, WAAS Phase 1 Project Manager
  --Bill Wanner, Test and Evaluation Team Lead
  --Tom McHugh, Deputy Test and Evaluation Team Lead
  --Bruce DeCleene, Aircraft Certification
  --Hank Cabler, Flight Standards, WAAS Program Sponsor
  --Doug Davis, Airway Facilities, Communications, Navigation, 
        Surveillance and Infrastructure
  --Susan Eicher, GPS Product Team Contracting Officer
  --Linda Lewis, GPS Product Team General Counsel
    In addition to the above, numerous other FAA personnel and various 
technical experts from MITRE, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Ohio 
University, and Stanford University also provide extensive support to 
the WAAS project.
    The FAA Acquisition Executive is the FAA official who is 
accountable for cost and schedule baseline targets. The FAA Acquisition 
Executive is Steve Zaidman, Associate Administrator for Research and 
Acquisitions.

                          SATELLITE NAVIGATION

    Question. Please reprint your response to the satellite navigation 
questions on pages 807 and 808 of last year's House hearing record. 
Please, with hindsight, comment on the current difficulties the FAA and 
Raytheon faces in the WAAS procurement and the studies findings?
    Reprint of House hearing record p. 807--Satellite Navigation, 
question 1:

          ``Mr. Wolf. The Johns Hopkins University recently completed 
        its review of satellite navigation systems. While the Air 
        Transport Association hailed the study's results, some outside 
        observers have attacked the report on technical grounds. What 
        are your views of the adequacy of this study?
          [The information follows:]
          Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory did an 
        excellent job given the time and resources that were available 
        to them. The FAA is pleased with the study's findings that 
        sole-means and sole-service are technically achievable, and 
        that the risks to attaining those goals are manageable. The 
        report also identifies those areas where additional work is 
        necessary, such as the definition of the intentional 
        interference threat and a reassessment of the most cost-
        efficient satellite navigation architecture. These findings are 
        not interpreted to mean that implementing of satellite 
        navigation will be easy, but rather to indicate where risk 
        mitigation efforts should be directed. The FAA is also 
        considering the criticisms of the report in determining future 
        satellite navigation policy.''

    Answer. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory 
study identified interference and ionospheric propagation and 
scintillation as areas of risk. The FAA has focused risk mitigation 
efforts in these same areas as identified in the report. The FAA has 
done a considerable amount of work in the mitigation of interference 
and also has a variety of initiatives that focus on ionospheric issues. 
As the report predicted, ionospheric issues have been challenging. The 
FAA is addressing these issues with academia and various international 
partners who face these same challenges.
    Reprint of House hearing record p. 807--Satellite Navigation, 
question 2:

          ``Mr. Wolf. Does this provide sufficient evidence for the FAA 
        to move ahead beyond phase one of WAAS?
          [The information follows:]
          We are encouraged by the Johns Hopkins risk assessment and 
        remain committed to delivering sole-means global navigation 
        satellite systems. The determination that ``sole-means'' and 
        ``sole-service'' capabilities are feasible is an incentive to 
        finding an affordable end-state wherein risk is managed 
        effectively. The required levels of performance will not be 
        provided in Phase One. We are developing an action plan to 
        address all of the issues and recommendations that have been 
        raised by the study, and are preparing a Satellite Navigation 
        Investment Analysis to determine the most cost-effective means 
        of providing sole-means and/or sole-service capabilities.''

    Answer. The Satellite Navigation Investment Analysis was completed 
in September 1999. The findings were provided to Congress in November 
1999. As a result of the investment analysis, satellite navigation, 
despite its challenges, is still considered to be the most cost-
effective means sole and sole source capabilities. A combined WAAS/LAAS 
approach, with a basic backup network of ground based NAVAIDS, was 
shown to be the most cost-effective.
    Reprint of House hearing record p. 808--Satellite Navigation, 
question 3:

          ``Mr. Wolf. The Johns Hopkins study discusses a number of 
        operational and technical risks in achieving the potential of 
        GPS. Isn't it one thing to say that something is ``technically 
        possible'', and quite another to say it is cost-effective?
          [The information follows:]
          Yes. The Johns Hopkins study was conducted to answer the 
        ``technically possible'' question. Another study, the FAA's 
        ongoing Satellite Navigation Investment Analysis, is intended 
        to determine its cost-effectiveness, particularly in comparison 
        to other navigation alternatives. That study is expected to be 
        completed in June 1999.''

    Answer. The Satellite Navigation Investment Analysis was completed 
in September 1999. The findings were provided to Congress in November 
1999. One alternative retained all Very High Frequency Omnidirectional 
Radio Range/Distance Measuring Equipment/Instrument Landing System in 
lieu of augmented satellite navigation Wide Area Augmentation System/
Local Area Augmentation System (WAAS and LAAS). The study reaffirmed 
satellite navigation as the most cost-beneficial navigation concept for 
the future with a benefit to cost ratio 2.4 for the WAAS/LAAS 
alternative.
    Additionally, the FAA has been working closely with aviation user 
groups to ensure that navigation solutions developed and implemented by 
the FAA will be in line with the needs of the user community. Aviation 
user groups have validated their support of the FAA's commitment to 
satellite navigation. These groups have enthusiastically cited examples 
of both current and potential benefits enabled by GPS and its 
augmentations (WAAS/LAAS). These benefits include the provision of 
navigation capability to areas where it currently did not exist, 
increased safety through improved position-awareness, and increased 
cost-effectiveness of operations due to the unique flexibility enabled 
by satellite navigation.
    Question. Please describe the FAA's anticipated strategy to address 
the integrity issue as it relates to WAAS. Were any of the academic 
experts working on this proposed solution involved in the John Hopkins 
study? If so, which ones?
    Answer. The FAA's approach for addressing the WAAS integrity issue 
is two-fold. The FAA has developed a WAAS Integrity and Performance 
Panel (WIPP) comprised of leading experts in the satellite navigation 
field--including representatives from MITRE, NASA's Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory, Stanford University, Ohio University, Zeta, Raytheon 
Corporation, and the FAA. The objectives of this panel will include the 
identification of technical solutions and evaluation of future concepts 
for the WAAS in the areas of algorithm and architecture, with the 
emphasis of achieving integrity while balancing acceptable levels of 
accuracy and availability performance. Additionally, a WAAS Independent 
Review Board, consisting of a separate panel of technical and 
operational aviation experts, will be formed to review the overall 
approach and specific technical deliverables produced by the WIPP. The 
charter and membership for these two groups is currently being 
developed.
    None of the technical experts involved in the current WIPP effort 
was directly involved in the Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics 
Laboratory GPS Risk Assessment Study, except to provide information as 
requested by the university.
    Question. Considering the certification difficulties involved with 
WAAS that need to be resolved, and the recognition that the LAAS uses 
similar GPS technology as its basis, please describe the FAA's 
anticipated strategy to address the integrity issue as it relates to 
LAAS. Will the same issue effect the LAAS certification process and how 
does the FAA plan on avoiding repeating the WAAS history in the LAAS 
program?
    Answer. In 1995, LAAS was developed as a demonstration and 
validation program. Operation requirements and approval to establish 
LAAS standards were completed by February 1996. LAAS has used FAA's 
other transaction authority to focus industry on development and 
certification of ground and air segments, both beginning with 
development of CAT I LAAS and then CAT II/III LAAS. The FAA has 
obtained experience on the Special Category I (SCAT-I) systems, 
privately developed local area augmentation systems. Recognizing from 
the start that integrity is a key issue, the FAA created the LAAS 
Integrity Panel (LIP) to address each SCAT-I vendor's approach to 
integrity. This panel has continued to monitor the LAAS Government 
Industry Partnerships (GIP) that were established in April 1999 and has 
even spawned a similar panel with the WAAS procurement. The experience 
gained by the LIP will continue to be applied to the LAAS development 
through CAT III. That is, the FAA will apply its most knowledgeable 
experts to the LAAS CAT III integrity problem, just as it has for SCAT-
I and LAAS CAT I.
    The FAA is aware of the integrity challenge presented by LAAS and 
is aggressively addressing this issue. The LAAS team is considering 
integrity a key requirement at the start. Further, the LAAS team is 
continually applying the experience gained on SCAT-I and will 
eventually apply experience gained with LAAS CAT I. These factors 
minimize the LAAS integrity risk.
    Question. What are the future spending needs of the WAAS and LAAS? 
Over what time frame will those funds be needed?
    Answer. At this time, FAA's most accurate estimate is the December 
1999 FAA Satellite Navigation Program Baselines. The future WAAS 
program needs shall be determined once the Agency has the technical 
solutions for the system integrity problem, which are expected in 
December 2000.

                           RUNWAY INCURSIONS

    Question. Does the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-
B) program have a role to play in addressing the runway incursion 
issue?
    Answer. Yes. ADS-B will be able to contribute two critical 
components to the runway incursion issue. The first component would 
provide ADS-B target information to the controllers. This capability 
would be similar to radar based Airport Surface Detection Equipment 
(ASDE) display functionality in the tower cab, but would provide 
controllers with more accurate target information, such as aircraft 
data tag and precise GPS derived position.
    The second component is ADS-B driven cockpit surface moving map 
displays. Safe Flight-21 is currently developing commercial cockpit 
displays, which provide pilots critical information such as their 
precise position on the airport surface relative to other aircraft 
occupying runways or about to land. This tool should be very effective 
in reducing the number of pilot and vehicle deviations, by providing 
pilots and ground vehicles the same ``situational awareness'' picture 
afforded only to tower controllers today. More importantly, since ADS-B 
works between equipped aircraft pairs, cockpit moving map displays 
would offer a level of safety at airports that currently don't have 
ASDE equipment.

                           TOWER REPLACEMENTS

    Question. Please update the data on tower replacements found on 
pages 820-838 of last year's House hearing record.
    Answer. The following table provides the information requested:

Tower Replacements--Funding and Construction Status

Fiscal year 1989:
    Windsor Locks, CT:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................$9,393,000
            1999.............................................. 1,596,000
    Status: Commissioned September 19, 1999.

    Fort Smith, AR:
        Fiscal year:
            1997.............................................. 1,295,000
            1998.............................................. 2,310,000
            1999..............................................    35,000
    Status: Commissioned September 17, 1999.

Fiscal year 1990:
    St. Louis, MO (ATCT):
        Fiscal year
            1997.............................................. 1,130,000
            1998..............................................   760,000
            1999.............................................. 1,900,000
            2000.............................................. 1,600,000
    Status: Commissioned May 15, 1999.

    La Guardia, NY:
        Fiscal year:
            2000.............................................. 2,200,000
            2001..............................................25,440,000
    Status: Site adaptation engineering underway.
    Schedule: Construction award January 2001. Commissioning 
      June 2003.
    Remarks: Site selection and approval on this congested 
      airport required an unusually long time. Fiscal year 
      1999 funding decreased by Congress from $23,960,000 to 
      13,960,000. $13,960,000 reprogrammed to accommodate 
      Congressional adds and other construction.

    Newark, NJ:
        Fiscal year:
            1998..............................................24,348,000
            2000.............................................. 2,200,000
            2001.............................................. 2,407,500
    Status: Construction award September 1999.
    Schedule: Commissioning November 2002.
    Remarks: Site selection and approval on this congested 
      airport required an unusually long time.

Fiscal year 1991:
    Syracuse, NY:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................    25,000
            1998.............................................. 2,400,000
            1999..............................................   941,000
    Status: Commissioned December 12, 1999.

    Houston Hobby, TX:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................    25,000
            1998.............................................. 1,100,000
            1999.............................................. 1,015,000
            2000..............................................   400,000
            2001..............................................   818,550
    Status: Electronic installation underway.
    Schedule: Commissioning June 2000.

    Beaumont, TX: Fiscal year 1998............................   820,000
    Status: Site has been selected. Engineering that was on 
      hold per Congressional direction, is underway.
    Schedule: Construction award November 2000. Commissioning 
      March 2003.

Fiscal year 1992:
    Portland, OR:
        Fiscal year:
            1997.............................................. 7,526,000
            1998.............................................. 2,130,000
            1999..............................................   596,000
            2000..............................................    50,000
    Status: Commissioned December 5, 1999.

    Stewart (Newburgh), NY:
        Fiscal year:
            1992.............................................. 3,000,000
            1993 (Fiscal year 1993 funding under ATCT 
              Establish)...................................... 1,700,000
            2001..............................................   500,000
    Status: Alternate site has been selected.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2001. Commissioning 
      September 2004.

Fiscal year 1993:
    Topeka, KS:
        Fiscal year:
            1999..............................................   700,000
            2001.............................................. 4,361,840
    Status: Engineering is complete.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2000. Commissioning 
      November 2003.

    St. Paul, MN:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................   115,000
            1998..............................................   110,000
            1999..............................................   298,000
    Status: Commissioned November 6, 1999.

    Salt Lake City, UT (ATCT):
        Fiscal year:
            1997.............................................. 2,289,000
            1998.............................................. 1,370,000
            1999..............................................   727,000
    Status: Commissioned June 26, 1999.

    Little Rock, AR:
        Fiscal year:
             1999............................................. 1,076,000
            2000..............................................   740,000
            2001..............................................   642,000
    Status: Electronic installation underway.
    Schedule: Commissioning September 2000.

    Islip, NY:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................   367,000
            1999..............................................    50,000
        Additional Cost to Complete........................... 5,714,500
    Status: Architect/engineers proposal for site adaptation 
      design submitted and approved, and on hold.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning 
      September 2005.

    Dallas Addison, TX:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................   640,000
            1999..............................................   700,000
    Schedule: Construction award October 2001. Commissioning 
      September 2004.

Fiscal year 1995:
    Merrill, AK:
        Fiscal year:
            1997.............................................. 5,202,000
            1998..............................................   150,000
            1999..............................................   130,000
            2001..............................................   321,000
    Status: Commissioned November 2, 1999.
    Remarks: Fiscal year 2001 funds are for old tower 
      demolition.

    Salina, KS:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................   184,000
            2001..............................................   267,500
        Additional Cost to complete........................... 4,675,777
    Status: Engineering is underway.
    Schedule: Construction award November 2000. Commissioning 
      July 2003.

    Newport News, VA:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................    74,000
            1999..............................................   400,000
        Additional Cost to complete........................... 5,950,000
    Status: Site selection is complete.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2001. Commissioning 
      September 2004.

    Roanoke, VA:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................   578,000
            1999..............................................   100,000
            2000.............................................. 4,900,000
            2001.............................................. 2,140,000
    Status: Engineering is underway.
    Schedule: Construction award August 2000. Commissioning 
      September 2002.

    Columbus, OH:
        Fiscal year:
            1999..............................................   750,000
            2000..............................................17,600,000
            2001.............................................. 1,000,000
    Status: Engineering is underway.
    Schedule: Construction Award October 2000. Commissioning 
      April 2004.
    Remarks: Fiscal year 1999 funding increased by Congress 
      from $50,000 to $750,000.

    Manchester, NH:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................   937,500
            1999..............................................    80,000
        Additional Cost to complete........................... 3,565,700
    Status: Site has been selected. Engineering is underway.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2001. Commissioning 
      November 2004.

    Everett, WA:
        Fiscal year 1999...................................... 1,050,000
        Additional Cost to complete........................... 5,541,655
    Status: Engineering is underway.
    Schedule: Construction will be in two phases. Phase I 
      (foundation) Construction award March 2000. Phase II 
      Construction award October 2002. Commissioning September 
      2005.
    Remarks: Fiscal year 1999 funding increased by Congress 
      from $50,000 to $1,050,000.

    Ft. Lauderdale Executive FL:
        Fiscal year 1999......................................    50,000
        Additional Cost to complete........................... 3,084,200
    Status: Engineering is underway.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning 
      September 2005.

    Oakland, CA:
        Fiscal year:
            1999..............................................    50,000
            2001..............................................25,912,347
    Status: Engineering is underway.
    Schedule: Construction award January 2001. Commissioning 
      August 2004.

    Birmingham, AL:
        Fiscal year:
            1998..............................................10,130,000
            1999..............................................   550,000
            2000.............................................. 1,250,000
            2001.............................................. 1,359,540
    Status: Under construction.
    Schedule: Commissioning January 2001.

    Salt Lake City, UT (TRACON):
        Fiscal year:
            1998.............................................. 1,320,000
            1999..............................................    50,000
    Status: Commissioned June 26, 1999.

    St. Louis, MO (TRACON):
        Fiscal year:
            1998..............................................11,630,000
            1999.............................................. 1,050,000
            2000.............................................. 3,800,000
            2001.............................................. 3,317,000
        Additional Cost to complete...........................       TBD
    Status: Under construction.
    Schedule: Commissioning February 2002.

Fiscal year 1996:
    Corpus Christi, TX: Fiscal year 2000 (Fiscal year 2000 
      funds added by Congress)................................ 1,500,000
    Status: Under construction.
    Schedule: Commissioning March 2003.
    Remarks: Construction funded with fiscal year 2000 funds 
      that could not be obligated on the Boston TRACON.

    Seattle (TRACON), WA:
        Fiscal year 1999......................................    50,000
        Additional Cost to complete...........................24,577,263
    Status: Site selection is underway.
    Schedule: Construction Award October 2001. Commissioning 
      September 2004.

    Champaign, IL:
        Fiscal year:
            1997.............................................. 1,287,000
            2001..............................................   749,000
        Additional Cost to complete........................... 2,683,072
    Status: Site has been selected. Engineering is underway.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2001. Commissioning 
      September 2004.

    Grand Canyon, AZ:
        Fiscal year:
            1999.............................................. 8,170,000
            2000..............................................   243,000
            2001..............................................   267,500
    Status: Engineering is complete.
    Schedule: Construction award January 2001. Commissioning 
      April 2003.

    Vero Beach, FL: Additional Cost to complete............... 5,507,870
    Status: Engineering underway.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2001. Commissioning 
      September 2004.

    Bedford, MA:
        Fiscal year:
            1999.............................................. 4,800,000
            2001..............................................   535,000
    Status: Construction contract awarded January 26, 2000.
    Schedule: Commissioning January 2003.

Fiscal year 1997:
    Abilene, TX:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................   693,000
            1998.............................................. 1,010,000
        Additional Cost to complete...........................12,990,000
    Status: Site selection underway.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning 
      September 2005.

    East St. Louis, IL:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................    25,000
            1998..............................................   500,000
        Additional Cost to complete........................... 3,469,000
    Status: Site selection underway.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning 
      September 2005.

    Seattle (ATCT), WA:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................   645,000
            1998..............................................   580,000
            1999..............................................19,770,000
            2000..............................................10,270,000
            2001..............................................    25,000
    Status: Construction Contract awarded January 11, 2000.
    Schedule: Commissioning June 2003.

    Richmond, VA:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................   525,000
            1998.............................................. 1,350,000
            2000 (Fiscal year 2000 funds added by Congress)... 3,000,000
        Additional Cost to complete........................... 6,002,100
    Status: Site selection under review. The airport sponsor 
      has proposed construction of the tower under a leaseback 
      agreement.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2001. Commissioning 
      September 2004.

    Savannah, GA:
        Fiscal year:
            1997..............................................   288,000
            1998..............................................   680,000
            2001.............................................. 7,741,015
    Status: Engineering underway.
    Schedule: Construction award January 2001. Commissioning 
      March 2004.

    Boston (TRACON), MA:
        Fiscal year:
            1997.............................................. 1,110,000
            1998.............................................. 1,880,000
            1999.............................................. 1,870,000
            2000..............................................10,000,000
            2001..............................................24,944,308
    Status: Site has been purchased. Design is complete.
    Schedule: Construction award January 2001. Commissioning 
      November 2003.
    Remarks: Fiscal year 2000 funding reduced by Congress.

Fiscal year 1998:
    N. Las Vegas, NV:
        Fiscal year:
             1998............................................. 5,700,000
            1999.............................................. 1,200,000
            2000.............................................. 2,354,000
            2001..............................................   214,000
    Status: Engineering is underway.
    Schedule: Construction award March 2000. Commissioning 
      October 2001.
    Remarks: Fiscal year 1999 funding increased by Congress 
      from $200,000 to $1,200,00.

    Medford, OR:
        Fiscal year 1998......................................   600,000
        Additional Cost to complete........................... 8,565,708
    Status: On hold.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning 
      September 2005.

    Swanton (Toledo), OH:
        Fiscal year:
            1998..............................................   700,000
            2000..............................................   700,000
        Additional Cost to complete........................... 8,386,873
    Status: Site selection is complete. Construction will be 
      accomplished by sponsor.
    Schedule: Dependent on sponsor.

Fiscal year 1999
    Asheville, NC:
        Fiscal year 1999......................................   298,000
        Additional Cost to complete........................... 7,214,550
    Status: On hold due to anticipated long lead-time for 
      construction funds.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning 
      April 2005.

    Tulsa Riverside, OK:
        Fiscal year 1999......................................   298,000
        Additional Cost to complete........................... 7,525,470
    Status: On hold due to anticipated long lead-time for 
      construction funds.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning 
      June 2005.

    Reno, NV:
        Fiscal year 1999......................................   297,000
        Additional Cost to complete........................... 8,636,360
    Status: On hold due to anticipated long lead time for 
      construction funds.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning 
      September 2005.

    Billings, MT:
        Fiscal year:
            1999.............................................. 1,000,000
            2000 (Fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 funds 
              added by Congress).............................. 1,000,000
        Additional Cost to complete...........................11,000,000
    Status: Site selection is complete.
    Schedule: Construction award October 2003. Commissioning 
      July 2006.

Fiscal year 2000:
    Atlanta International, GA:
        Fiscal year:
            2000.............................................. 1,800,000
            2001..............................................   167,900
    Status: Construction to be accomplished by and funded by 
      airport sponsor. FAA funding is for equipment 
      procurement.

    Phoenix, AZ: Fiscal year 2000 (Fiscal year 2000 funds 
      added by Congress)...................................... 4,000,000
    Status: Site selection is underway.
    Schedule: TBD

Fiscal year 2001 (Proposed):
    Chantilly (Dulles), VA: Fiscal year 2001..................    75,000
    Broomfield, CO: Fiscal year 2001..........................    75,000
    Phoenix (Deer Valley), AZ: Fiscal year 2001...............    75,000
    Gulfport, MS: Fiscal year 2001............................    75,000
    Kalamazoo, MI: Fiscal year 2001...........................    75,000
        standard terminal automation replacement system (stars)
    Question. Please provide a breakdown of the F&E funding requested 
for STARS in the fiscal year 2001 request with appropriate funding for 
fiscal year 2000 broken down in the same manner.
    Answer. The breakdown of STARS F&E funding for fiscal years 2000 
and 2001 follows.

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Fiscal year
                     Activity                      ---------------------
                                                       2000       2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product development/Test..........................       87.9       80.9
Production........................................        7.9       21.6
Implementation....................................        6.8       16.4
NAILS/Maintenance.................................        6.5       14.8
HQ Technical Assistance...........................       20.0       14.1
ANS Facility Upgrade..............................        0.8        2.8
OGC/GFE...........................................       21.3       16.4
ACDs/ARTS IIIE....................................       37.8       11.8
IOT&E.............................................  .........        0.5
                                                   ---------------------
      Total.......................................      188.9      179.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Provide an updated waterfall schedule for delivery of 
STARS systems for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
    Answer. A STARS Site Deployment Working Group has recently been 
formed to provide an updated waterfall schedule for delivery of STARS 
systems through 2008. This updated waterfall will be available the end 
of fiscal year 2000.

                    INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS)

    Question. Please provide the updated ILS survey and analysis of 
existing and future needs. Please provide the current list of the 
locations for which the FAA has identified current of future ILS 
requirements.
    Answer. In September 1998, the FAA conducted a cursory benefit cost 
analyses (BCA) of all potential precision approach locations in the 
NAS. The results of this study which was based on Airport Planning 
Standards Number One (APS-1) criteria, identified approximately 100 
airport locations that yielded a positive BCA and were potential 
candidates for precision approach services. The resultant listing 
follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             No.  State                       Airport               Region            RWY              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  FL.............................  Jacksonville Int'l       ASO............  31.............  CAT I
                                       (JAX).
 2.  NC.............................  Charlotte Douglas Int'l  ASO............  18W............  CAT III
                                       (CLT).
 3.  NC.............................  Charlotte Douglas Int'l  ASO............  36W............  CAT III
                                       (CLT).
 4.  CA.............................  Sacramento Int'l (SMF).  AWP............  34R............  CAT I
 5.  CA.............................  Fresno (FAT)...........  AWP............  29R............  CAT 2/3
 6.  NY.............................  New York (JFK).........  AEA............  22R............  CAT 2/3
 7.  FL.............................  Orlando-Sanford (SFB)..  ASO............  27R............  CAT I
 8.  NC.............................  Charlotte-Douglas Int'l  ASO............  18R............  CAT III
                                       (CLT).
 9.  NY.............................  New York (JFK).........  AEA............  13R............  CAT I
10.  NY.............................  New York (LGA).........  AEA............  22.............  CAT 2/3
11.  NY.............................  New York (LGA).........  AEA............  13.............  CAT 2/3
12.  NV.............................  Las Vegas-Mccarran Int.  AWP............  01R............  CAT I
                                       (LAS).
13.  WA.............................  Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA)..  ANM............  16L............  CAT III
14.  WA.............................  Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA)..  ANM............  16W............  CAT III
15.  FL.............................  Daytona Beach Reg.       ASO............  25R............  CAT I
                                       (DAB).
16.  FL.............................  Orlando Int'l (MCO)....  ASO............  18R............  CAT III
17.  NV.............................  Elko Muni-J.C. Harris    AWP............  23.............  CAT I
                                       Field (EKO).
18.  CA.............................  Palm Springs Regional    AWP............  31L............  CAT I
                                       (PSP).
19.  FL.............................  Orlando-Executive (ORL)  ASO............  25.............  CAT I
20.  WI.............................  Milwaukee (MKE)........  AGL............  25R............  CAT I
21.  TX.............................  Houston (KHOU).........  ASW............  22.............  CAT I
22.  NY.............................  Buffalo (BUF)..........  AEA............  14.............  CAT I
23.  MN.............................  Duluth (DLH)...........  AGL............  9..............  CAT II
24.  VA.............................  Norfolk (ORF)..........  AEA............  5..............  CAT 2/3
25.  GA.............................  Atlanta-Hartsfield       ASO............  28.............  CAT II
                                       Int'l (ATL).
26.  GA.............................  Atlanta-Hartsfield       ASO............  10.............  CAT II
                                       Int'l (ATL).
27.  CA.............................  Metropolitan Oakland     AWP............  27L............  CAT I
                                       Int'l (OAK).
28.  NJ.............................  Newark (EWR)...........  AEA............  22L............  CAT 2/3
29.  FL.............................  Miami Int'l (MIA)......  ASO............  9R.............  CAT III
30.  FL.............................  Panama City-Bay Co.      ASO............  32.............  CAT I
                                       (PFN).
31.  MO.............................  Springfield-Branson      ACE............  2..............  CAT II
                                       Regional (SGF).
32.  FL.............................  Kendall-Tamiami Exec.    ASO............  27L............  CAT I
                                       (TMB).
33.  LA.............................  Baton Rouge (KBTR).....  ASW............  31.............  CAT I
34.  PA.............................  Philadelphia (PHL).....  AEA............  27R............  CAT 2/3
35.  NJ.............................  Atlantic City (ACY)....  AEA............  31.............  CAT I
36.  PA.............................  Allentown (ABE)........  AEA............  24.............  CAT I
37.  AK.............................  Anchorage (ANC)........  AAL............  6L.............  CAT I
38.  FL.............................  Kissimmee Mun. (ISM)...  ASO............  33.............  CAT I
39.  KY.............................  CVG./North KY Int'l.     ASO............  27.............  CAT 2/3
                                       (CVG).
40.  CA.............................  Buchanan Field (CCR)...  AWP............  19R............  CAT I
41.  GA.............................  Savannah Int'l (SAV)...  ASO............  27.............  CAT I
42.  OK.............................  Oklahoma City (KOKC)...  ASW............  35L............  CAT I
43.  MI.............................  Traverse City (TVC)....  AGL............  36.............  CAT I
44.  WA.............................  Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA)..  ANM............  34W............  CAT I
45.  WA.............................  Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA)..  ANM............  16R............  CAT I
46.  FL.............................  Tampa Int'l (TPA)......  ASO............  36R............  CAT I
47.  TN.............................  Knoxville (TYS)........  ASO............  23L............  CAT I
48.  TN.............................  McGhee Tyson (TYS).....  ASO............  05R............  CAT I
49.  VA.............................  Chantilly (IAD)........  AEA............  19R............  CAT 2/3
50.  FL.............................  Orlando Int'l (MCO)....  ASO............  18L............  CAT I
51.  FL.............................  Orlando Int'l (MCO)....  ASO............  35R............  CAT1
52.  AR.............................  Fort Smith (KFSM)......  ASW............  7..............  CAT I
53.  MD.............................  Baltimore (BWI)........  AEA............  15R............  CAT 2/3
54.  MI.............................  Flint (FNT)............  AGL............  36.............  CAT I
55.  CA.............................  Palmdale (PMD).........  AWP............  4..............  CAT I
56.  UT.............................  Salt Lake City (SLC)...  ANM............  34L............  CAT III
57.  KY.............................  Bowman Field (LOU).....  ASO............  24.............  CAT I
58.  TX.............................  Midland (KMAF).........  ASW............  34L............  CAT I
59.  NV.............................  North Las Vegas (VGT)..  AWP............  12.............  CAT I
60.  NC.............................  Raleigh-Durham Int'l     ASO............  23L............  CAT 2/3
                                       (RDU).
61.  FL.............................  Tampa Int'l (TPA)......  ASO............  18L............  CAT III
62.  DC.............................  National (DCA).........  AEA............  33.............  CAT I
63.  TX.............................  Abilene (KABI).........  ASW............  17R............  CAT I
64.  DE.............................  Wilmington (ILG).......  AEA............  19.............  CAT I
65.  HI.............................  Honolulu Int'l (HNL)...  AWP............  08R............  CAT I
66.  TN.............................  Nashville, JOHN C. TUNE  ASO............  19.............  CAT I
                                       (JWN).
67.  AZ.............................  Mesa--Falcon Field       AWP............  04R............  CAT I
                                       (FFZ).
68.  HI.............................  Kahului (OGG)..........  AWP............  20.............  CAT I
69.  FL.............................  Tampa Int'l (TPA)......  ASO............  17.............  CAT I
70.  AL.............................  Birmingham Mun. (BHM)..  ASO............  5..............  CAT I
71.  FL.............................  Tampa Int'l (TPA)......  ASO............  35.............  CAT III
72.  GA.............................  Valdosta Reg. (VLD)....  ASO............  17.............  CAT I
73.  NC.............................  Greensboro/Piedmont      ASO............  5N.............  CAT 2/3
                                       Int'l (GSO).
74.  MA.............................  Martha's Vineyard (MVY)  ANE............  6..............  CAT I
75.  FL.............................  Southwest Fla. Reg.      ASO............  06R............  CAT I
                                       (RSW).
76,  FL.............................  Southwest Fla. Reg.      ASO............  24L............  CAT I
                                       (RSW).
77.  FL.............................  Southwest Fla. Reg.      ASO............  24.............  CAT I
                                       (RSW).
78.  KS.............................  Hays Muni (HYS)........  ACE............  34.............  CAT I
79.  IA.............................  Cedar Rapids/The         ACE............  9..............  CAT II
                                       Eastern Iowa (CID).
80.  FL.............................  TAMPA, Vandenberg (X16)  ASO............  22.............  CAT I
81.  IA.............................  Dubuque Regional (DBQ).  ACE............  36.............  CAT I
82.  FL.............................  Tallahassee (TLH)......  ASO............  18.............  CAT I
83.  FL.............................  Tallahasee Reg. (TLH)..  ASO............  9..............  CAT I
84.  AZ.............................  Laughlin-Bullhead Int'l  AWP............  34.............  CAT I
                                       (IFP).
85.  NJ.............................  Wildwood (WWD).........  AEA............  19.............  CAT I
86.  MI.............................  Grand Radips (GRR).....  AGL............  23R............  CAT I
87.  OH.............................  Columbus (CMH).........  AGL............  10S............  CAT I
88.  CA.............................  Hayward Air Terminal     AWP............  28L............  CAT I
                                       (HWD).
89.  MN.............................  Minneapolis (MSP)......  AGL............  17.............  CAT I
90.  NY.............................  Syracuse (SYR).........  AEA............  32.............  CAT I
91.  CA.............................  Napa County (APC)......  AWP............  36L............  CAT I
92.  FL.............................  Pensacola Regional       ASO............  35.............  CAT I
                                       (PNS).
93.  IA.............................  Des Monies Int'l (DSM).  ACE............  5..............  CAT I
94.  PA.............................  Philadelphia (PHL).....  AEA............  25.............  CAT I
95.  PA.............................  Philadelphia (PHL).....  AEA............  35.............  CAT I
96.  MI.............................  Detroit (DTW)..........  AGL............  4..............  CAT III
97.  MS.............................  Olive Branch (OLV).....  ASO............  18.............  CAT I
98.  CA.............................  Long Beach-Daugherty     AWP............  25R............  CAT I
                                       Field (LGB).
99.  CT.............................  Windsor Locks (BDL)....  ANE............  15.............  CAT I
100. NC.............................  Greensboro/Piedmont      ASO............  23N............  CAT I
                                       Int'l (GSO).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


           NAS HANDOFF FOR SATELLITE-RELATED INSTRASTRUCTURE

    Question. What operation and maintenance costs are anticipated in 
fiscal year 2001 for NAS handoff requirements relating to operation and 
maintenance of the satellite-related infrastructure, pursuant to the 
eventual transition to a satellite-based navigational system?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2001 NAS handoff requirement is $10,000. 
This money will be used to fund one month (September 2001) of interim 
contractor depot logistics support.

   FEDERAL FUNDED RESEACH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW

    Question. Please provide a copy of the November 30, 1999 
comprehensive review of the Federally Funded Research and Development 
Center (FFRDC), Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) 
that the FAA indicated would be complete in a response to the question 
for the record last year.
    Answer. A copy of the Comprehensive Review of the FFRDC for 
Advanced Aviation System Development follows.
    [Clerks Note.--Because of its volume the Comprehensive Review will 
not be printed here but retained in the subcommittee files.]

                     WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM

    Question. The FAA's SatNav Investment Analysis and Report completed 
late last year, said (page 86) ``* * *. The airlines support WAAS and 
LAAS * * *. However, they are much less enthusiastic about WAAS than 
LAAS, because in aircraft equipped with FMS, WAAS will not provide 
substantial added economic or operational value to them beyond what 
unaided GPS can provide, or beyond what they can achieve with RNAV-
capable FMS equipment * * *.'' If that's true wouldn't you agree it 
would seem to make sense that we not continue to spend money on this 
ever increasing and very expensive program?
    Answer. WAAS is very beneficial for the entire aviation population. 
The WAAS system will allow GPS to be used as a navigation system for en 
route, non-precision approaches, and precision approaches in the United 
States. Indeed, all airlines support the development of WAAS because it 
will increase the capacity of major airports in the United States, by 
allowing smaller aircraft to land at more airports by expanding 
precision approach capability to smaller airports.
    Question. That same analysis indicates that only with some very 
generous assumptions, the benefit/cost (B/C) ratio for this program 
appears to be barely better than 1.0. There must be other FAA programs 
that promise better benefits and more prudent use of available 
resources. What FAA programs have better B/C ratios than is currently 
contemplated for the WAAS program that are not being funded adequately 
or given the funding priority that the WAAS initiative is being given?
    Answer. The latest acquisition program baseline for WAAS, signed in 
December 1999, shows a B/C ratio of approximately 2.4 calculated with 
Passenger Value of Time (PVT), per DOT policy, and a net present value 
of $2,400,000,000. While these ratios are generally estimated as part 
of the investment analysis, they are not the final determining factor 
in all investment and funding decisions. There are some smaller 
programs, which may have slightly higher ratios, but will not provide 
the total overall return that WAAS is expected to. An important element 
of the WAAS B/C ratio to remember is the fact that the FAA calculated 
the ratio based on very conservative estimates. Indeed, the FAA 
identified a number of benefits that were not quantified because of 
data that could not be verified at a high-confidence level within the 
resources of the study. If those benefits could be quantified and 
incorporated into the study results, the WAAS benefit/cost ratio would 
significantly increase. In addition, WAAS provides the enabling 
technology for a number of more advanced systems which will provide the 
basis of Free Flight. An example is ADS-B, which has received a great 
deal of interest from the user community, and is expected to provide 
significant additional safety and efficiency benefits, which would not 
be available without the navigation accuracy that WAAS provides.
    Question. We have heard reports that late last year (1999) WAAS 
tests at the Tech Center were sufficiently poor as to cast a shadow on 
the scheduled WAAS implementation date summer 2000. Provide the 
committee the information about those tests and is a further delay 
contemplated from FAA's previously announced WAAS implementation date?
    Answer. There will be additional time required to achieve initial 
operational capability (IOC). IOC is defined as a limited precision 
landing capability called Lateral Navigation/Vertical Navigation (LNAV/
VNAV). The WAAS program now plans to deliver LNAV/VNAV that will 
support a height above touchdown (HAT) of 350 feet in IOC.
    The FAA is less certain about the approach for WAAS to achieve a 
precision approach down to 200 feet HAT, which is regarded as final 
operational capability (FOC). This lack of certainty is due to problems 
encountered with the system integrity, or the ability of the WAAS 
system to detect system errors and inform users of errors that can't be 
corrected. To address these system integrity problems, the FAA has 
engaged the knowledge and the experience of the WAAS Integrity and 
Performance Panel (WIPP). The FAA will be able to better evaluate the 
cost and schedule for FOC after the WIPP completes its work around 
December 2000.
    The GPS Product Team plans to rebaseline the WAAS and LAAS projects 
in 2001 after firm cost and schedule estimates are developed. The 
Agency cannot definitively project final cost and schedule baselines at 
this time.

                          SATELLITE NAVIGATION

    Question. The FAA is planning a transition from a ground-based 
civil air navigation system using signals generated by the Department 
of Defense's GPS. FAA is acquiring a WAAS-a network of equipment on the 
ground and in space-to enhance GPS so that the system can meet civil 
aviation requirements. Satellite-based navigation, using GPS/WAAS is 
expected to improve the safety of flight operations and increase 
airport and airspace capacity to meet future air traffic demands. Since 
1995, WAAS has experienced significant cost growth of over 
$2,500,000,000 and schedule slippage of over three years. Recent 
announcements by the FAA that the program may experience more delays 
and added cost have raised questions about whether the WAAS program is 
heading in the same direction as the former Advance Automation System 
(AAS), which FAA canceled after it incurred significant cost growth and 
delays. What is FAA's current assessment of whether WAAS will meet its 
performance goals within current cost and schedule baselines?
    Answer. Additional time is required to achieve initial operational 
capability. IOC is defined as a limited precision landing capability 
called LNAV/VNAV. The WAAS program now plans to deliver LNAV/VNAV that 
will support a height above touchdown (HAT) of 350 feet in IOC.
    The FAA is less certain about the approach for WAAS to achieve a 
precision approach down to 200 feet HAT, which is regarded as final 
operational capability (FOC). This lack of certainty is due to problems 
encountered with the system integrity, or the ability of the WAAS 
system to detect system errors and inform users of errors that can't be 
corrected. To address these system integrity problems, the FAA has 
engaged the knowledge and the experience of the WAAS Integrity and 
Performance Panel (WIPP). The FAA will be able to better evaluate the 
cost and schedule for FOC after the WIPP completes its work around 
December 2000.
    The GPS Product Team plans to rebaseline the WAAS and LAAS projects 
in 2001 after firm cost and schedule estimates are developed. The 
Agency cannot definitively project final cost and schedule baselines at 
this time.
    Question. If the program will not meet its current goals, when will 
FAA announce new cost, schedule, and performance goals?
    Answer. At the March 15, 2000, SATNAV Summit, the FAA provided an 
updated schedule projection for WAAS. It was stated that this schedule 
will be better defined in six to nine months after the WAAS Integrity 
and Performance Panel (WIPP) completes its work. The WIPP will address 
the necessary technical details to solve integrity issues to get to 
this initial capability and additionally will develop a high-level 
roadmap for WAAS to achieve the end-state capability. The participants 
of the SATNAV Summit, including key government and industry 
representatives, agreed to meet again at the completion of the WIPP 
activities, to present and discuss the results. Accordingly, the GPS 
Product Team plans to complete rebaselining the WAAS and LAAS projects 
in 2001 after a technical solution recommended by the WIPP is 
quantified in terms of cost and schedule.
    Question. What steps are FAA and its contractor taking to ensure 
that WAAS does not become another AAS?
    Answer. The FAA has learned from its experiences with AAS, and is 
striving to apply lessons learned, as appropriate. For example, whereas 
AAS strove to deliver a huge amount of capability at one time, WAAS is 
being developed to be implemented in a phased approach. There are some 
issues, however, that complicate this phased approach, and that is the 
requirement for integrity. In order for WAAS to be used for safety 
critical functions, the integrity requirement must be fully addressed 
with the initial delivery. The FAA is aggressively addressing integrity 
issues through the formation of the WIPP and the Independent Review 
Board (IRB). The WIPP is a team of technical experts, which will detail 
the work that needs to be done by Raytheon to correct the problems with 
system integrity and identify the most realistic cost, schedule, and 
performance expectations. The IRB, which is a team of independent 
senior level experts, will oversee the work and progress of the WIPP 
and report directly to the FAA Administrator. Another example of 
applying lessons learned is the open communication with industry and 
users. The FAA is focusing on routinely communicating a very candid 
picture of the status and progress of the WAAS program.

                     WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM

    Question. The WAAS prime contractor has informed the Subcommittee 
that extensive broadcasting of the WAAS signal will be required as part 
of its continuing development activity, both to demonstrate system 
performance as well as to validate assumptions that are part of the 
fault analysis. This is consistent with the conclusion reached by the 
Deleaney Commission in October 1997. Many WAAS avionics manufacturers 
also require a steady signal for their receiver certification activity, 
and some of these avionics manufacturers are also bringing to market 
non-certified receivers that can use the signal in its present 
configuration. Has the FAA considered making a public commitment that 
the WAAS signal will be provided in a limited level of service during 
the period leading up to FAA certification and declaration of initial 
operational capability? Would such a ``test'' period provide advantages 
to incrementally developing the various capabilities (runway incursion 
identification and en route activities) that the signal might 
ultimately be useful for, assuming the program can address the current 
integrity shortcomings, does not suffer any further setbacks, and can 
be cost beneficial at the margins with other programs?
    Answer. Raytheon will indeed continuously broadcast WAAS signals, 
though it may be intermittent for short periods of time (minutes to a 
few hours in extreme cases) due to integration (that is, ground uplink 
station (GUS) switchover tests, correction and verification (C&V) 
failures from unproven private builds). Raytheon will be ``hands off' 
the system during the five integration tests (21 day) and during the 
60-day test. The details of these demonstrations are being finalized 
with Raytheon. Once they are finalized, they will be shared with the 
receiver manufacturers and those developing technologies that depend on 
WAAS. Continuous broadcast of the WAAS signals are therefore critical 
for the completion of WAAS receiver and WAAS ground system testing. The 
FAA plans to officially announce to the public that the WAAS signal is 
available for use in non-safety critical functions. This announcement 
will be made after Raytheon has completed the 21-day stability test 
(around June/July 2000). As such, the FAA plans to broadcast an 
increasingly operational-like signal during several periods from now 
through contract acceptance inspection (CAI), and then continuously at 
all times from CAI on.
    Some examples of non-safety critical functions include ADS-B 
applications such as avoidance of runway incursions using runway 
situational awareness, and terrain avoidance warning systems.

                      WAAS INTERNATIONAL POSITION

    Question. The following excerpts are from an article in the 
Thursday, March 30, 2000 Aviation Daily: ``Delegates to an 
international symposium in Bonn rejected dependence on a single 
technology in favor of retaining a diversity of systems as advanced 
navigational technologies become operational. The March 22-23 
conference, an initiative of the Germany Federal Ministry of Transport, 
was organized by the German Institute of Navigation and supported by 
the Northwest Europe Loran-C System (NELS) inter-governmental 
consortium. Discussions focused on determining the optimum mix of 
satellite and terrestrial systems to ensure safety of life and property 
while minimizing costs to the provider and users.
    Data communications using the Loran-C navigation system for 
distribution of satellite error corrections and position integrity also 
received much attention. Building on the concept employed by the United 
States. Defense Department for communication with the Polaris submarine 
fleet, a team of Delft University has developed an advanced error-
correcting version of the technology called Eurofix that is now being 
installed for operational use in Europe. The technology and status of 
Eurofix implementation was presented and supported with an on-air 
demonstration. Further innovations to the Eurofix concept to provide an 
alternative to the GPS WAAS were presented by the United States Coast 
Guard.''
    Given the continual difficulty the FAA has had with the WAAS 
procurement and the concerns about sole source navigational concepts, 
jamming, and other issues, is the FAA doing any work on evaluating or 
exploring other satellite navigational architectures similar to what 
the Aviation Daily article mentions (or other concepts)?
    Answer. The FAA is currently in the process of evaluating Loran-C 
as a potential means of providing navigation to users of the National 
Airspace System (NAS). These evaluations include (a) use of a magnetic 
field (H-field) antenna to reduce or eliminate precipitation static 
that can severely affect the use of Loran during rain and snow 
conditions; (b) next generation digital Loran receiver technology; (c) 
feasibility of integrated GPS/Loran/Distance Measuring Equipment 
receivers; and (d) capability of Loran to provide a data path for WAAS 
correction information. An integrated Government/Academic/Industry team 
led by the FAA and including members from the Coast Guard, Coast Guard 
Academy, Ohio and Stanford University, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, and 
Illgen Simulations is conducting these evaluations, which will include 
actual flight demonstrations in fiscal year 2001. The FAA is also 
working with the University of Alabama to explore feasibility of using 
gyroscopic technology to provide a redundant aircraft navigation 
capability. The challenge of this effort is to provide a precision 
capability at costs acceptable to all users.

                     WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM

    Question. The Committee is hearing increasing concerns that signal 
integrity may be a concern with the LAAS procurement and the difficulty 
of assuring signal integrity increase as the system is evolved to 
Category II and III approaches. What work has been done to address this 
issue up front so as not to repeat the WAAS experience?
    Answer. The FAA has been aware of the challenge of certifying the 
LAAS integrity for a number of years. The challenge was first 
recognized during the LAAS Special Category I (SCAT-I) Type Acceptance 
certification process in the mid-1990's. During that time a special 
LAAS Integrity Panel (LIP) was formed to review the applicant vendor's 
integrity algorithms. The LIP certification process provided the LAAS 
technical team members with valuable exposure to the various integrity 
concepts being proposed as well as providing insight into the 
particular technical challenge integrity certification posed. As 
evidence of the success of the LIP process a number of LAAS SCAT-I 
systems have already achieved FAA approval under the SCAT-I 
certification guidance, FAA Order 8400. Although SCAT-I is less 
challenging than CAT III the experience of the LIP has assisted in the 
identification of the major elements of technical risk for development 
and certification of a CAT III LAAS.
    Based on the experience gained with the SCAT-I integrity 
certification process, the LAAS project has retained the LIP concept as 
part of its LAAS Cat I Type Acceptance process.
    A more recent integrity certification challenge being addressed 
involves the differential error correction standard deviation, known as 
`Sigma', and ensuring our LAAS message error distribution standard 
deviation overbounds the actual error. Special technical `tiger teams' 
have been formed within the FAA and RTCA to address this issue. The 
FAA's Integrity Tiger Team, known as the Sigma Overbounding group, has 
reached an interim consensus on the integrity solution approach to take 
for Cat I. RTCA Subcommittee-159 Working Group-4 is also actively 
involved in ensuring that the integrity problem is addressed and solved 
and is providing advice on the overbounding problem.
    Unlike WAAS, the LAAS architecture is simplified by ensuring 
integrity within the local area of the installed LAAS system. This is 
in contrast to the integration of the wide area differential error 
correction components that WAAS must use to generate and broadcast wide 
area differential corrections. Differential corrections for a local 
area simplify the integrity challenge for LAAS significantly.
    In summary, the task of achieving and validating Cat III integrity 
remains a significant challenge. The experience already gained from the 
LAAS SCAT-I LIP and the experience being obtained from the LAAS Cat I 
Type Acceptance LIP certification process have both served to help us 
foresee the LAAS integrity certification.

                  USER REQUEST EVALUATION TOOL (URET)

    Question. What is the timeframe and locations for URET deployment? 
What are the challenges to greater deployment of the technology? What 
procedures need to be established and implemented in order to fully 
achieve the efficiency offered by this technology? What are the 
procedural issues that must be addressed before greater utilization of 
this technology?
    Answer. The URET prototype is currently in daily use at 
Indianapolis and Memphis. As part of Free Flight Phase 1, URET Core 
Capability Limited Deployment (CCLD) will be deployed for initial daily 
use to Memphis, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Cleveland, Washington, 
Chicago, and Atlanta starting in November 2001 through February 2002. 
URET CCLD development and deployment will address the major technical 
challenges for greater deployment to the remaining centers. 
Additionally, procedural issues are being addressed by both our 
national and local (FAA/NATCA/PASS) user teams representatives based on 
the daily use of the URET prototypes at Indianapolis and Memphis. 
National and local procedures supporting reduced flight strip postings 
and markings must be implemented to fully achieve efficiencies offered 
by this technology. Both national and local procedures are being 
modified and used at Memphis and Indianapolis. We anticipate procedural 
issues will continue to evolve and we will address these issues, 
resulting from increased utilization of the tool, as they arise.

                                 STARS

    Question. When will the FAA present revised STARS baselines to 
Congress?
    Answer. Revised STARS baselines will be presented to Congress upon 
final OMB approval the Terminal Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). The 
Terminal APB is presently undergoing final FAA internal review. A STARS 
Site Deployment Working Group has recently been formed to provide an 
updated waterfall schedule for delivery of STARS systems through 2008. 
This updated waterfall will be available the end of fiscal year 2000.
    Question. How much program delay and added cost will the new 
baselines reflect over existing baselines? Over the original STARS 
baseline?
    Answer. The ``existing'' STARS baselines did not change in cost but 
reflect the new terminal automation strategy, known as Option 8R, which 
addresses near-term infrastructure and modernization issues. In October 
1999, the FAA Joint Resources Council (JRC) provided interim approval 
for the STARS F&E rebaselining.
    The new baseline as presented and approved by the JRC, reflects an 
increase in F&E costs of $462,000,000. The following provides a 
comparison of the STARS original and new cost/schedule baselines:

                          [Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Original  Option 8R
                                                      (9/96)     (10/99)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost..............................................     $940.2   $1,402.6
Schedule:
    First FAA full service site ORD...............      12/98      12/02
    Last FAA full service site ORD................       2/05       9/08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What outstanding issues must FAA address to ensure that 
STARS is delivered within its new cost, schedule and performance goals?
    Answer. There are two outstanding issues that must be addressed to 
ensure that the STARS program is delivered within its new cost, 
schedule and performance goals.
    The foremost issue is the amount of software remaining to be 
developed and tested to resolve human factors concerns. The current 
estimate of total source lines of code (SLOC) to be developed is 
415,000. The FAA has identified and initiated a risk mitigation 
strategy via the implementation of incremental software builds, early 
operational assessments, early user involvement initiatives and active 
user community working group participation to ensure on time software 
development and testing performance.
    The other issue involves the definitization of the STARS contract 
modification that incorporates the revised program strategy known as 
Option 8R. The FAA completed negotiations on Option 8R on March 27, 
2000, and will have a contract modification in place by the Spring of 
2000. This contract modification includes the STARS human factor 
enhancements requested by the unions. Based on the completion of these 
activities, the FAA will have a new contract baseline in place against 
which to track and monitor contractor performance.
    Question. The FAA has a substantial investment in the deployment of 
STARS. The system is being deployed and will be an integral part of the 
FAA inventory of the next 20 years. STARS is based on commercial-off-
the-shelf/non-developmental item (COTS/NDI) systems that are in 
operation worldwide for both terminal and en route applications and 
include Radar Data Processing (RDP) and Flight Data Processing (FDP). 
Inherent in STARS are safety critical en route automation functions 
such as Minimum Safe Altitude Warning (MSAW), Mode C Intruder, and 
Conflict Alert, all of which are included in the 2001 budget request. 
The STARS program will also benefit from Pre-planned Product 
Improvements (P3I) like the Center/TRACON Automation System (CTAS) and 
ADS-B capability that not only provide benefits to the terminal area, 
but also to the en route environment. Accordingly, has the FAA 
considered using STARS for other air traffic automation applications 
such as modernization of the en route system's emergency back-up 
system?
    Answer. As standard practice, the FAA assesses the ability of COTS/
NDI solutions, both in the existing FAA inventory and in the commercial 
market place, to meet future system requirements. Through market survey 
assessment, the En Route Integrated Product Team received inputs from 
all interested vendors regarding the capabilities inherent in existing 
systems that could satisfy future en route requirements. The assessment 
determined that there is no existing system that could meet all en 
route requirements, and that additional development would be needed.
    Because of traffic volume and complexity, the United States en 
route system requirements differ significantly from those of the 
terminal environment and other en route civil aviation authorities. As 
currently developed, the deployed STARS (and the COTS/NDI systems upon 
which it is based) will not meet en route system requirements. For 
example, the en route automation system must include all flight data 
processing (FDP) capabilities not currently contained in the terminal 
automation system.
    Future en route system evolution will consider the integration of 
COTS/NDI products as potential components for radar data processing and 
FDP replacement solutions.

             AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR, MODEL 11 (ASR-11)

    Question. Now that the Department of Defense (DOD) has made the 
decision to proceed into production of the joint DOD/FAA ASR-11 radar, 
does the FAA anticipate a timely production decision for the ASR-11 
radar in order to remain in step with STARS deployment?
    Answer. The FAA anticipates a timely production decision, and we 
will ensure that this program is in proper alignment with STARS system 
deployments.

                            OCEANIC AIRSPACE

    Question. What is the FAA's current strategy for implementing new 
communications, navigation, and surveillance technologies in oceanic 
airspace?
    Answer. The FAA has initiated the Advanced Technologies and Oceanic 
Procedures (ATOP) acquisition to obtain an advanced and integrated 
automation system for the three Air Route Traffic Control Centers 
(ARTCCs) engaged in the control of oceanic air traffic.
    The automation solution is expected to be adaptable to all three 
sites and to consist of flight data processing integrated with 
surveillance data processing, Controller Pilot Data Link 
Communications, Air Traffic Services Interfacility Data Communications, 
tools for dynamic workload allocation, and both short-term and long-
term conflict detection/prediction capabilities.
    The ATOP acquisition strategy is one that will leverage the global 
marketplace through taking advantage of available technology by 
purchasing an non-developmental system. The strategy provides for an 
iterative evaluation process where the FAA uses increasingly refined 
filters to determine which one of the systems available provides the 
best match between existing capabilities and our FAA workforce. It is 
the FAA's intent to modify procedures, to the extent consistent with 
the highest level of safety, to fit existing systems rather than engage 
in a large developmental effort. Prior to obligating the government to 
any significant resources, the FAA will have negotiated a multilateral 
agreement between the FAA, its union workforce and the contractor, 
which establishes low risk solution with firm price, schedule and cost 
baselines.
    The FAA has already completed the majority of the evaluation 
process for the first filter. As part of the first filter, potential 
vendors were allowed to bring their candidate systems to the FAA's 
Technical Center for demonstration testing. The ATOP schedule provides 
for the evaluations to be completed with a selection recommendation for 
two vendors to move on to the next filter by the end of May 2000. 
Planning for the second filter, which will include first level 
operational testing, is already ongoing.
    Question. What is the FAA's view on the contracting out of air 
traffic control?
    Answer. In the short term, the FAA has initiated an air traffic 
control system replacement program called the Advanced Technologies and 
Oceanic Procedures (ATOP) acquisition which will introduce new 
Communication, Navigation and Surveillance technologies into the 
oceanic environment, supporting our customer's growing needs. Our 
controllers are very much involved in this activity and are working 
with our technicians and engineers to choose the right system and 
develop the operational procedures to support its introduction. On the 
longer term, the President recently directed the FAA to come back to 
him in 45 days with a plan for achieving broader reform of the air 
traffic control system. The FAA will consider this proposal during its 
deliberations.
    Question. How much is the FAA paying potential oceanic contractors 
to participate in the procurement?
    Answer. Each contractor received approximately $500,000 to 
participate in the show-me demonstrations for Advanced Technologies and 
Oceanic Procedures, for a total of $1,500,000.

                     WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM

    Question. On April 1, 1996, the FAA began operating under a new 
procurement system. The new system was to enable FAA to address the 
unique needs of the agency and provide for more timely and cost 
effective acquisition of equipment and materials. Despite the Congress 
granting FAA this reform nearly four years ago, many FAA modernization 
projects, such as WAAS and STARS, have encountered significant schedule 
delays and cost overruns. Also, other projects, such as Oceanic 
Automation and National Airspace System Infrastructure Management 
System, have been significantly restructured. At least two independent 
reviews of the FAA's acquisition management system found that the 
agency had not achieved its acquisition goals of executing more timely 
and cost-effective programs. What steps has FAA taken to develop 
accurate information for use in decision making, including accurate 
estimates of the cost of programs and the time to develop them?
    Answer. The FAA has established the investment analysis process as 
a way for the stakeholder organizations to work collaboratively to 
identify potential alternative technical solutions or approaches to a 
given shortfall in mission capability. This often includes a market 
survey and identification of potential trade-offs between requirements 
and cost and schedule. This emphasis on better cost and schedule 
planning earlier in the process should result in more accurate 
estimates.
    Question. Since Congress granted the agency acquisition reform in 
1996, how has this helped the FAA to meets its goals for ATC 
Modernization?
    Answer. The agency's acquisition reform first authorized in 1996 
has helped simplify, integrate, and unify elements of life cycle 
acquisition management into a more effective system. This has helped 
the FAA to meet its goals for ATC.
    Acquisition reform has shifted focus to life cycle management of 
program, created an improved structure and processes for defining FAA 
needs and investments, established corporate-level decision making for 
FAA needs and investments, and increased involvement of stakeholders in 
decision-making process.
    Substantially streamlined procurement processes have produced a 50 
percent reduction in the time to award contracts and has increased the 
percentage of contracts awarded competitively and based on best value, 
improved communications with FAA vendors, and has an impact on 
improving delivery of products and services.
    Question. What steps has FAA taken to ensure that it provides 
oversight of all its modernization projects-those under development as 
well as those in operation?
    Answer. The FAA has initiated several different reform efforts 
aimed at providing oversight of its modernization project.
    Performance Plans. FAA took an important step in support of culture 
change and improved performance by formulating and promulgating annual 
outcome-based, mission-focused performance goals and indicators in 
Lines of Business (LOB) performance plans. These plans are shared goals 
between applicable LOB's.
    FAA Acquisition Executive Advisory Board (FAB). FAB is an 
established group of executives, across all lines of business to ensure 
that the appropriate steps are taken in the front-end of the 
acquisition process of all programs. FAB also, provides links between 
the Research, F&E, and Operations budgets.
    Quarterly Acquisition Reviews. The FAA schedules these Acquisition 
Reviews for the sole purpose to inform senior managers and key 
executives about the status and risks in acquisition projects that are 
under way. Information from these reviews is intended to provide a 
basis for building consensus and discussing challenges that could 
inhibit the success of critical acquisitions.
    Integrated Product Development System (IPDS). IPDS is a team-based 
process that established cross-functional teams throughout FAA's lines 
of business to produce effective and efficient products/services that 
satisfy customer/user needs. Past examples of successful team-based 
programs are the En-Route Display System Replacement (DSR) and Host and 
Oceanic Computer System Replacement (HOCSR).
    FAA-integrated Capability Maturity Model (FAA-iCMM). The Agency 
developed and began using the iCMM as a unified approach for evaluating 
its processes and improving them. This cross-functional process 
involving employees from different LOBs and is anticipated to further 
provide a more effective and efficient collaboration between Agency 
organizations in order to achieve higher levels of maturity on the 
model's scale.
    Requirements Process. The requirements process was reengineered to 
establish a single organizational entity in order to better manage 
system requirements and ensure improved collaboration with the teams.
    Portfolio Management. The FAA plans to implement portfolio 
management to aggregate investment candidates into funding categories 
in order to facilitate managing the capital investment portfolio as a 
whole, increasing benefits, and managing risks.
    Question. What is the status of FAA's effort to reform its culture, 
including fully implementing integrated product development teams to 
acquire and management systems?
    Answer. The FAA's strategy for acquisition culture change is a 
dynamic process that provides a framework and focal point for 
integrating individual interventions of various organizational elements 
and strengthens the drive toward better performance. The FAA has 
instituted important structural and procedural changes designed to 
eliminate culture, acquisition, and organizational problems of the 
past:
    Integrated Product Development System (IPDS). This process is 
helping to transform how the Agency does business, and facilitates 
breaking down stovepipe organizational barriers. Through IPDS, the 
Agency is focusing on corporate issues and problems affecting the FAA, 
such as human factors, and life cycle acquisition management. IPDS is 
gradually changing how employees and management interrelate by 
recognizing the value and utility of cross-functional teams for 
applicable tasks and how employees are empowered by managers.
    Other ongoing initiatives designed to change and improve the 
Agency's culture include the requirements process and performance 
planning. The requirements process has been reengineered to better 
manage system requirements and ensure improved collaboration with the 
teams. FAA has taken an important step in support of culture change and 
improved performance by formulating and promulgating outcome-based, 
mission-focused performance goals and indicators in our performance 
plans.
    Performance-driven behavior change within a large organization, 
such as the FAA, is a challenging task. Change management of this 
magnitude and difficulty can be successful over time and with the 
consistent and focused attention of its leaders. The Agency is making 
progress in all three areas identified in the 1999 Booz-Allen & 
Hamilton Report. The FAA is making progress through a variety of 
efforts to change the acquisition culture, overcome organizational 
barriers (``stovepipes''), and recognize and address gaps in AMS. The 
FAA is committed to having a workforce and business practices that are 
adaptable to changing aviation and technological environments and that 
provide the safest, most efficient and responsive aerospace system in 
the world.

                          INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO

    Question. In its April 1999 report on FAA's investment management 
approach, GAO said that the Acquisition Management System was a good 
first step in establishing a structured, disciplined process for 
managing FAA's modernization investments, but concluded that the system 
had some very significant shortfalls that limited its effectiveness. 
GAO made five recommendations designed to correct problems it had 
identified with the system. GAO directed the FAA to establish and 
control a complete investment portfolio, including those projects 
already in operation. What has been done to implement this 
recommendation?
    Answer. The FAA has developed the CIP with associated funding 
requirements for five years that tie to OMB outyear targets. This plan 
is the basis of the agency's investment portfolio for selecting and 
controlling investment decisions. The FAA is developing full life-cycle 
baselines for acquisition programs, which are included in the agency's 
CIP. The agency will incorporate in to its CIP all of the future F&E 
appropriation funded programs in its CIP.
    Question. Exactly how many projects and systems are in the 
modernization investment portfolio?
    Answer. Within the agency's CIP, there are 113 identified projects 
in the ATC services and facilities sustainment and new ATC services 
groupings that constitute the agency's modernization effort.
    Question. Of those, how many have reliable cost baselines?
    Answer. The FAA has baselined 29 major acquisition programs in the 
services and facilities sustainment groupings. There are an additional 
17 major acquisition programs with baselines in process or identified 
to be baselined.
    Question. When will the FAA have reliable operations cost baselines 
for every project in your investment portfolio?
    Answer. To date the FAA has approved operations baselines for 15 
CIP and ten legacy projects, accounting for over 55 percent of the 
operations cost identified in the System Architecture. The 15 CIP 
projects with operations cost baselines include seven baselined in 
fiscal year 1999 and eight in fiscal year 2000. By the end of fiscal 
year 2000, the FAA has targeted an additional ten CIP projects for 
baselining. This would bring the total operations baselines of CIP 
projects to 25. We are assessing how best to complete all baselines for 
the 113 identified F&E projects.

            REPORTING ON ESTIMATED VERSUS ACTUAL PERFORMANCE

    Question. GAO reported in April 1999 that information use to 
control projects was incomplete since FAA had not fully implemented as 
effective process for controlling the baselines for the costs, 
schedules, benefits, performance, and risks of its investments. At that 
time, FAA had approved baseline information for only half of the 
required universe of projects and the agency's processes for tracking 
actual performance against estimates frequently had provided incomplete 
information. The acquisition management system had been in place for 
three years when the GAO report was issued in April 1999. Why, then, 
was the FAA only able to establish and approve baselines for half of 
the projects during that three-year period?
    Answer. The universe of projects targeted for baselining in GAO's 
report were F&E funded programs. Many of the projects were undergoing 
investment analysis and were, therefore, premature to baseline. The FAA 
currently has 44 projects baselined, and plans to have four more 
projects baselined by the Spring of 2000, which provides baselines for 
over 70 percent of F&E expenditures.
    Question. Why is it taking so long for the FAA to develop and 
finalize the most basic baseline data on these key projects?
    Answer. Of the F&E funded programs in the universe of projects 
identified in GAO's report, many are still undergoing investment 
analysis and will not have baselines until after the Joint Resources 
Council (JRC) approves the investment. Since programs are being managed 
to baselines, it is very important to develop accurate baselines. That 
can not be done until the investment analysis is complete and the 
number of systems to be purchased is determined along with a detailed 
estimate of system costs.
    Question. GAO also found that the FAA frequently has incomplete 
reports on projects' estimated versus actual performance in the areas 
of cost, schedule, benefits, and performance. What has the FAA done to 
change this situation?
    Answer. The FAA developed a centralized information system known as 
the Simplified Program Information Reporting Evaluation database. 
Programs are required to report variances to their cost, schedule, 
performance, and benefits baselines monthly. All program variances are 
tracked and included in a quarterly report to the JRC. Substantial 
acquisitions with variances greater than 10 percent are reported to the 
FAA Administrator for her determination to continue or terminate the 
program.
    Question. Given the substantial cost overruns, lengthy delays, and 
significant performance shortfalls that have characterized FAA's 
modernization program, how important is it for the FAA to closely 
monitor and document its estimated versus actual performance?
    Answer. A program's estimated versus actual performance is 
monitored at the highest level in the FAA. The FAA has developed an 
information system known as the Simplified Program Information 
Reporting Evaluation system, in which programs report monthly on 
variances to their program's baseline. Variances to baselines are 
monitored and documented in a quarterly report to the JRC. In addition, 
key officials are briefed monthly by the product teams on the status of 
cost, schedule, performance, benefits, and risk. Similarly, members of 
the JRC are briefed semi-annually on these same areas. The Associate 
Administrator for Research and Acquisitions (the Federal Acquisition 
Executive) obtains a monthly status of key milestones for critical 
projects via updates to the Program Status Matrix wall charts. Finally, 
the FAA Administrator is notified of substantial acquisitions with 
variances of greater than 10 percent for her determination to continue 
or terminate the program.
    Question. What specific steps are being taken to implement the GAO 
recommendations to ensure project officials fully track and document 
estimated versus actual results on all baseline elements?
    Answer. The development of the Simplified Program Information 
Reporting and Evaluation System, variance tracking and reporting to FAA 
management, and reporting to the FAA Administrator variances of greater 
that 10 percent are some examples of FAA's progress in implementing the 
GAO's recommendations to document estimated versus actual results on 
the baseline elements.

                 NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM MODERNIZATION

    Question. When will the FAA have a complete and enforced systems 
architecture for the ATC modernization program?
    Answer. The FAA understands the question to relate to the technical 
architecture for the en route air traffic automation modernization that 
we define the allocation of functions, before the en route automation 
software is replaced. The technical architecture timing is dependent 
upon funding for fiscal year 2001. The technical architecture will be 
completed within one year of program funding and before production 
commitments are made to modify or replace the current 1970's technology 
software.
    Question. When will the FAA complete its efforts to 
institutionalize sound cost estimating processes?
    Answer. FAA uses sound cost estimating processes appropriate to the 
level of detail needed for a given estimate. The Agency has established 
a standard work breakdown structure, and completed the development of a 
Cost Estimating Handbook, dated January 2, 1998, which provides 
guidance for all our estimates.

                         COST ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

    Question. When will the FAA have a cost accounting system in place?
    Answer. The FAA is implementing the cost accounting system in 
phases by organization from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2002. 
To date, the FAA has implemented en route and oceanic services for the 
Air Traffic Services (ATS) line of business. The fiscal year 1998 and 
fiscal year 1999 costs of these services have been identified. ATS 
Flight Service Stations will be added in fiscal year 2000 and terminal/
tower services in the beginning of fiscal year 2001. The implementation 
schedule for all organizations is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            FAA organization                           Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATS Flight Service Stations.............  June 2000.
ATS Terminal and Tower..................  October 2000.
Research and Acquisitions...............  February 2001.
Aeronautical Center.....................  April 2001.
Airports/Commercial Space Transportation  November 2001.
Certification and Regulation............  February 2002.
Civil Aviation Security.................  June 2002.
Staff Offices...........................  September 2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         FAA SOFTWARE PROCESSES

    Question. When will the FAA be able to report that its software 
processes are at a mature level? What challenges are causing this 
effort so long to complete?
    Answer. FAA is improving its processes using an integrated approach 
that improves systems engineering, software engineering, acquisition, 
and management processes simultaneously via the FAA's integrated 
Capability Maturity Model (FAA-iCMM). There are nine process areas that 
must be performed at a planned and tracked, and repeatable capability 
level to be considered maturity level 2. The nine process areas are: 
Needs, Requirements, Outsourcing, System Test and Evaluation, 
Transition, Project Management, Contract Management, Quality Assurance 
and Management, and Configuration Management. The Agency has recently 
completed a major appraisal of eleven engineering and acquisition 
programs spanning the FAA acquisition lifecycle, and also have 
appraised the maturity of several processes performed across the FAA 
Technical Center. The results of these appraisals indicate that the 
majority of the programs or organizations assessed have achieved 
capability level 2 for most of the nine maturity level 2 process areas 
that are relevant to the engineering and acquisition activities that 
each program/organization performs. Several of the eleven programs 
assessed have reached full maturity level 2. Those programs that have 
not yet completely reached maturity level 2 are currently preparing 
action plans, which when implemented, will allow them to reach full 
maturity level 2 by the end of fiscal year 2000.
    Additionally, the FAA continues to build on the process improvement 
accomplishments to date. Overall, FAA is performing extremely well in 
improving its processes following an integrated approach. This 
integrated effort is being achieved at a pace faster than the industry 
norm, where typically it takes 25 months to improve from level 1 to 
level 2 on the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for software alone. In 
roughly that timeframe, FAA has been achieving mature process on the 
FAA-iCMM, which is equivalent to achieving comparable maturity on three 
CMMs simultaneously: the CMMs for Software, Software Acquisition, and 
Systems Engineering. Because of continuing changes in technology and in 
the identification of new or improved ``best practices,'' process 
improvement can never be considered complete.

                           ACQUISITION REFORM

    Question. How has acquisition reform helped the FAA meet its goals 
for ATC modernization? How has it impeded the FAA from meeting those 
goals?
    Answer. The agency's acquisition reform authorized in 1996 has 
aided to simplify, integrate, and unify elements of life cycle 
acquisition management into a more effective system, which has helped 
the FAA to meet its goals for ATC modernization. Acquisition reform has 
shifted focus to life cycle management of programs, created an improved 
structure and processes for defining FAA needs and investments, 
established corporate-level decision-making for FAA needs and 
investments, and increased involvement of stakeholders in decisions. 
Substantially streamlined procurement processes have produced a 50 
percent reduction in the time to award contracts, increased the 
percentage of contracts awarded competitively and based on best value, 
improved communications with FAA vendors. It also improves the delivery 
of products and services.

                           FACILITY SECURITY

    Question. When will the FAA correct known weaknesses and complete 
security accreditations for its 187 facilities?
    Answer. The FAA has established a six-year program to upgrade 
security and complete accreditation of approximately 1,000 staffed 
facilities, not 187 as referenced in the question. Upgrades and 
accreditations are planned for completion by 2005.

                AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS ASSESSMENTS

    Question. When will FAA complete its efforts to assess, certify, 
and accredit all air traffic control systems, as required by agency 
policy?
    Answer. The FAA plans are to complete the certification and 
authorization of its critical air traffic control systems by May 2003. 
This date is dependent upon required funding to support the risk 
assessments and mitigation of any high-risk items or vulnerabilities 
found during the assessment process.

               AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

    Question. When will the FAA complete its efforts to ensure that 
specifications for all new ATC systems include security requirements 
based on detailed security assessments?
    Answer. The FAA will complete all risk assessments for new ATC 
systems by May 2003, in accordance with Presidential Decision Directive 
63. High-level NAS requirements have been developed. The FAA is 
currently developing ``protection profiles'' at the system level in 
compliance with National Institute of Standards and Technology 
standards. These protection profiles will define security requirements 
for new NAS systems.

                           BACKGROUND CHECKS

    Question. In December 1999, GAO reported that the FAA had not 
consistently performed background checks or investigations on 
contractor employees, as required by its policy. In fact, GAO provided 
an example in which 36 mainland Chinese nationals were provided copies 
of some of FAA's most important air traffic control systems, but had 
not undergone background searches as required by FAA policy. GAO made 
several recommendations to address security weaknesses, and FAA agreed 
to implement these recommendations. What are the FAA's plans for 
enforcing its policy on background checks or investigations to ensure 
that such a lapse does not occur in the future? When will the FAA 
complete its efforts to address the GAO recommendation?
    Answer. FAA has taken swift action to address the key issues 
identified in the December 1999 GAO report, and continues longer-term 
actions to ensure that it has the policies and procedures in place to 
ensure background checks or investigations are conducted, as necessary, 
on contractor employees.
    FAA's Civil Aviation Security (ACS) provided contractor personnel 
security requirement briefings to acquisition personnel during the 
month of March 2000 to heighten their awareness of the requirements of 
FAA Personnel Security Order 1600.1D, and remind them of their 
responsibilities under the order.
    The FAA Office of Acquisitions has developed, in coordination with 
ACS and Legal Counsel for Procurement Policy, new security provisions 
(clauses, guidance, prescriptions, and forms) for use in new, as well 
as existing contracts. The new prescriptions require contracting and 
operating offices to implement the requirements of 1600.1D in all 
contracts, unless a determination is made that no access by Contractor 
personnel to FAA facilities, sensitive information and/or resources is 
required.
    These new provisions clarify the requirements for conducting risk/
sensitivity level determinations for each applicable position under a 
contract and for mechanisms to allow initiating appropriate background 
checks/investigations prior to allowing a contractor employee to start 
or to continue work on a FAA system.
    Since January 2000, the FAA continues reviewing all of its existing 
contracts, as well as all new contracts before issuance, to ensure 
appropriate risk/sensitivity level designations for applicable 
positions under those contracts are made. Where appropriate, FAA is 
incorporating the appropriate security provision(s), which call for 
contractor employees to provide necessary forms to allow the FAA to 
conduct, as necessary and appropriate, the background checks/
investigations.
    ACS is developing procedures, intended to be in place by September 
2000, for conducting semi-annual audits of contracts for the sole 
purpose of monitoring compliance with FAA order 1600.1D.
    All existing, as well as newly awarded, contracts should be 
modified by the first ACS review in September 2000.
    In accordance with the order, ACS will ensure the required 
background checks or investigations are conducted and will maintain a 
contractor personnel database.

                 OVERSIGHT OF AVIATION REPAIR STATIONS

    Question. Last summer, the FAA issued two NPRM's concerning 
oversight of aviation repair stations. One concerned the training and 
certification requirements for repair station personnel. This NPRM was 
subsequently withdrawn. What are the reasons for the withdrawal of the 
NPRM, and what is the FAA's plan for issuing a revised NPRM? The other 
NPRM had been several years in the making and addressed more 
comprehensively the oversight of repair stations. The comment period 
was extended and expired the end of last year. Can you estimate when a 
final rule will be published?
    Answer. The Revision of Certification Requirements: Mechanics and 
Repairmen NPRM was published on July 9, 1998. More than 1500 
commentaries responded to the NPRM. Most of the commentaries opposed 
the provision in the NPRM to establish the Aviation Maintenance 
Technician and Aviation Maintenance Technician (Transport) 
certificates. Several associations such as the Regional Airline 
Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the 
Aeronautical Repair Manufacturers, and the National Air Transportation 
Association opposed the NPRM and some associations asked the FAA to 
withdraw the NPRM. As a result, the notice to withdraw the Revision of 
Certification Requirements: Mechanics and Repairmen NPRM was published 
on August 5, 1999. The NPRM was withdrawn due to the large number of 
comments that were received in opposition. A review is being conducted 
to determine what actions are needed to bring Part 65 in line with the 
comments received and whether or not to reissue Part 66.
    The Part 145 Review: Repair Stations NPRM was published on June 21, 
1999, with a comment period deadline of October 19, 1999. The comment 
period deadline was extended to December 3, 1999. The FAA received 535 
comments in regards to the NPRM. The FAA is currently analyzing these 
substantive comments and anticipates publishing the rule April 3, 2001, 
which is within 16 months of the comment period deadline and in 
accordance with the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 final rule 
publication requirements.

            PROTECTION OF VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED INFORMATION

    Question. For many years flight safety experts have identified the 
proactive use of data from flight data recorders as an essential means 
of achieving the eighty percent reduction in aviation accident rates 
set by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. One 
of Administrator Garvey's first acts as FAA Administrator was to 
expedite rulemaking that would enable the use of this information. Yet 
it was only last fall that a NPRM protecting this information from 
release under the FOIA was issued. Why did it take so long to issue 
this NPRM, and when do you anticipate a final-rule?
    Answer. The FAA initiated the Protection of Voluntarily Submitted 
Information rulemaking on December 11, 1996, as a result of a 
requirement established in the FAA Reauthorization Act (Act) of 1996 
and a recommendation from the White House Commission on Aviation Safety 
and Security. The Act allows the Administrator, through FAA 
regulations, to protect from disclosure voluntarily provided 
information related to safety and security issues. The White House 
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security noted that the most 
effective way to identify problems is for people who operate the system 
to self-disclose the information, but there is reluctance to provide 
information to the FAA unless it can be protected.
    Throughout the NPRM process, the determining of the rule's scope 
and approach and performing economic analysis required coordination 
within FAA as well as the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and 
the Office of Management and Budget. Issues identified at each stage of 
the review process required resolution prior to the publication of the 
NPRM.
    The Protection of Voluntarily Submitted Information NPRM was 
published on July 26, 1999, with a comment deadline of September 24, 
1999. On September 21, 1999, the National Transportation Safety Board 
requested that the FAA extend the comment period by 30 days. 
Consequently on October 5, 1999, the FAA published a notice reopening 
the comment period for an additional 30 days resulting in the closing 
of the comment period on November 4, 1999. The FAA is developing the 
final rule, and anticipates publishing the rule by February 26, 2001, 
which is within 16 months of the close of comment period and in 
accordance with the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 final rule 
publication requirements.

              AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM (AMASS)

    Question. Given the difficulties with AMASS procurement, does it 
make sense to take a step back from the program and consider whether 
other emerging capabilities within other procurements that have not 
experienced comparable difficulties might have complementary or 
corresponding capabilities that could obviate the concerns that the 
AMASS program purportedly should address. Does the ADS-B program have a 
role to play in addressing the runway incursion problem?
    Answer. The FAA has completed an in-depth review and restructuring 
of AMASS and concluded that the revised program goals will be met. The 
AMASS system is a key player in helping prevent accidents that could 
result from runway incursions. Yes. The ADS-B program does have a role 
to play in addressing the runway incursion problem.
    The total program quantity of 40 systems are on contract utilizing 
prior year funding authority; 29 systems have been delivered and 23 
systems have been accepted by the FAA. A total of 38 systems will be 
installed at the 34 highest priority airports, with two support systems 
in Oklahoma City. With active union participation and new program 
management in place, the program is now on schedule. Human factor 
issues critical to the commissioning process have been corrected. 
Operational Test (OT) critical issues have been resolved and have 
passed factory testing and field testing in Atlanta. The OT regression 
testing to validate the corrections is on schedule to be completed in 
June 2000. Initial operating capability (IOC) is on schedule for August 
2000. The Independent Operational Test & Evaluation will follow 
starting in September in San Francisco and in October in Detroit. First 
AMASS commissionings are scheduled for early calendar year 2001, 
following completion of the required FAA in-service review process.
    The ASDE-3/AMASS is the only currently available technology that 
includes safety logic that has been formally operationally tested with 
the participation of FAA Airways Facilities and Air Traffic personnel. 
Technologies such as multilateration and data fusion, which are being 
tested at Dallas/Fort Worth airport, under a research and development 
program, still required an extensive development effort to become 
operationally suitable in the FAA's National Airspace System. A new 
program named ASDE-X, now in the acquisition phase with a contract 
award scheduled for September 2000, will incorporate these new 
technologies. These new technologies will not include the safety logic 
that is the core of the AMASS system. The ASDE-X systems are planned to 
be deployed at airports other than the ASDE-3/AMASS sites. The current 
schedule for AMASS includes commissioning of all systems by the end of 
calendar year 2002, prior to the first possible commissioning of an 
ASDE-X system scheduled for calendar year 2003.
    ADS-B will be able to contribute two critical solutions to the 
runway incursion issue. The first component would provide ADS-B target 
information to the controllers. This capability would be similar to 
radar based ASDE display functionality in the tower cab, but would 
provide controllers with more accurate target information, such as 
aircraft data tag and precise GPS derived position.
    The second component is ADS-B driven cockpit surface moving map 
displays. Safe Flight-21 is currently developing commercial cockpit 
displays, which provide pilots critical information such as their 
precise position on the airport surface relative to other aircraft 
occupying runways or about to land. This tool should be very effective 
in reducing the number of pilot and vehicle deviations, by providing 
pilots and ground vehicles the same ``situational awareness'' picture 
afforded only to tower controllers today. More importantly, since ADS-B 
works between equipped aircraft pairs, cockpit moving map displays 
would offer a level of safety at airports that currently don't have 
ASDE equipment.

                      AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

    Question. Please provide a listing of the top 50 airside airport 
projects that add capacity to the system. Please provide the estimated 
costs of such projects and the years in which those costs occur. In 
addition, please provide any relevant cost benefit information with 
those projects.
    Answer. New runways generally provide the largest increases in 
airside capacity. Twenty-eight new runways have been identified at the 
100 busiest airports in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 
as a result of local planning efforts for a total estimated cost of 
nearly $7,000,000,000 for all 28 runways. Construction of these new 
runways represents many more than 50 airside airport projects; however, 
for purposes of providing a meaningful level of information, projects 
are listed at the airport level, without breaking airport initiatives 
into lower level airside airport projects.
    Of the 28 proposed new runways, four are under construction with 
runway operational dates of: 2000 for Phoenix; 2001 for Detroit; 2003 
for Minneapolis; and 2006 for Seattle. Following is the list of 
airports with planned runways through 2010. Benefit-cost analyses and 
funding plans (approved Letters of Intent) for Detroit, Minneapolis, 
and Seattle have been completed. The remaining locations either are or 
will be examined as the AIP project approval process evolves. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.020

                           REVENUE DIVERSION

    Question. The GAO reported that (1) unauthorized land use at 
general aviation airports had results in safety hazards and led to 
revenue diversion or loss, which FAA has not always addressed; (2) 
airport revenues have been diverted at Bader Field, New Jersey and at 
Queen City Airport in Pennsylvania, since the early 1970's and (3) 
FAA's decision to allow Kansas City to sell the Richards-Gebaur 
Memorial Airport without an appraisal or ensuring the fair market value 
was improper. In its response, FAA stated that its field offices were 
aware of the cases cited by GAO. FAA said it prefers to address 
noncompliance through negotiations and settlement with the airport 
sponsor. FAA said it was carefully reviewing the proposed leases of the 
Richards-Gabaur Airport and would consider amending the Memorandum of 
Agreement or rejecting the structure of the sale. GAO recommended that 
FAA's compliance policy guidance be revised to require among other 
things, periodic on-site visits and to include specific criteria for 
initiating enforcement actions and set reasonable time frames for 
taking progressively stronger enforcement actions in cases where 
efforts to achieve voluntary corrective action are unsuccessful. If FAA 
field offices knew about these unauthorized land uses, safety hazards, 
and diversion of revenues, abuses that in several cases cited by GAO, 
went on for decades, why didn't the agency take actions to stop them?
    Answer. In the past the FAA encouraged its field offices to resolve 
compliance issues on an informal basis. The consequence was that some 
negotiations took unacceptably long periods of time. Now, thanks in 
part to the February 16, 1999, issuance of the FAA Policy and 
Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue and the Rules of 
Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Proceedings (published October 
16, 1996), the issues are defined more clearly, negotiations are more 
focused, and the FAA is quicker to use its administrative process to 
assure compliance. Additionally, each region remains responsible for 
monitoring and surveillance of airport sponsor compliance with Federal 
obligations on a routine basis. FAA HQ monitors the regions compliance 
monitoring and surveillance by requiring each region to submit a 
semiannual compliance monitoring and surveillance report to the Airport 
Compliance Division at FAA Headquarters. This report includes, but is 
not limited to, each region's land release activities, compliance 
evaluations and determinations, as-well-as corrective and enforcement 
action taken to effect airport sponsor compliance.
    Question. Is there a time frame for how long the FAA will allow 
airport land to be usurped and revenues to be diverted before taking 
action?
    Answer. Once the FAA becomes aware of an alleged violation of an 
airport sponsor's Federal obligations it acts immediately to 
investigate the alleged violation either formally or informally. Our 
first choice in addressing an apparent airport owner assurance 
violation is always to seek voluntary compliance through the informal 
compliance efforts of our regional offices, or to otherwise resolve the 
issues at the regional level. However, when voluntary compliance cannot 
be achieved, FAA Headquarters will initiate a formal FAA investigation 
in accordance with FAR Part 16. FAA policies and procedures do not 
provide a standard time frame in which corrective actions must be 
completed because all cases are different. In most cases, the actual 
time taken to complete enforcement action can be attributed to the time 
associated with the FAA informal and formal administrative processes, 
and the legal requirement to provide the opportunity for correction of 
the condition prior to enforcement action, as provided in FAR Part 16. 
The time frame for the compliance process may vary greatly depending on 
the complexity of the case and the airport specific circumstances. 
However, it has always been FAA's policy to resolve compliance matters 
as quickly as possible.
    Question. Provide some instances and dates when the FAA has taken 
enforcement action in the past five years. More specifically, what 
enforcement action has the FAA taken to resolve long-standing instances 
of non-compliance and revenue diversion at the Queen City Airport in 
Pennsylvania and at Bader Field, New Jersey?
    Answer. The FAA has taken the following enforcement action with 
regard to Queen City and Bader Field.
    Queen City. The FAA worked extensively with the City of Allentown, 
Pennsylvania, to resolve the Office of Inspector General's finding of a 
$2,400,000 revenue diversion at the Queen City Airport. Although the 
city disagrees with the amount of the finding, it entered into 
negotiations with the Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority (LNAA) to 
transfer the Airport to the LNAA as a means of repaying the diverted 
revenue. As the result of the negotiations, the City and the LNAA 
agreed in principle to the transfer, but the transfer has not occurred 
yet, due to two unresolved issues. First, the city wants to continue 
its use of the Vultree hangar as a municipal garage. Second, the city 
proposed a plan to close both the Queen City and the Lehigh Northampton 
Airports and replace them with a new facility. Since negotiations have 
stalled, the FAA is currently taking action to re-coup the revenue 
diversion reported in the audit finding.
    Bader Field. The FAA continues to work with Atlantic City to 
resolve the land-use and safety issues at the Bader Field Airport. With 
regard to the land-use issues, the FAA is waiting for the city to 
support its claim that it provides sufficient financial aid to the 
Airport to offset any rent on the land that the city uses for non-
airport purposes. With regard to safety issues, on March 3, 2000, the 
FAA issued an emergency Order of Compliance to the city that required 
the city to operate the airport in a safe manner. On March 6th and 10th 
the city met with the Assistant U.S. Attorney to discuss the steps the 
city must take to comply with the Order. The outcome of those meetings 
was a three-party agreement in principle among the city, New Jersey 
Department of Transportation, and the United States Attorney to improve 
signage and markings on the airport. The FAA is awaiting the signed 
copy of the agreement. If the city refuses to sign the agreement, the 
United States Attorney has the option of obtaining a court injunction 
to enforce the order. In the meantime, the FAA is continuing to conduct 
safety inspections at the airport.
    Question. Has the FAA taken any steps to obtain information, either 
through site visits by the FAA personnel or from interested parties, 
regarding general aviation airport compliance with land and revenue use 
requirements?
    Answer. The FAA continues to believe that the extent of 
unauthorized land use was overstated in the GAO report. GAO's random 
sample of 506 airports produced issues at only nine airports, or fewer 
than 2 percent of the airports surveyed. The FAA was aware of all those 
issues, which had been previously identified under longstanding 
procedures, such as FAA's formal and informal complaint processes, 
through which airport users often bring matters of airport sponsor non-
compliance to the attention of the FAA. Moreover, the FAA is working on 
and continues to address the issues identified by the GAO.
    Information on compliance matters at general aviation airports can 
come to the FAA from a number of sources or interested parties. Airport 
users at the airport are usually the initial source of information 
regarding potential problems with a sponsor's ability to comply with a 
its a grant assurances. This information can be brought to the agency's 
attention directly by the airport users in an aviation support group 
such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots' Association Airport Support 
Network. State aviation departments that routinely conduct inspections 
of general aviation airports will also communicate with FAA local and 
regional offices about safety and compliance problems.
    Also, the FAA proposes to select annually a total of 18 general 
aviation airports (two per region) to conduct on-site compliance 
inspections. The selections will be made based on prior or current 
knowledge of compliance issues at the airports. Absent such issues, The 
FAA will concentrate on airports that are large in size (extensive 
acreage as reported on the FAA Form 5010, Airport Master Record), in 
relation to the level of aircraft operations at the airport. Airports 
with substantial acreage and no aeronautical purpose for such land 
would presumably have more opportunity and incentive for unauthorized 
land use. To achieve this goal, we will employ airport compliance 
specialists in the field, or in the alternative, safety certification 
inspectors knowledgeable of airport compliance requirements will 
conduct on-site compliance reviews.

                        MILITARY AIRPORT PROGRAM

    Question. Please provide a list of airports currently in the 
Military Airport Program (MAP) Program.
    Answer. The following is a list of the 12 airports currently in the 
MAP. Eleven of these former surplus military airfields were declared 
surplus under the recent Department of Defense Base Realignment and 
Closure program and have been converted to reuse as civil airports. 
Chippewa County International is a former surplused military airfield 
currently being used as a civil primary commercial service airport. The 
list of 12 airports includes:

Austin-Bergstrom Austin, TX (BSM) (Bergstrom AFB)
Homestead Regional Miami, FL (HST) (Homestead AFB)
Millington Municipal Memphis, TN (NQA) (Memphis NAS)
Williams Gateway Phoenix, AZ (IWA) (Williams AFB)
Alexandria International Alexandria, LA (AEX) (England AFB)
Rickenbacker International Columbus, OH (LCK) (Rickenbacker AFB)
Sawyer Airport Gwinn, MI (SAW) (K.I. Sawyer AFB)
Myrtle Beach International Myrtle Beach, SC (MYR) (Myrtle Beach AFB)
Southern California International Victorville, CA (VCV) (George AFB)
Chippewa County International Sault Ste Marie, MI (CIU) (Kincheloe AFB)
Pease International Tradeport Portsmouth, NH (PSM) (Pease AFB)
Cecil Field Jacksonville, FL (VQQ) (Jacksonville NAS)

                      AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

    Question. Please provide a table showing AIP projects for which 
obligations were incurred more than two years ago and no cash 
expenditures have been made, similar in format to table provided in the 
past to the appropriations committees.
    Answer. The AIP projects table is listed below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Project     Federal
           Location                  Airport         No.        funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hayward, CA...................  Hayward               09-97     $150,000
                                 Executive.
Oceano, CA....................  Oceano County...      03-97      374,000
Oceanside, CA.................  Municipal.......      01-95      674,385
Sacramento, CA................  Metropolitan....      21-97    3,594,191
San Carlos, CA................  San Carlos......      07-97      108,000
San Luis Obispo, CA...........  County..........      15-97      704,007
Tracy, CA.....................  Municipal.......      07-95      117,090
Hilo, HI......................  International...      07-97    2,371,500
Honolulu, HI..................  International...      39-97      933,000
Honolulu, HI..................  International...      40-97    5,625,000
Honolulu, HI..................  International...      41-97    3,455,075
Kalaupapa, HI.................  Kalaupapa.......      02-97      243,000
Kaunakakai, HI................  Molokai.........      04-97    1,350,000
Lihue, HI.....................  Lihue...........      19-97    3,422,963
Detroit, MI...................  Detroit Willow        17-97      345,267
                                 Run.
Keene, NH.....................  Dillant-Hopkins.      13-97      962,280
New Hampshire.................  State...........      01-97       83,041
Atlantic City, NJ.............  International...      23-97      250,000
New Jersey State..............  Block Grant.....      07-97      285,000
Newark, NJ....................  International...      53-95    2,432,000
Newark, NJ....................  International...      55-96    1,000,000
Flushing, NY..................  LaGuardia.......      50-94    1,216,000
Newburg, NY...................  Stewart               22-95    5,097,277
                                 Interntional.
Newburg, NY...................  Stewart               23-96    1,174,081
                                 International.
Newburg, NY...................  Stewart               24-97    1,492,183
                                 International.
New York, NY..................  E. 34th Street..      02-96      488,099
Syracuse, NY..................  International...      49-97    1,616,699
Utica, NY.....................  Oneida County...      16-96      383,697
Las Vegas, NV.................  McCarran              36-97    3,055,838
                                 International.
Reno, NV......................  Reno/Tahoe            26-97      400,000
                                 International.
Reno, NV......................  Reno/Stead......      13-97      500,000
Hazleton, PA..................  Municipal.......      06-95      500,000
Pennsylvania..................  State of              SB-97      225,000
                                 Pennsylvania.
Philadelphia, PA..............  International...      25-90      975,000
                                                            ------------
      Total Fedral funds...................................   45,603,673
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a copy of each letter of intent issued 
over the past year. Please provide a table outlining the commitment of 
AIP funds for letters of intent projects.
    Answer. The FAA did not issue any new letters of intent (LOI) in 
fiscal year 1999. However, a number of applications were reviewed 
during the year, resulting in the recommendation to approve four. Three 
LOIs were issued after submission to Congress on March 3 for a 30-day 
period. The fourth LOI, for Dallas-Fort Worth International is being 
held pending development of mutually acceptable language concerning a 
possible AIP grant compliance issue. Copies of the proposed LOIs with 
commitments of AIP funds follow.
                            letter of intent
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
    Project Description: Design and construct Runway 17C extension 
(2,012 feet), Runway 18L extension (2,012 feet), Runway 18R extension 
(2,012 feet), Northwest Holding Apron and associated taxiway 
development.

                                                PAYMENT SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Fiscal year                             Apportionment   Discretionary       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................................................  ..............      $6,292,000      $6,292,000
2001............................................................  ..............       2,292,000       2,292,000
2002............................................................  ..............       3,292,000       3,292,000
2003............................................................  ..............       4,892,000       4,892,000
2004............................................................  ..............       4,892,000       4,892,000
2005............................................................  ..............       5,692,000       5,692,000
2006............................................................  ..............       5,692,000       5,692,000
2007............................................................  ..............       2,752,000       2,752,000
2008............................................................  ..............       2,552,000       2,552,000
2009............................................................  ..............       5,292,000       5,292,000
2010............................................................  ..............       6,000,000       6,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      49,640,000      49,640,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Miami International Airport Miami, Florida

    Project description: Construct new northside runway complex, 
consisting of: New Runway 8-26 (8,600 ft by 150 ft), relocated parallel 
Taxiway ``L'' (8,600 ft by 75 ft) and taxiway connectors, parallel 
Taxiway ``K'' (8,600 ft by 75 ft) and taxiway connectors; including 
airfield lighting and signage, grading and drainage, runway grooving, 
pavement marking, obstruction removal, removal of utilities, removal of 
buildings, and removal of contaminated materials. Construction includes 
airside service road and NAVAIDS (2 localizers with DME, REILS and 2 
PAPIs).

                                                PAYMENT SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Apportionment
                           Fiscal year                            (Entitlement &   Discretionary       Total
                                                                      Cargo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................................................      $7,000,000      $5,000,000     $12,000,000
2001............................................................       7,000,000       3,000,000      10,000,000
2002............................................................       7,000,000       2,840,000       9,840,000
2003............................................................       7,000,000       4,000,000      11,000,000
2004............................................................       7,000,000       5,000,000      12,000,000
2005............................................................  ..............       8,000,000       8,000,000
2006............................................................  ..............       7,550,000       7,550,000
2007............................................................  ..............       8,000,000       8,000,000
2008............................................................  ..............       4,000,000       4,000,000
2009............................................................  ..............      10,110,000      10,110,000
2010............................................................  ..............       8,540,000       8,540,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      35,000,000      66,040,000     101,040,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Orlando International Airport Orlando, Florida
    Project description: Construct New Runway 17L/35R (9,000 ft by 150 
ft) and Associated Taxiways (parallel Taxiway M and connecting 
Taxiways, crossfield Taxiways K, L, & Q) including airfield lighting 
and signage, grading and drainage, runway grooving, pavement markings, 
service/secure roadways, security fencing and equipment, obstruction 
clearing, and building demolition.

                                                PAYMENT SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Apportionment
                           Fiscal year                            (Entitlement &   Discretionary       Total
                                                                      Cargo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................................................  ..............     $15,530,000     $15,530,000
2001............................................................  ..............       7,590,000       7,590,000
2002............................................................  ..............       5,000,000       5,000,000
2003............................................................      $4,600,000       5,000,000       9,600,000
2004............................................................       5,100,000       3,000,000       8,100,000
2005............................................................       5,360,000  ..............       5,360,000
2006............................................................       5,620,000  ..............       5,620,000
2007............................................................       5,900,000  ..............       5,900,000
2008............................................................       6,200,000  ..............       6,200,000
2009............................................................       4,780,000  ..............       4,780,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      37,560,000      36,120,000      73,680,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Jose International Airport San Jose, California
    Project description: Airfield improvements consisting of the 
reconstruction and extension of Runways 12L-30R and 12R-30L and 
associated taxiway improvements including drainage, lighting, signs, 
nav-aids and marking.

                                                PAYMENT SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Apportionment
                           Fiscal year                            (Entitlement &   Discretionary       Total
                                                                      Cargo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................................................      $2,148,000     $20,000,000     $22,148,000
2001............................................................       2,190,960       3,000,000       5,190,960
2002............................................................       2,234,779       9,000,000      11,234,779
2003............................................................       2,279,475       9,000,000      11,279,475
2004............................................................       2,325,064       6,000,000       8,325,064
2005............................................................       2,371,566       6,000,000       8,371,566
2006............................................................       2,418,997       5,000,000       7,418,997
2007............................................................       2,467,377  ..............       2,467,377
2008............................................................       2,516,724  ..............       2,516,724
2009............................................................       2,567,059  ..............       2,567,059
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      23,520,001      58,000,000      81,520,001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

    Question. Please provide a bar chart showing actual and estimated 
PFC collections for fiscal years 1994 through 2001. Please shade the 
actual bars with estimated commitment of collections to landside v. 
airside projects.
    Answer. The following bar chart provides the requested information 
on actual and estimated PFC collections by calendar year. The FAA 
produces passenger facility charge (PFC) collection data based on 
calendar years (CY), not fiscal years, to avoid confusion among public 
agencies that use a variety of different fiscal year definitions. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.021


    The FAA has been conservative in its official estimates of future 
PFC collections. Estimated collections are based on latest published 
actual enplanement statistics and airports collecting PFCs as of the 
start of the year. CY 2000 and CY 2001 estimates in the bar chart do 
not assume new PFC applications or PFC levels above $3 and are 
therefore conservative. However, assuming new applications, PFC actual 
collections may exceed $1.55,000,000,000 in CY 2000 at the 
$1,600,000,000 in CY 2001 at the $3 level.
    In addition, AIR-21 raises the maximum PFC level to $4.50. The FAA 
is unable to ascertain at this time the number or airports that will 
seek or the number of projects that will qualify for the higher $4.50 
PFC. However, assuming that all eligible airports seek and implement 
the higher PFC, it could generate as much as $200,000,000 in additional 
CY 2000 and $700,000,000 in additional CY 2001 collections.
    The next bar chart provides an estimated allocation of PFC 
collections by landside, airside, and other projects. ``Landside'' 
projects in this chart include ground access and terminal projects. 
``Airside'' projects include runways, taxiways, aprons, and associated 
airfield projects. ``Other'' projects include debt payments (typically 
for a blend of project types), planning, noise, and miscellaneous 
items. Allocation to these categories was done by reviewing annual PFC 
authority approved by project type and applying the resulting ratios to 
collections in that year. This allocation approach provides the 
clearest indication of annual variations in project mixes submitted to 
the FAA for PFC approval. The project allocations for 2000 and 2001 are 
based on the average ratios of the prior six years. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.022

                                 ______
                                 
                                 ______
                                 

       Questions Submitted to the Federal Highway Administration

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                      DISCRETIONARY BRIDGE FUNDING

    Question. Please provide a list of all bridges eligible for 
discretionary bridge funding for which the agency has (or expects 
within the next fiscal year) an application. Please indicate whether 
such bridge is eligible for discretionary funding, other discretionary 
programs.
    Answer. The following lists contain bridge candidate projects (both 
seismic and non-seismic) that were considered for fiscal year 2000 
funding under the Discretionary Bridge Program. The status of our 
actions on each project are noted in the tables. For fiscal year 2001, 
the request for candidates was issued on April 15, 2000. We do not 
expect to receive the fiscal year 2001 candidates before July 2000. 
Those bridge projects on the Interstate system costing over $10 million 
and ready for construction within one year of the allocation are 
eligible for Interstate Maintenance discretionary funds which is 
indicated on the lists for the appropriate projects. Discretionary 
bridge applications do not contain the information necessary for us to 
make a determination of eligibility for public lands discretionary or 
the corridors/borders discretionary programs.

        DISCRETIONARY BRIDGE PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING
                      [Seismic Retrofit Candidates]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              State                     Project            Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California......................  Golden Gate Bridge  Funded with fiscal
                                                       year 2000 DBP
                                                       funds.
Tennessee and Arkansas..........  Hernando Desoto     Funded with fiscal
                                   Bridge.             year 2000 DBP
                                                       funds. Also
                                                       eligible for IM
                                                       discretionary.
Washington......................  Spokane Street      Meets rating
                                   Over-crossing.      factor criteria
                                                       (RF=40.7), but
                                                       did not meet
                                                       eligibility
                                                       criteria (a 4th
                                                       quarter project)
                                                       for funding in
                                                       fiscal year 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only two candidates submitted for fiscal year 2000 funds are well-
qualified according to the eligibility criteria. The Golden Gate Bridge 
and the Hernando Desoto Bridge are continuing projects and have 
received seismic retrofit discretionary funds in previous years. The 
Hernando Desoto Bridge is in the New Madrid Fault region.

        DISCRETIONARY BRIDGE PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING
                        [Non-Seismic Candidates]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              State                     Project            Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing Projects (Partially
 funded in previous years):
    Michigan....................  Dequindre Yard....  Funded with fiscal
                                                       year 2000 DBP
                                                       funds. Also
                                                       eligible for IM
                                                       discretionary.
    Missouri....................  Chouteau Bridge...  Funded with fiscal
                                                       year 2000 DBP
                                                       funds.
    Tennessee...................  Loudon City         Funded with fiscal
                                   Memorial.           year 2000 DBP
                                                       funds.
    Washington..................  Snohomish River Br  Funded with fiscal
                                                       year 2000 DBP
                                                       funds.
    South Carolina..............  Grace Memorial      Did not meet
                                   Bridge.             eligibility
                                                       criteria (4th
                                                       quarter project)
                                                       for funding in
                                                       fiscal year 2000.
Olympic Cities Projects:
    Utah........................  Kimballs Jct.       Not funded in
                                   Bridge.             fiscal year 2000--
                                                       unfavorable
                                                       rating factor and
                                                       therefore low
                                                       benefit to cost
                                                       ratio. Also
                                                       eligible for IM
                                                       discretionary.
    Utah........................  Silver Creek Jct.   Not funded in
                                   Bridge.             fiscal year 2000--
                                                       unfavorable
                                                       rating factor and
                                                       therefore low
                                                       benefit to cost
                                                       ratio. Also
                                                       eligible for IM
                                                       discretionary.
Other Non-seismic Projects:
    New Mexico..................  I-25/I-40           Funded with fiscal
                                   Interchange.        year 2000 DBP
                                                       funds. Also
                                                       eligible for IM
                                                       discretionary.
    Illinois....................  Wacker Drive        Funded with fiscal
                                   Viaduct.            year 2000 DBP
                                                       funds.
    Kansas......................  Turner Diagonal     Earmarked in H.R.
                                   Bridge.             2084 Conference
                                                       Report and funded
                                                       with fiscal year
                                                       2000 DBP funds.
    West Virginia...............  Williamstown-       Earmarked in H.R.
                                   Marietta Bridge.    2084 Conference
                                                       Report and funded
                                                       with fiscal year
                                                       2000 DBP funds.
                                                       Also eligible for
                                                       IM discretionary.
    New York....................  North Grand Island  \1\ Eligible-not
                                   Bridge.             funded.
    Minnesota...................  Ford Bridge.......  \1\ Eligible-not
                                                       funded.
    New York....................  Stutson Street      \1\ Eligible-not
                                   Bridge.             funded.
    Michigan....................  Grand Rapids (R07)  \1\ Eligible-not
                                                       funded.
    New Hampshire & Vermont.....  Rt. 9 over          \1\ Eligible-not
                                   Connecticut Riv.    funded.
    Rhode Island................  Washington Br.      \1\ Eligible-not
                                   Over Seekonk        funded. Also
                                   River.              eligible for IM
                                                       discretionary.
    Michigan....................  Grand Rapids (R06-  \1\ Eligible-not
                                   1).                 funded.
    Michigan....................  Grand Rapids (R06-  \1\ Eligible-not
                                   2).                 funded.
    Texas.......................  Sabine River        \1\ Eligible-not
                                   Bridge.             funded. Also
                                                       eligible for IM
                                                       discretionary.
    New York....................  Ridge Rd. over      \1\ Eligible-not
                                   Railroads.          funded.
    Mississippi.................  Jourdan River       \1\ Eligible-not
                                   Bridge.             funded. Also
                                                       eligible for IM
                                                       discretionary.
    Massachusetts...............  Hadley Bridge       \1\ Eligible-not
                                   (Calvin Coolidge    funded.
                                   Mem. Br.).
    West Virginia...............  Star City Bridge..  \1\ Eligible-not
                                                       funded.
    Massachusetts...............  Fall River Bridge.  \1\ Eligible-not
                                                       funded.
    New York....................  Marcy Ave. Ramp...  \1\ Eligible-not
                                                       funded.
    New York....................  Manhattan Bridge..  Eligible-not
                                                       funded.
    Mississippi.................  Pascagoula River    \1\ Eligible-not
                                   Bridge.             funded.
    Missouri....................  Lexington-Missouri  \1\ Eligible-not
                                   Riv. Br.            funded.
    Massachusetts...............  Fitchburg Bridge..  \1\ Eligible-not
                                                       funded.
    Alaska......................  Kenai River Bridge  \1\ Eligible-not
                                                       funded.
    Texas.......................  Trinity River       \1\ Eligible-not
                                   Bridge.             funded.
    Alabama.....................  Clement C. Clay...  Did not meet
                                                       eligibility
                                                       criteria (4th
                                                       quarter project)
                                                       for funding in
                                                       fiscal year 2000.
    Florida.....................  Royal Park Bridge.  Did not meet
                                                       eligibility
                                                       criteria (4th
                                                       quarter project)
                                                       for funding in
                                                       fiscal year 2000.
    Kentucky....................  Burnside-           Did not meet
                                   Monticello Bridge.  eligibility
                                                       criteria (4th
                                                       quarter project)
                                                       for funding in
                                                       fiscal year 2000.
    Maryland....................  Woodrow Wilson      Did not meet
                                   Bridge.             eligibility
                                                       criteria (4th
                                                       quarter project)
                                                       for funding in
                                                       fiscal year 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These projects were eligible for funding, but because of the limited
  amount of discretionary bridge program funds available for non-seismic
  projects ($75 million less obligation limitation), they were not
  selected for funding.

    Seven other projects were submitted by States but are not shown 
because the bridges were not eligible for various reasons--bridges not 
deficient, rating factor greater than 100, or not a highway bridge.
    Nine projects were earmarked in the Conference Report H.R. 2084. 
Two were funded as shown above, but seven others were not because they 
did not meet program eligibility criteria.

                             RABA TRANSFERS

    Question. Please provide a revised version of the tables starting 
on page II-15 of the Federal Highway budget justification to reflect 
the levels for each line without the Administration's proposed 
transfers from RABA and within the original program without exempting 
any activity from the proportionate obligation limitation restriction 
necessitated by the TEA-21 legislation's levels.
    Answer.

               FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal years--
                                     -----------------------------------
                                                                 2001
              Programs                   1999        2000      estimate
                                        actual     estimate    (current
                                                                 law)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
    Surface transportation program..       6,227       6,216       6,726
    National highway system.........       4,888       5,319       5,757
    Interstate maintenance..........       3,357       4,419       4,785
    Bridge program..................       2,565       3,785       4,102
    Congestion mitigation and air          1,145       1,509       1,635
     quality improvement............
    Minimum guarantee...............       2,167       1,763       2,000
    Safety incentive grants for use           54          80          99
     of seat belts..................
    Safety incentive to prevent               43          70          79
     operation of motor carrier by
     intoxicated persons............
    ITS standards, research and               75          98          97
     development....................
    ITS deployment..................          71         124         114
    Transportation research.........         208         220         216
    Federal lands highways..........         339         653         673
    National corridor planning and           118         122         136
     coordinated border
     infrastructure.................
    Administration..................         331         304         316
    Other programs..................       2,162         432         582
    High priority projects..........         581       1,560       1,631
    Woodrow Wilson memorial bridge..           1         139         194
    Transportation infrastructure             48         101         107
     finance and innovation.........
    Appalachian development highway          319         394         388
     system.........................
    Emergency Relief................  ..........  ..........           9
    Motor Carrier Safety              ..........  ..........          16
     Administration.................
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total subject to obligation         24,700  \1\ 27,308  \2\ 29,662
       limitation...................
                                     ===================================
    Emergency relief program........         129         111         100
    Minimum allocation/guarantee....         858         702         664
    Demonstration projects..........         248         394         275
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total exempt programs.........       1,234       1,207       1,039
    Emergency relief supplemental...          97          15  ..........
                                     -----------------------------------
    Grand Total, Federal-aid              26,031      28,530      30,701
     highways (direct)..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Reflects estimated obligation which is less than the adjusted
  obligation limitation.
\2\ At this level of obligation limitation, an estimated $29.677 billion
  will be obligated

                           MISSISSIPPI DELTA

    Question. On page 763 of the budget appendix, on line 00.34, $23 
million is requested for the Delta initiative. On page 765 of the 
budget appendix, under the RABA write-up, a $48 million Mississippi 
Delta initiative is noted. Please provide a comparison of these two 
initiatives and provide details as to the anticipated uses of the funds 
requested for these initiatives. Is any of the requested money slated 
for a particular project or community?
    Answer. A total of $48 million is requested within highway program 
funding for the Mississippi Delta initiative. Of this, $25 million 
would be used for I-69 and the Great River Bridge.

                   INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

    Question. Please restructure the fiscal year 2001 request to 
comport only with last year's appropriations report and TEA-21 and 
submit all spending allocation tables.
    Answer. With the exception of the Mainstreaming line item included 
in the fiscal year 2000 Conference Report; the fiscal year 2001 budget 
request contains the exact line items as included in the Conference 
Report. The costs of exhibits, printing and publications, which 
constitutes the Mainstreaming line item, have been included in the 
various program line items in the fiscal year 2001 budget request.
    All spending allocation tables are included as part of the response 
to the next question.
    Question. In addition, please submit for fiscal year 1999 and 
fiscal year 2000 comparable spending allocation tables to those for the 
fiscal year 2001 requests, as displayed on tab 4, pages 1-5 of the 
fiscal year 2001 Budget Justification. Please describe how program 
continuity is ensured.
    Answer. Attached are spending allocation tables for fiscal years 
1999 and 2000. We ensure program continuity by diligently comparing the 
projects and various budget request program areas to overall ITS 
program objectives and performance plans and then assuring that 
spending plan allocations are in line with programs and projects as 
included in our various budget requests. You will note that, 
historically, the ITS program has maintained a structure of funding 
which has remained relatively constant over the years, with changes 
only being made to accommodate additional legislative and/or program 
requirements. These processes assure program continuity.

                           FISCAL YEAR 1999 SPENDING PLAN FUNDING SOURCES AND BALANCES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Fiscal          Prior year
             Activity/project                 year   -------------------------   Total    Obligated  Unobligated
                                              1999    Unobligated  Recoveries  available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT..................    35,976      1,347          30       37,353     36,314      1,039
    TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL........     4,637      1,001          30        5,668      5,654         14
        Advanced Traffic Mgmt. Research...       265        375    ..........        640        640  ...........
            Adaptive Control System.......       265        375    ..........        640        640  ...........
                Chicago Evaluation........        15  ...........  ..........         15         15  ...........
                Ramp Metering.............       250        375    ..........        625        625  ...........
        Models............................     3,410        625          30        4,065      4,065  ...........
            TReL..........................     2,030  ...........        30        2,060      2,060  ...........
                DES.......................     1,310  ...........  ..........      1,310      1,310  ...........
                Onsite Support............       720  ...........        30          750        750  ...........
            TSIS--Enhancement and                850  ...........  ..........        850        850  ...........
             Maintenance..................
            TRANSIM.......................  ........        500    ..........        500        500  ...........
            Dynamic Traffic Assignment           150        125    ..........        275        275  ...........
             (DTA) System.................
                Lab Evaluation............       150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
                Site Testing..............  ........        125    ..........        125        125  ...........
            Computer Aided Design for            380  ...........  ..........        380        380  ...........
             Traffic Management Centers...
        ITS Deployment Analysis System           450  ...........  ..........        450        450  ...........
         (IDAS)...........................
        Other.............................       512          1    ..........        513        499         14
            ATMS Research Support Services       298  ...........  ..........        298        298  ...........
                Capacity and Level of             50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
                 Service..................
                Websites..................         8  ...........  ..........          8          8  ...........
                ATMS Models Workshop......         5  ...........  ..........          5          5  ...........
                Stand Alone Prediction            35  ...........  ..........         35         35  ...........
                 Model....................
                Support Services for FHWA        200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
                 Human Factors............
            Publications..................        84  ...........  ..........         84         84  ...........
            Turner-Fairbank Technical             65  ...........  ..........         65         65  ...........
             Support......................
            Other.........................        24          1    ..........         25         25  ...........
            IPA--Rudy Persaud, South              40  ...........  ..........         40         26         14
             Dakota DOT...................
    INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH..........    20,924          1    ..........     20,925     20,431        494
        Generation 0......................     8,859  ...........  ..........      8,859      8,859  ...........
            Performance Specifications....     1,650  ...........  ..........      1,650      1,650  ...........
                Objective Test Metrics....  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
                Driver Performance Data        1,650  ...........  ..........      1,650      1,650  ...........
                 Collection Field Tests...
            Generation 0 Field Tests......     6,400  ...........  ..........      6,400      6,400  ...........
                Generation 0 Field Tests..     6,000  ...........  ..........      6,000      6,000  ...........
                Evaluations--0 Field Tests       400  ...........  ..........        400        400  ...........
            Cross-Cutting.................       809  ...........  ..........        809        809  ...........
                Special Vehicle Needs            309  ...........  ..........        309        309  ...........
                 Assessment...............
                Develop C/B Methodology...       500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
        Generation 1......................     9,499  ...........  ..........      9,499      9,499  ...........
            Performance Specifications....     3,549  ...........  ..........      3,549      3,549  ...........
                Rear-end Performance             601  ...........  ..........        601        601  ...........
                 Specifications...........
                Roadway Departure                250  ...........  ..........        250        250  ...........
                 Performance
                 Specifications...........
                Lane Change/Merge                150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
                 Performance
                 Specifications...........
                Int. and Fleet Test of           600  ...........  ..........        600        600  ...........
                 Safety Critical Systems..
                Drowsy Driver DVI.........       100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
                EBS.......................       150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
                Test Multi Trailer               498  ...........  ..........        498        498  ...........
                 Stability--Reaward Amp.
                 Suppression Sys..........
                Transit LC/M Performance         300  ...........  ..........        300        300  ...........
                 Specifications...........
                Transit Rear End                 550  ...........  ..........        550        550  ...........
                 Performance
                 Specifications...........
                Transit Rear Impact              350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
                 Performance
                 Specifications...........
            Field Tests...................     5,550  ...........  ..........      5,550      5,550  ...........
                Rear-end CAS Field Test...     4,850  ...........  ..........      4,850      4,850  ...........
                Drowsy Driver Field Test         600  ...........  ..........        600        600  ...........
                 (NHTSA)..................
                Drowsy Driver Field Test         100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
                 (MCS)....................
            Cross-Cutting.................       400  ...........  ..........        400        400  ...........
                Lane Change Workshop......       150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
                HF Multi System                  250  ...........  ..........        250        250  ...........
                 Integration..............
        Generation 2......................       499  ...........  ..........        499        499  ...........
            Performance Specifications....       250  ...........  ..........        250        250  ...........
                Vision Enhancement          ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
                 Performance
                 Specifications...........
                Intersection Performance         250  ...........  ..........        250        250  ...........
                 Specifica-  tions........
            Cross-Cutting.................       249  ...........  ..........        249        249  ...........
                Sensor Friendly Roadway...       249  ...........  ..........        249        249  ...........
        Support...........................     2,066          1    ..........      2,067      1,573        494
            TRB Review....................       175  ...........  ..........        175        175  ...........
            Program Support (Incl.               494  ...........  ..........        494  .........        494
             Mitretek)....................
            NHTSA Support.................       400  ...........  ..........        400        400  ...........
            Transit Support...............       150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
            Human Factors Support.........       367          1    ..........        368        368  ...........
            Turner-Fairbank Technical             88  ...........  ..........         88         88  ...........
             Support......................
            ITS America...................        87  ...........  ..........         87         87  ...........
            Publications..................       305  ...........  ..........        305        305  ...........
        AHS Lessons Learned...............  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        Adjustments Required..............  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
    RURAL RESEARCH........................       985        122    ..........      1,107        610        497
        Rural ITS Support.................       407        119    ..........        526        526  ...........
        Decision Support Systems..........  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        Rural Conference..................        30  ...........  ..........         30         30  ...........
        Peer-to-Peer......................  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        Publications, etc.................  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        Turner-Fairbank Technical Support.        44  ...........  ..........         44         44  ...........
        Rural Weather Show................  ........          3    ..........          3          3  ...........
        Manassas Intersection Coll.                7  ...........  ..........          7          7  ...........
         Warning Sys......................
        Rural PR's for No Cost Contract     ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
         Modifications....................
        Rural/Weather Requirements........       497  ...........  ..........        497  .........        497
    APTS RESEARCH.........................       988  ...........  ..........        988        988  ...........
        Advanced Fleet Management Research       400  ...........  ..........        400        400  ...........
        Traveler Information & ADA               180  ...........  ..........        180        180  ...........
         Compatibility....................
        Welfare to Work (Planning)........       200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
        General and Technical Staff              200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
         Support..........................
        Publications......................         8  ...........  ..........          8          8  ...........
    COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS.........     7,192        100    ..........      7,292      7,268         24
        Safety Data Systems (Includes 3rd      3,005  ...........  ..........      3,005      3,005  ...........
         Mailbox).........................
        CVISN Support for Level 1              1,600  ...........  ..........      1,600      1,600  ...........
         Deployment.......................
        Architecture Consistency..........     1,000        100    ..........      1,100      1,100  ...........
            Architecture Consistency             800  ...........  ..........        800        800  ...........
             (Other)......................
            Freight Arch. Consistency.....       200        100    ..........        300        300  ...........
        CVO Technical Assistance..........       500  ...........  ..........        500        476         24
            CVO Technical Assistance--           350  ...........  ..........        350        326         24
             (Other)......................
            CVO Technical Assistance--           150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
             Freight......................
        CVISN Technical Training..........       998  ...........  ..........        998        998  ...........
        Publications......................        89  ...........  ..........         89         89  ...........
    INTERMODAL FREIGHT RESEARCH...........       500         10    ..........        510        500         10
        Operational Test--Facilitate             500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
         Movement of Intermodal Freight...
        TRB Conference on Intermodal        ........         10    ..........         10  .........         10
         Freight..........................
    ENABLING RESEARCH.....................       600        114    ..........        714        714  ...........
        DSRC Spectrum Issues..............       450         58    ..........        508        508  ...........
        Spectrum Consulting Services......       150         50    ..........        200        200  ...........
        Publications......................  ........          1    ..........          1          1  ...........
        State & Local Use of GPS..........  ........          5    ..........          5          5  ...........
    FREIGHT RESEARCH......................       150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
OPERATIONAL TESTS.........................     7,080      2,089         724        9,894      5,040      4,854
    APTS OPERATIONAL TESTS................     1,000  ...........  ..........      1,000      1,000  ...........
        Electronic Payment System for          1,000  ...........  ..........      1,000      1,000  ...........
         Transit & Other  App.............
    CVO OPERATIONAL TESTS.................     2,000      1,000    ..........      3,000      2,890        110
        CVISN Pilots......................     2,000      1,000    ..........      3,000      2,890        110
    RURAL OPERATIONAL TESTS...............     2,289        361    ..........      2,650      1,150      1,500
        National Park Service Field              639        361    ..........      1,000  .........      1,000
         Operational Test.................
        Emergency Services Field                 650  ...........  ..........        650        650  ...........
         Operational Test.................
        Rural Transit Coordination Field         500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
         Operational Test.................
        Multistate Traveler Information...       500  ...........  ..........        500  .........        500
    OPERATIONAL TESTS CONTINGENCIES.......     1,791        728         724        3,244  .........      3,244
EVALUATION/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT.............     5,510        634    ..........      6,145      6,145  ...........
    EVALUATIONS...........................     3,558        634    ..........      4,192      4,192  ...........
        MMDI..............................       626         17    ..........        643        643  ...........
        CVISN.............................       500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
        FOT Crosscutting Analyses.........       567        483    ..........      1,050      1,050  ...........
        Rural FOT's.......................       805  ...........  ..........        805        805  ...........
        Intermodal Freight Evaluation.....       150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
        APTS Field Operational Test              200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
         Evaluations......................
            APTS Field Operational Test          160  ...........  ..........        160        160  ...........
             Evaluations..................
            APTS Operational Tests                40  ...........  ..........         40         40  ...........
             Evaluations (FTA)............
        Highway-Rail Evaluations..........       100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
        ADUS Support......................       200         75    ..........        275        275  ...........
        Publications......................  ........         59    ..........         59         59  ...........
        JPL Support.......................       410  ...........  ..........        410        410  ...........
        PROGRAM ASSESSMENT................     1,952  ...........  ..........      1,952      1,952  ...........
        ITS Deployment Tracking...........       755  ...........  ..........        755        755  ...........
            Metro.........................       650  ...........  ..........        650        650  ...........
            Rural.........................  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            CVISN Deployment Tracking.....       105  ...........  ..........        105        105  ...........
            JPL Support--Program Tracking.        50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
        ITS Policy Assessment.............     1,147  ...........  ..........      1,147      1,147  ...........
        Volpe Support to Assessment.......       880  ...........  ..........        880        880  ...........
            MMDI Expectations & Final            300  ...........  ..........        300        300  ...........
             Report.......................
            ATIS Conference...............       100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
            CVISN Institutional Issues            50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
             Final Repo...................
            Review CVISN Business                100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
             Practices....................
            MMDI Customer Satisfaction            50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
             Guidance.....................
            Analytical Support for                50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
             Metropolitan Track ing.......
            Volpe B/C of MMDI.............       230  ...........  ..........        230        230  ...........
            Evaluation Guidelines Support.  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        Volpe Support to Director JPO.....       267  ...........  ..........        267        267  ...........
            National Program Plan.........       155  ...........  ..........        155        155  ...........
            General Policy Support........  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            ALERT.........................        50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
            SENTRI........................        62  ...........  ..........         62         62  ...........
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS................    14,429         23    ..........     14,452     13,702        750
    ARCHITECTURE..........................     5,630         23    ..........      5,653      5,533        120
        Architecture Deployment/               2,825         23    ..........      2,848      2,848  ...........
         Implementation Support...........
            Deployment/Implementation            800  ...........  ..........        800        800  ...........
             Support......................
            Architecture Standards               800  ...........  ..........        800        800  ...........
             Development Sup port.........
            Architecture Data Base/              500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
             Configuration Control Support
            Architecture Documentation (CD        98  ...........  ..........         98         98  ...........
             ROM/Web/Doc/Printing)........
            Architecture Tool Development        377         23    ..........        400        400  ...........
             (Turbo Architecture).........
            Architecture Consistency             250  ...........  ..........        250        250  ...........
             Support......................
        Rural User Service Architecture          400  ...........  ..........        400        400  ...........
         Development Efforts..............
        Planning Data/Archiving                  399  ...........  ..........        399        399  ...........
         Architecture Changes.............
        Architecture Eng. Maint. Support..       285  ...........  ..........        285        285  ...........
        Architecture Training (Deployment        926  ...........  ..........        926        926  ...........
         and Implementation Tng.).........
        CVO Architecture..................       675  ...........  ..........        675        675  ...........
            CVO Architecture--Other.......       375  ...........  ..........        375        375  ...........
            CVO Architecture--Freight.....       300  ...........  ..........        300        300  ...........
        Publications......................  ........          1    ..........          1          1  ...........
        Turbo Architecture................       120  ...........  ..........        120  .........        120
    STANDARDS.............................     8,799  ...........  ..........      8,799      8,169        630
        Research and Development..........       594  ...........  ..........        594        594  ...........
            In-vehicle ICON...............       594  ...........  ..........        594        594  ...........
        STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT.............     4,150  ...........  ..........      4,150      4,020        130
            Infrastructure and Safety.....     1,290  ...........  ..........      1,290      1,290  ...........
                Infrastructure and Safety.     1,190  ...........  ..........      1,190      1,190  ...........
                Standards Strategic Plan..       100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
            CVO (EDI).....................       500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
            Transit.......................     1,200  ...........  ..........      1,200      1,200  ...........
                ISO TC 204 WG 8 Support          150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
                 via Volpe................
                Multi-Use Smart Card             300  ...........  ..........        300        300  ...........
                 Guidelines/ Specs........
                Other Transit Standards...       550  ...........  ..........        550        550  ...........
                Transit Standards                200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
                 Consortium to TSC........
            Rail Standards Development....       200  ...........  ..........        200         70        130
            Architectural Support.........       200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
            JPL...........................       760  ...........  ..........        760        760  ...........
        TESTING AND INTEROPERABILITY......     2,300  ...........  ..........      2,300      2,300  ...........
            Interoperability Testing           1,800  ...........  ..........      1,800      1,800  ...........
             Support......................
            Data Registration.............       500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
        IMPLEMENTATION....................     1,255  ...........  ..........      1,255      1,255  ...........
            Resource Materials............       670  ...........  ..........        670        670  ...........
            Lessons Learned...............       300  ...........  ..........        300        300  ...........
            Evaluation of Standards              285  ...........  ..........        285        285  ...........
             Implementation...............
        STANDARDS CONTINGENCIES...........       500  ...........  ..........        500  .........        500
INTEGRATION...............................     5,676        925         681        7,282      5,325      1,957
    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE..................     2,950        142         456        3,548      2,516      1,032
        Information and Technology             1,358        142          65        1,565      1,566  ...........
         Transfer.........................
            Specifications and Contract          100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
             Management...................
                Work Program Scoping        ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
                 Effort...................
                S&C Management Product           100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
                 Develop ment.............
            Tailored Technical Assistance.       800         50    ..........        850        850  ...........
                Peer-to-Peer..............  ........         50    ..........         50         50  ...........
                Service Plan Support......       800  ...........  ..........        800        800  ...........
                    Service Plan Support--       696  ...........  ..........        696        696  ...........
                 Transfer to Resource
                 Centers..................
                    Other Service Plan           104  ...........  ..........        104        104  ...........
                 Projects (NHI Training
                 Courses).................
            DTAG, RTAG, APTS Stakeholders.       100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
                FTA--DTAG, RTAG< APTS            100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
                 Stakehold-  ers..........
            Quick Response................         8  ...........  ..........          8          8  ...........
            Contracts Support.............        70  ...........  ..........         70         70  ...........
            Concept of Operation for TMC's       100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
             (A Cook book)................
            Case Studies..................       180  ...........  ..........        180        180  ...........
                Technology for                   120  ...........  ..........        120        120  ...........
                 Surveillance and
                 Detection................
                ITS Work Zone Applications        60  ...........  ..........         60         60  ...........
            Morgan Room Support...........  ........         92          45          137        137  ...........
            GMC ITS Priority Corridor       ........  ...........        20           20         20  ...........
             Information Clearinghouse....
        Transit Technical Assistance......       950  ...........  ..........        950        950  ...........
            Technical Asst. to Transit           225  ...........  ..........        225        225  ...........
             Authorities..................
            Peer-to-Peer Program Support..       125  ...........  ..........        125        125  ...........
            ITSA APTS Info. Exchange &           100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
             Program Development..........
            APTS Mobile Showcase..........       500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
        Systems Engineering Guidance             100  ...........  ..........        100  .........        100
         Documents........................
        P.B. Farradyne IQC................  ........  ...........       391          391  .........        391
        PTI Earmark.......................       442  ...........  ..........        442  .........        442
        AASHTO Steering Group for                100  ...........  ..........        100  .........        100
         Technology Deploy ment...........
    PLANNING/POLICY.......................       450  ...........  ..........        450        350        100
        Management and Operations in             350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
         Planning.........................
            Management & Operations              350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
             Product Development..........
        Traveler Response to Advanced            100  ...........  ..........        100  .........        100
         Travel Informa-  tion............
            FHWA--Traveler Response to            50  ...........  ..........         50  .........         50
             Advanced Travel Information..
            FTA--Traveler Response to             50  ...........  ..........         50  .........         50
             Advanced Travel Information..
    TRAINING..............................     1,559        747         225        2,531      1,931        600
        Delivery..........................       615        735         225        1,575      1,450        125
            ITS Software Acquisition......        40  ...........  ..........         40         30         10
            Lessons in Procurement........  ........  ...........       225          225        225  ...........
            CORSIM........................        15  ...........  ..........         15  .........         15
            Continuation of Existing             160  ...........  ..........        160        160  ...........
             Courses......................
            Delivery of Materials.........  ........         35    ..........         35         35  ...........
            Standards (NTCIP, TCIP).......  ........        700    ..........        700        700  ...........
                Standards (NTCIP, TCIP)--   ........        384    ..........        384        384  ...........
                 FHWA.....................
                Standards (NTCIP-TCIP)--    ........        316    ..........        316        316  ...........
                 FTA......................
            Distance Learning Pilots......       350  ...........  ..........        350        300         50
            Architecture Training Course          50  ...........  ..........         50  .........         50
             (Field Travel, etc.).........
        New Course Development............       500  ...........  ..........        500        300        200
            FHWA--New Course Development..       200  ...........  ..........        200  .........        200
            FTA--New Course Development...       300  ...........  ..........        300        300  ...........
        Update Existing Materials.........        33         12    ..........         45         45  ...........
            Update Existing Materials--           23         12    ..........         35         35  ...........
             FHWA.........................
            Update Existing Material--            10  ...........  ..........         10         10  ...........
             Transfer to FTA..............
        Support at NHI....................       161  ...........  ..........        161        136         25
        Consultant Management.............       250  ...........  ..........        250  .........        250
    OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONS...........       717         37    ..........        754        528        225
        Shipping and Handling Exhibits....       117         17    ..........        134        134  ...........
        New Exhibit Development...........       125  ...........  ..........        125        125  ...........
        National Associations Working            150         20    ..........        170        170  ...........
         Group (NAWG).....................
        National Governors' Association          100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
         Initiative.......................
        JPO Web-Based Activities..........       225  ...........  ..........        225  .........        225
            ITS Cooperative Deployment           225  ...........  ..........        225  .........        225
             Network......................
PROGRAM SUPPORT...........................     8,566        674         226        9,465      5,494      3,971
    ITS AMERICA...........................     2,777  ...........  ..........      2,777      2,775          2
        ITS AMERICA--Regular Contract.....     2,500  ...........  ..........      2,500      2,500  ...........
        Development of a Strategic Plan--        247  ...........  ..........        247        247  ...........
         ITS America......................
        ITSA Annual Meeting (Registration         30  ...........  ..........         30         27          3
         Fees)............................
    MITRETEK..............................     4,970        530         217        5,717      1,811      3,906
    JPL SUPPORT...........................       380  ...........  ..........        380        380  ...........
    MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL SUPPORT.......        86  ...........  ..........         86         86  ...........
        Kan Chen..........................        11  ...........  ..........         11         11  ...........
        MITRE (Chadwick)..................        75  ...........  ..........         75         75  ...........
    GENERAL PROGRAM SUPPORT...............       352        144           9          505        442         63
        C&P Contractual Support...........       150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
        Columbia Services Computer Support        28  ...........  ..........         28         28  ...........
        Arrowhead Industries..............        96  ...........  ..........         96         96  ...........
        Other Misc. Program Support.......        33         81           9          123        123  ...........
        FCC Shared Resources..............        45  ...........  ..........         45         45  ...........
        TASC--Traveler Information Center.  ........         35    ..........         35  .........         35
        Unfunded Interest Payments........  ........         28    ..........         28  .........         28
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES.................    92,715      2,610       3,522       98,847     71,929     26,918
    FISCAL YEAR 1998 CONGRESSIONAL          ........      2,610       3,522        6,132      3,563      2,569
     EARMARKS.............................
        Northeast Corridor................  ........        110       3,522        3,632      2,563      1,069
        Commercial Vehicle Operations, I-5  ........      1,500    ..........      1,500  .........      1,500
         California.......................
        Dade County Expressway, Florida     ........      1,000    ..........      1,000      1,000  ...........
         Toll Collection System...........
        Rennselaer Polytechnical Institute  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
         (RPI)............................
    FISCAL YEAR 1999 CONGRESSIONAL             7,802  ...........  ..........      7,802      7,052        750
     EARMARKS--TEA-21.....................
        Great Lakes ITS Implementation....     1,583  ...........  ..........      1,583      1,583  ...........
        Northeast ITS Implementation......     3,957  ...........  ..........      3,957      3,207        750
        Hazardous Materials Monitoring         1,211  ...........  ..........      1,211      1,211  ...........
         Systems..........................
        Translink--Texas Transportation        1,050  ...........  ..........      1,050      1,050  ...........
         Institute........................
    FISCAL YEAR 1999 CONGRESSIONAL            83,104  ...........  ..........     83,104     59,505     23,599
     EARMARKS-- APPNS.....................
        Amherst, Massachusetts............       791  ...........  ..........        791  .........        791
        Arlington County, Virginia........       594  ...........  ..........        594        594  ...........
        Atlanta, Georgia..................     1,583  ...........  ..........      1,583      1,583  ...........
        Brandon, Vermont..................       297  ...........  ..........        297        297  ...........
        Buffalo, New York.................       396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
        Centre Valley, Pennsylvania.......       396  ...........  ..........        396  .........        396
        Cleveland, Ohio...................       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Columbus, Ohio....................       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Corpus Christi, Texas.............       712  ...........  ..........        712        712  ...........
        Dade County, Florida..............       791  ...........  ..........        791  .........        791
        Del Rio, Texas....................       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Delaware River, Pennsylvania......       791  ...........  ..........        791  .........        791
        Fairfield, California.............       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Fitchburg, Massachusetts..........       396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
        Greater Metro. Region--DC.........     3,957  ...........  ..........      3,957      3,957  ...........
        Hammond, Louisiana................     3,166  ...........  ..........      3,166  .........      3,166
        Houston, Texas....................     1,583  ...........  ..........      1,583      1,583  ...........
        Huntington Beach, California......       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Huntsville, Alabama...............       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Inglewood, California.............     1,187  ...........  ..........      1,187      1,187  ...........
        Jackson, Mississippi..............       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Kansas City, Missouri.............       396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
        Laredo, Texas.....................       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Middlesboro, Kentucky.............     2,374  ...........  ..........      2,374      2,374  ...........
        Mission Viejo, California.........       791  ...........  ..........        791  .........        791
        Mobile, Alabama...................     1,979  ...........  ..........      1,979      1,979  ...........
        Monroe County, New York...........       317  ...........  ..........        317        317  ...........
        Montgomery, Alabama...............       989  ...........  ..........        989        989  ...........
        Nashville, Tennessee..............       396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
        New Orleans, Louisiana............     1,187  ...........  ..........      1,187  .........      1,187
        New York City, New York...........     1,979  ...........  ..........      1,979      1,979  ...........
        New York/Long Island, New York....     1,820  ...........  ..........      1,820      1,820  ...........
        Oakland County, Michigan..........       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Onandaga County, New York.........       317  ...........  ..........        317  .........        317
        Port Angeles, Washington..........       396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
        Raleigh-Wake County, North             1,583  ...........  ..........      1,583      1,583  ...........
         Carolina.........................
        Riverside, California.............       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        San Francisco, California.........     1,187  ...........  ..........      1,187      1,187  ...........
        Scranton, Pennsylvania............       791  ...........  ..........        791  .........        791
        Silicon Valley, California........     1,187  ...........  ..........      1,187      1,187  ...........
        Spokane, Washington...............       356  ...........  ..........        356        356  ...........
        Springfield, Virginia.............       396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
        St. Louis, Missouri...............       594  ...........  ..........        594        594  ...........
        State of Alaska...................     1,187  ...........  ..........      1,187        350        837
            Alaska--CVO Deployment........       350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
            Alaska--Metro/Rural...........       837  ...........  ..........        837  .........        837
        State of Idaho....................       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
            Idaho--CVO Deployment.........       350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
            Idaho--Metro/Rural............       441  ...........  ..........        441        441  ...........
        State of Maryland--CVO Deployment.     1,979  ...........  ..........      1,979      1,979  ...........
        State of Minnesota................     5,619  ...........  ..........      5,619      5,619  ...........
            Minnesota--CVO Deployment.....     1,920  ...........  ..........      1,920      1,920  ...........
            Minnesota--Metro/Rural........     3,699  ...........  ..........      3,699      3,699  ...........
        State of Mississippi..............       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
            Mississippi--CVO Deployment...       350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
            Mississippi--Metro/Rural......       441  ...........  ..........        441        441  ...........
        State of Missouri.................       396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
            Missouri--CVO Deployment......       350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
            Missouri--Metro/Rural.........        46  ...........  ..........         46         46  ...........
        State of Montana..................       554  ...........  ..........        554        554  ...........
            Montana--CVO Deployment.......       554  ...........  ..........        554        554  ...........
            Montana--Metro/Rural..........  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        State of Nevada...................       455  ...........  ..........        455        105        350
            Nevada--CVO Deployment........       350  ...........  ..........        350  .........        350
            Nevada--Metro/Rural...........       105  ...........  ..........        105        105  ...........
        State of New Jersey...............     2,374  ...........  ..........      2,374      2,374  ...........
            New Jersey--CVO Deployment....       350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
            New Jersey--Metro/Rural.......     2,024  ...........  ..........      2,024      2,024  ...........
        State of New Mexico...............       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
            New Mexico--CVO Deployment....       741  ...........  ..........        741        741  ...........
            New Mexico--Metro/Rural.......        50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
        State of New York.................     1,979  ...........  ..........      1,979      1,312        667
            New York--CVO Deployment......     1,730  ...........  ..........      1,730      1,063        667
            New York--Metro/Rural.........       249  ...........  ..........        249        249  ...........
        State of North Dakota.............     1,148  ...........  ..........      1,148        297        851
            North Dakota--CVO Deployment..        50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
            North Dakota--Metro/Rural.....     1,098  ...........  ..........      1,098        247        851
                North Dakota State               247  ...........  ..........        247        247  ...........
                 University (ATAC)........
                North Dakota State Univ.--       302  ...........  ..........        302  .........        302
                 ATAC.....................
                Univ. of North Dakota--          549  ...........  ..........        549  .........        549
                 ATWIS....................
        Commonwealth of Pennsylvania......    11,081  ...........  ..........     11,081  .........     11,081
            CVO Deployment................       350  ...........  ..........        350  .........        350
            Metro/Rural...................    10,731  ...........  ..........     10,731  .........     10,731
        State of Texas....................       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
            Texas--CVO Deployment.........        50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
            Texas--Metro/Rural............       741  ...........  ..........        741        741  ...........
        State of Utah.....................     2,849  ...........  ..........      2,849      2,849  ...........
            Utah--CVO Deployment..........       200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
            Utah--Metro/Rural.............     2,649  ...........  ..........      2,649      2,649  ...........
        State of Washington...............     1,583  ...........  ..........      1,583      1,583  ...........
            Washington--CVO Deployment....       610  ...........  ..........        610        610  ...........
            Washington--Metro/Rural.......       973  ...........  ..........        973        973  ...........
        State of Wisconsin................     1,187  ...........  ..........      1,187      1,187  ...........
            Wisconsin--CVO Deployment.....       350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
            Wisconsin--Metro/Rural........       837  ...........  ..........        837        837  ...........
        Temucula, California..............       198  ...........  ..........        198        198  ...........
        Tucson, Arizona...................       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Volusia County, Florida...........       791  ...........  ..........        791  .........        791
        Warren County, Virginia...........       198  ...........  ..........        198        198  ...........
        Wausau-Stevens Point, Wisconsin...       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Westchester/Putnam Counties, New         396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
         York.............................
        White Plains, New York............       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
    EVALUATIONS OF EARMARKED PROJECTS.....     1,809  ...........  ..........      1,809      1,809  ...........
NATIONAL ADVANCED DRIVER SIMULATOR........     6,648  ...........  ..........      6,648      6,648  ...........
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTALS........................   176,600      8,303       5,183      190,086    150,596     39,489
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           FISCAL YEAR 2000 SPENDING PLAN FUNDING SOURCES AND BALANCES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Prior year
             Activity/project                Fiscal  -------------------------   Total    Obligated  Unobligated
                                           year 2000  Unobligated  Recoveries  available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.................     40,901      1,149    ..........     42,049      3,869      38,180
    TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL.......      6,200         14    ..........      6,214      1,439       4,775
        Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA)       1,900  ...........  ..........      1,900  .........       1,900
         System..........................
        Adaptive Control Systems Lite....        250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
        Pedestrian Detection.............        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
        Models...........................      1,525  ...........  ..........      1,525        800         725
            ITS Deployment Analysis              175  ...........  ..........        175         50         125
             System  (IDAS)..............
                ITS Deployment Analysis           50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
                 System (IDAS)
                 Development.............
                ITS Deployment Analysis          125  ...........  ..........        125  .........         125
                 System (IDAS)
                 Maintenance.............
            Traffic Software Integrated        1,350  ...........  ..........      1,350        750         600
             System (TSIS)...............
                Support for TSIS Version         750  ...........  ..........        750        750  ...........
                 5.0 Model Deployment....
                CORSIMS Reengineering....        600  ...........  ..........        600  .........         600
        Traffic Research Lab.(TReL) Test       1,537  ...........  ..........      1,537        320       1,217
         Bed Devel. & Supp...............
        Human Factors....................        555  ...........  ..........        555        220         335
            Human Factors Computer Aided         220  ...........  ..........        220        220  ...........
             Design (CAD) for TMC's......
            Advanced Traffic Mgmt.               100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Systems (ATMS) Support......
            Traffic Mgmt. Centers (TMC)           35  ...........  ..........         35  .........          35
             Work-  shop.................
            Traffic Mgmt. Centers                200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
             Consortium..................
        Archived Data User Service (ADUS)        100  ...........  ..........        100         25          75
         Case Studies....................
        Other Research Items.............        233         14    ..........        247         74         173
            Ramp Metering (split funding)         43  ...........  ..........         43         43  ...........
            McTrans Beta Testing.........         50  ...........  ..........         50  .........          50
            McTrans Reengineering Review.         50  ...........  ..........         50  .........          50
            Freeway Capacity.............         35  ...........  ..........         35         31           4
            ITRAF Support................         50  ...........  ..........         50  .........          50
            Queue Measurement............          5  ...........  ..........          5  .........           5
            IPA--Rudy Persaud, South       .........         14    ..........         14  .........          14
             Dakota  DOT.................
    INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH.........     23,001        494    ..........     23,495        758      22,736
        Generation 0.....................      5,500  ...........  ..........      5,500  .........       5,500
            Generation 0 Operational           4,500  ...........  ..........      4,500  .........       4,500
             Tests.......................
            Generation 0 Field Test            1,000  ...........  ..........      1,000  .........       1,000
             Evaluations.................
        Generation 1.....................     10,335  ...........  ..........     10,335  .........      10,335
            Rear-end Collision Avoidance       4,250  ...........  ..........      4,250  .........       4,250
             System Field Test...........
            Rear-end Collision Avoidance       1,400  ...........  ..........      1,400  .........       1,400
             System......................
                Rear-end Collision               900  ...........  ..........        900  .........         900
                 Avoidance System Test
                 (NHTSA).................
                Rear-end Collision               500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
                 Avoidance System Test
                 (FHWA for NHTSA)........
            Lane Change/Merge Collision          850  ...........  ..........        850  .........         850
             Avoidance System............
            Road Departure...............      2,250  ...........  ..........      2,250  .........       2,250
                Road Departure Test            1,750  ...........  ..........      1,750  .........       1,750
                 (NHTSA).................
                Road Departure Test (FHWA        500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
                 for NHTSA)..............
            Safety Impacting.............        335  ...........  ..........        335  .........         335
                Safety Impacting Test            300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
                 (NHTSA).................
                Safety Impacting Test             35  ...........  ..........         35  .........          35
                 (FHWA for NHTSA)........
            EBS..........................        250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
            Drowsy Driver Field Test.....      1,000  ...........  ..........      1,000  .........       1,000
                Drowsy Driver Field Test         750  ...........  ..........        750  .........         750
                 (NHTSA).................
                Drowsy Driver Field Test         250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
                 (CVO)...................
        Enabling Research Consortium.....      4,090  ...........  ..........      4,090  .........       4,090
            Forward Collision Warning....        500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
            Workload Metrics.............        600  ...........  ..........        600  .........         600
            ED Map.......................      1,500  ...........  ..........      1,500  .........       1,500
            Transit Rear-end.............        550  ...........  ..........        550  .........         550
            Multiple Systems Inegration          940  ...........  ..........        940  .........         940
             Study.......................
        FHWA Human Factors Research......        425  ...........  ..........        425         64         361
            In-Vehicle Information                65  ...........  ..........         65         64           1
             Systems Behavioral Model....
            Effectiveness of Multi-turn            5  ...........  ..........          5  .........           5
             Preview on Route Following
             Perf........................
            Comp. of Audio/Visual Icons            5  ...........  ..........          5  .........           5
             for Sign Recognition........
            Societal and Institutional           100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Issues......................
            Develop Cost/Benefit                 250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
             Methodology.................
        Generation 2.....................      1,300  ...........  ..........      1,300  .........       1,300
            Intersection.................        800  ...........  ..........        800  .........         800
                Intersection (NHTSA).....        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
                Intersection (FHWA for           500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
                 NHTSA)..................
            Sensor Friendly Roadway......        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
            Define Short Range                   100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Communication Needs.........
            Define Radionavigation Needs.        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
        Support..........................      1,351        494    ..........      1,845        695       1,150
            Showcase.....................        400  ...........  ..........        400  .........         400
            TRB Review...................        200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
            NHTSA Support................        400  ...........  ..........        400  .........         400
            Transit IVI Technical Support        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
            Human Factors Support........        155  ...........  ..........        155  .........         155
            ITS America..................         96  ...........  ..........         96          1          95
            IVI Program Support..........  .........        494    ..........        494        494  ...........
    RURAL RESEARCH.......................      2,350        497    ..........      2,847        497       2,350
        Integration of APTS with                 300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
         Employment Service Sys..........
        Rural Safety Services............        600  ...........  ..........        600  .........         600
            ACN/PSAP Integration.........        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
            E-911 Workshop...............        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
            Design of Variable Speed             300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
             Limit (VSL) Sys.............
        Rural Information and Operations.      1,450  ...........  ..........      1,450  .........       1,450
            Development Decision Supp.           600  ...........  ..........        600  .........         600
             Sys for Winter Maintenance..
            Assimilation of Surface              200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
             Condition & Weather Observ..
            Sensors and Sensor Siting....        250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
            Refinement of Surface Transp.        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
             Weather Requirements........
            Rural ITS Toolbox............        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
        Rural/Weather Requirements.......  .........        497    ..........        497        497  ...........
    APTS RESEARCH........................        750  ...........  ..........        750  .........         750
        Fleet Management Expert System...        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
        Demand Response Dispatch                 250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
         Algorithm.......................
        Wireless Technology Analysis.....  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        Traveler Information and ADA       .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
         Compatibil-  ity................
        ITS Rail Research................        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
    CVO RESEARCH.........................      7,500        134    ..........      7,634      1,165       6,469
        Safety Data Systems..............      2,650  ...........  ..........      2,650      1,041       1,609
        CVISN Support for Level I              1,200  ...........  ..........      1,200        100       1,100
         Deployment......................
        Roadside Identification                  350  ...........  ..........        350  .........         350
         Technology  Research............
        Architecture Consistency.........      1,245  ...........  ..........      1,245  .........       1,245
        CVO Technical Assistance           .........         24    ..........         24         24  ...........
         (Minnesota).....................
        CVISN Pilots.....................      2,000        110    ..........      2,110  .........       2,110
        Available for Distribution.......         55  ...........  ..........         55  .........          55
    INTERMODAL FREIGHT RESEARCH..........        750         10    ..........        760         10         750
        Harmonizing Freight Technology...        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
            ITSA Support for Reston II           150  ...........  ..........        150  .........         150
             Confer-  ence...............
            ITSA Support for Intermodal          150  ...........  ..........        150  .........         150
             Frt. Tech. Working Group....
        International Border Crossing            450  ...........  ..........        450  .........         450
         Program Support.................
            IBC Program Support/IBC              365  ...........  ..........        365  .........         365
             Architecture Update.........
            Conduct 2 IBC Planning and            85  ...........  ..........         85  .........          85
             Deploy. Mtgs................
        TRB Conference on Intermodal       .........         10    ..........         10         10  ...........
         Freight.........................
    ENABLING RESEARCH....................        350  ...........  ..........        350  .........         350
        DSRC Spectrum Issues.............        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
        Support for FCC and ITSA.........         50  ...........  ..........         50  .........          50
OPERATIONAL TESTS........................      6,090      4,744         231       11,065        400      10,665
    APTS OPERATIONAL TESTS...............      1,090  ...........  ..........      1,090  .........       1,090
        Fleet Management Expert System...        500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
        Demand Response Algorithm........        590  ...........  ..........        590  .........         590
    ALERT (Capitol Beltway)..............      1,000  ...........  ..........      1,000  .........       1,000
    RURAL OPERATIONAL TESTS..............      3,750      1,500    ..........      5,250        400       4,850
        Statewide PSAP...................      1,000  ...........  ..........      1,000  .........       1,000
            New York Statewide PSAP......        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
            Statewide PSAP...............        800  ...........  ..........        800  .........         800
        Multi-agency Integration of Info       1,000  ...........  ..........      1,000  .........       1,000
         Sys & Trans. Coord..............
        Rural Information and Operations.      1,750        500    ..........      2,250  .........       2,250
            Multi-State Traveler               1,000        500    ..........      1,500  .........       1,500
             Information.................
            Road Weather Condition               750  ...........  ..........        750  .........         750
             Forecasting.................
        Nat'l. Park Service FOT..........  .........      1,000    ..........      1,000        400         600
    INTERMODAL FREIGHT--OPERATIONAL TEST.        250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
    OPERATIONAL TESTS CONTINGENCIES......  .........      3,244         231        3,475  .........       3,475
EVALUATION/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT............      6,000  ...........  ..........      6,000      1,555       4,445
    EVALUATIONS..........................      2,860  ...........  ..........      2,860        536       2,324
        Field Operational Tests                1,135  ...........  ..........      1,135        240         895
         Evaluations.....................
            Rural FOT Evaluations........        570  ...........  ..........        570  .........         570
            Intermodal Freight                   200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
             Evaluations.................
            APTS Field Operational Test          365  ...........  ..........        365        240         125
             Evaluations.................
                Transit FOT Evaluations          240  ...........  ..........        240        240  ...........
                 (Transfer to FTA).......
                Transit FOT Evaluations          125  ...........  ..........        125  .........         125
                 (FHWA for FTA)..........
        Deployment Evaluations...........      1,025  ...........  ..........      1,025        296         729
            Metropolitan Evaluations.....        500  ...........  ..........        500        104         396
            CVISN Evaluations............        425  ...........  ..........        425        192         233
            Hwy.-Rail Evaluations........        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
        Special Benefits Reports.........        700  ...........  ..........        700  .........         700
            Crosscutting Analyses........        700  ...........  ..........        700  .........         700
        ITS Deployment Tracking..........        950  ...........  ..........        950        870          80
            Metropolitan ITS Deployment          600  ...........  ..........        600        600  ...........
             Tracking for Fiscal Year
             2000........................
            Rural Deployment Tracking....        260  ...........  ..........        260        260  ...........
            CVISN Deployment Tracking for         90  ...........  ..........         90         10          80
             Fiscal Year 1998............
        Program Tracking.................        500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
        ITS Policy Assessment............      1,690  ...........  ..........      1,690        149       1,541
            Analytical Support...........        800  ...........  ..........        800  .........         800
            General Policy Assessment            890  ...........  ..........        890        149         741
             Support to the Director.....
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS...............     14,000        750    ..........     14,750      5,573       9,177
    ARCHITECTURE.........................      5,000        120    ..........      5,120      4,309         811
        Architecture Deployment/               2,590  ...........  ..........      2,590      2,590  ...........
         Implementation Support..........
            Deployment/Implementation          1,140  ...........  ..........      1,140      1,140  ...........
             Support.....................
            Architecture Standards               700  ...........  ..........        700        700  ...........
             Development Support.........
            Architecture Support of              100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
             Standards Testing...........
            Architecture Data Base/              500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
             Configuration Control
             Support.....................
            Architecture Documentation...        100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
            Architecture Tool Development         50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
        Rural User Service/Architecture          400  ...........  ..........        400        400  ...........
         Changes.........................
        Planning Data/Archiving User             100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
         Service/Architecture Changes....
        Weather User Service/Architecture         50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
         Changes.........................
        Intermodal Freight User Service/          50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
         Architecture Changes............
        Emergency Services User Services/         25  ...........  ..........         25         25  ...........
         Architecture Changes............
        Regional Architecture Support,           175  ...........  ..........        175        175  ...........
         Peer to  Peer...................
        Architecture Engineering                 315  ...........  ..........        315  .........         315
         Maintenance Support.............
        Architecture Training (Deployment        800  ...........  ..........        800        800  ...........
         and Implementation).............
        CVO Architecture.................        490  ...........  ..........        490  .........         490
        Invitational Travel--Beta Test             5  ...........  ..........          5  .........           5
         Turbo Architecture..............
        Turbo Architecture...............  .........        120    ..........        120        120  ...........
    STANDARDS............................      9,000        630    ..........        500      1,264       8,366
        Standards Development Activities.      4,400        130    ..........      4,530        130       4,400
            Infrastructure and Safety....      1,765  ...........  ..........      1,765  .........       1,765
                Infrastructure & Safety..      1,665  ...........  ..........      1,665  .........       1,665
                Volpe....................        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
            CVO (EDI)....................        400  ...........  ..........        400  .........         400
            Transit......................      1,055  ...........  ..........      1,055  .........       1,055
                TCIP.....................        335  ...........  ..........        335  .........         335
                Transit Signal Priority..        110  ...........  ..........        110  .........         110
                Transit Profile for LRMS.        110  ...........  ..........        110  .........         110
                Smart Card...............        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
                ISO TC 204 WG 8 & WAG 8..        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
            Rail.........................        200        130    ..........        330        130         200
                FRA Support Devel. of      .........        130    ..........        130        130  ...........
                 Hwy.-Rail Intersection..
                Rail.....................        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
            Architecture Support.........        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
            JPL..........................        780  ...........  ..........        780  .........         780
            Mitretek.....................  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        Testing and Interoperability.....      2,500  ...........  ..........      2,500      1,100       1,400
            Interoperability Testing           1,700  ...........  ..........      1,700      1,100         600
             Support.....................
                Battelle.................      1,100  ...........  ..........      1,100      1,100  ...........
                DSRC.....................        400  ...........  ..........        400  .........         400
                LRS......................        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
            Data Registration............        800  ...........  ..........        800  .........         800
        Implementation...................      1,900  ...........  ..........      1,900         34       1,866
            Resource Materials...........        500  ...........  ..........        500         34         466
            Lessons Learned..............        500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
            Technical Asst. (Peer to             100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             peer).......................
            Training.....................        500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
            Evaluation...................        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
        Conformity.......................        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
            Rule Making..................        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
            Policy Development...........        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
        Standards Contingencies..........  .........        500    ..........        500  .........         500
INTEGRATION/MAINSTREAMING................      9,414      1,957    ..........     11,371      1,569       9,702
    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.................      4,766      1,032    ..........      5,798      1,361       4,437
        Direct Technical Assistance......      1,725  ...........  ..........      1,725        377       1,348
            Service Plan Implementation..      1,500  ...........  ..........      1,500        377        1123
                Service Plan                     798  ...........  ..........        798        377         421
                 Implementation..........
                Non-Targeted Funding             312  ...........  ..........        312  .........         312
                 Allotted to Resource
                 Centers  ($312,000).....
                Service Plan Funds                28  ...........  ..........         28  .........          28
                 Allotted to NHI.........
                Targeted Service Plan            363  ...........  ..........        363  .........         363
                 Funding Allotted to
                 Divisions...............
            FHWA/FTA Peer to Peer Program        225  ...........  ..........        225  .........         225
        Technical Guidance...............      1,855        100    ..........      1,955        425       1,530
            ITS Lessons Learned/Best             400  ...........  ..........        400  .........         400
             Practices Series............
                ITS Lessons Learned/Best         325  ...........  ..........        325  .........         325
                 Practices Series........
                APTA Best Practices               75  ...........  ..........         75  .........          75
                 Workshops...............
            Technical Materials for Sys          120        100    ..........        220        100         120
             Eng.........................
            APTS Showcase................        960  ...........  ..........        960        300         660
                APTS Showcase............        300  ...........  ..........        300        300  ...........
                APTS Mobile Showcase             660  ...........  ..........        660  .........         660
                 (FHWA for FTA)..........
            National Architecture Use            100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Guidelines..................
            Architecture Consistency             100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Outreach....................
                Architecture Consistency          50  ...........  ..........         50  .........          50
                 Outreach................
                Arch. Consistency                 50  ...........  ..........         50  .........          50
                 Outreach Allotted to NHI
                 ($50,000)...............
            ACS Outreach.................        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
            IDAS Outreach................         75  ...........  ..........         75         25          50
        Develop. of ATIS Data Collection         230  ...........  ..........        230        194          36
         Guide-  lines...................
        Crosscutting.....................        445  ...........  ..........        445  .........         445
            Program Peer Review..........        445  ...........  ..........        445  .........         445
                ITSA Transit.............        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
                APTS Stakeholder Forum...         75  ...........  ..........         75  .........          75
                TMAG.....................         50  ...........  ..........         50  .........          50
                FTA Technical Support....        220  ...........  ..........        220  .........         220
        AASHTO ITS Deployment Task Force.         75  ...........  ..........         75  .........          75
        URBAN CONSORTIUM.................        436        442    ..........        877        224         653
            PTI FISCAL YEAR 2000 EARMARK--       436  ...........  ..........        436  .........         436
             URBAN CONSORTIUM............
            PTI Fiscal Year 1999 Earmark.  .........        442    ..........        442        224         217
        PBFarradyne IQC..................  .........        391    ..........        391        141         250
        AASHTO Steering Group for          .........        100    ..........        100  .........         100
         Technology Deployment...........
    PLANNING/POLICY......................        500        100    ..........        600  .........         600
        Air Quality Impacts..............        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
        Planning Tools to Support ITS....        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
        Traveler Response to Advanced      .........        100    ..........        100  .........         100
         Travel Information..............
            FHWA--Traveler Response to     .........         50    ..........         50  .........          50
             Adv. Travel Info............
            FTA--Traveler Response to      .........         50    ..........         50  .........          50
             Adv. Travel Info............
    TRAINING.............................      3,350        600    ..........      3,950        200       3,750
        Deliver Current Courses..........        500  ...........  ..........        500         30         470
            Travel Management............        500  ...........  ..........        500         30         470
        Update Existing Courses..........        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
            Assist NHI and NTI with              100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Continuing Update...........
        Develop New Instructional              1,250  ...........  ..........      1,250  .........       1,250
         Material........................
            FTA Course--Data Management          200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
             for Transit Agencies........
            New Courses to Fill Gaps.....        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
            Develop Addtl. High Priority         750  ...........  ..........        750  .........         750
             Courses.....................
        Advanced WBT Course Development..        250  ...........  ..........        250        100         150
            Support Detailed Curricula           250  ...........  ..........        250        100         150
             Development & WBT Evaluation
        Program Management & Support.....        350  ...........  ..........        350  .........         350
            Onsite ISD Professional &            100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Onsite Secretary............
            Professional Training Spec.          150  ...........  ..........        150  .........         150
             for NTI/ FTE................
            Volpe Support for PCB Web            100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Page Development............
        CVISN Technical Training.........        900  ...........  ..........        900         20         880
        Consultant Management............  .........        250    ..........        250  .........         250
        Distance Learning Pilots.........  .........         50    ..........         50         50  ...........
        Training Funds Allocated to NHI..  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        NHI Training Carryover from        .........        300    ..........        300  .........         300
         fiscal year  1999...............
            ITS Software Acquisition.....  .........         10    ..........         10  .........          10
            CORSIM.......................  .........         15    ..........         15  .........          15
            Architecture Training Course.  .........         50    ..........         50  .........          50
            FHWA--New Course Development.  .........        200    ..........        200  .........         200
            Support at NHI...............  .........         25    ..........         25  .........          25
    OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONS..........        660        225    ..........        885  .........         885
        Publications (new and reprints)..        250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
            Publications (new and                250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
             reprints)--Program Funding..
        JPO Home Page....................        180  ...........  ..........        180  .........         180
        ICDN.............................        230        225    ..........        455  .........         455
    MAINSTREAMING........................        500  ...........  ..........        500          8         492
        Shipping and Handling Exhibits...        120  ...........  ..........        120          8         112
        Exhibits (Creation/Maintenance)..         80  ...........  ..........         80  .........          80
        Outreach.........................        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
            National Associations Working        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Group (NAWG)................
            NGA Initiative...............        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
PROGRAM SUPPORT..........................      8,766      3,971    ..........     12,737      4,546       8,192
    ITS AMERICA..........................      2,600          2    ..........      2,602        600       2,002
    MITRETEK.............................      5,500      3,906    ..........      9,406      3,906       5,500
    JPL SUPPORT..........................        380  ...........  ..........        380  .........         380
    GENERAL PROGRAM SUPPORT..............        286         63    ..........        349         40         309
        Smart Technology.................        110  ...........  ..........        110  .........         110
        Arrowhead Industries.............        130  ...........  ..........        130  .........         130
        Other Misc. Program Support......         46  ...........  ..........         46         40           6
        TASC-Traveler Information Center.  .........         35    ..........         35  .........          35
        Unfunded Interest Payments.......  .........         28    ..........         28  .........          28
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES................     98,423     26,918         100      125,441      1,430     124,011
    FISCAL YEAR 1998 CONGRESSIONAL         .........      2,569         100        2,669        639       2,030
     EARMARKS............................
        Northeast Corridor (Various Proj)  .........      1,069    ..........      1,069        639         430
        Commercial Vehicle Operations, I-  .........      1,500    ..........      1,500  .........       1,500
         5 California....................
        National Inst. for Enviornmental   .........  ...........       100          100  .........         100
         Renewal (NIER)..................
    FISCAL YEAR 1999 CONGRESSIONAL         .........     24,349    ..........     24,349        791      23,558
     EARMARKS............................
        Alaska...........................  .........        837    ..........        837  .........         837
        Amherst, Massachusetts...........  .........        791    ..........        791  .........         791
        Centre Valley, Pa................  .........        396    ..........        396  .........         396
        Dade County Florida..............  .........        791    ..........        791        791  ...........
        Delaware River, Pa...............  .........        791    ..........        791  .........         791
        Hammond, Louisiana...............  .........      3,166    ..........      3,166  .........       3,166
        Mission Viejo, California........  .........        791    ..........        791  .........         791
        Nevada--CVO Deployment...........  .........        350    ..........        350  .........         350
        New Orleans, Louisiana...........  .........      1,187    ..........      1,187  .........       1,187
        New York CVO Deployment..........  .........        667    ..........        667  .........         667
        North Dakota State Univ.--ATAC...  .........        302    ..........        302  .........         302
        Northeast ITS Implementation.....  .........        750    ..........        750  .........         750
            CVO Northeast Corridor.......  .........        500    ..........        500  .........         500
            Tri-State Rural ATIS.........  .........        250    ..........        250  .........         250
        Onandaga County, New York........  .........        317    ..........        317  .........         317
        Pennsylvania.....................  .........     11,081    ..........     11,081  .........      11,081
            CVO Deployment...............  .........        350    ..........        350  .........         350
            Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  .........     10,731    ..........     10,731  .........      10,731
        Scranton, Pa.....................  .........        791    ..........        791  .........         791
        University of North Dakota--ATWIS  .........        549    ..........        549  .........         549
        Volusia County, Florida..........  .........        791    ..........        791  .........         791
    FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONGRESSIONAL            88,748  ...........  ..........     88,748  .........      88,748
     EARMARKS............................
        Albuquerque, New Mexico..........      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
        Arapahoe County, Colorado........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Branson, Missouri................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Central Pennsylvania.............        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Charlotte, North Carolina........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Chicago, Illinois................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        City of Superior and Douglas             786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
         County, Wisconsin...............
        Clay County, Missouri............        236  ...........  ..........        236  .........         236
        Clearwater, Florida..............      2,752  ...........  ..........      2,752  .........       2,752
        College Station, Texas...........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Central Ohio.....................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Commonwealth of Virginia.........      3,146  ...........  ..........      3,146  .........       3,146
            Commonwealth of Virginia--CVO  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Commonwealth of Virginia--         3,146  ...........  ..........      3,146  .........       3,146
             Metro/Rural.................
        Corpus Christi, Texas............      1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
            Delaware River, Pennsylvania.        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
            Fairfield, California........        590  ...........  ..........        590  .........         590
            Fargo, North Dakota..........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
            Florida Bay County, Florida..        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Fort Worth, Texas................      1,966  ...........  ..........      1,966  .........       1,966
        Grand Forks, North Dakota........        393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
        Greater Metro. Capital Region, DC      3,932  ...........  ..........      3,932  .........       3,932
        Greater Yellowstone, Montana.....        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Houma, Louisiana.................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Houston, Texas...................      1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
        Huntsville, Alabama..............        393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
            Inglewood, California........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Jefferson County, Colorado.......      1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
        Kansas City, Missouri............        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Las Vegas, Nevada................      2,202  ...........  ..........      2,202  .........       2,202
        Los Angeles, California..........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Miami, Florida...................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Mission Viejo, California........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Monroe County, New York..........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Nashville, Tennessee.............        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Northeast Florida................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Oakland, California..............        393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
        Oakland County, Michigan.........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Oxford, Mississippi..............      1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
        Pennsylvania Turnpike,                 1,966  ...........  ..........      1,966  .........       1,966
         Pennsylvania....................
        Pueblo, Colorado.................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Puget Sound, Washington..........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Reno/Tahoe, California/Nevada....        393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
        Rensselaer County, New York......        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Sacramento County, California....        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Salt Lake City, Utah.............      2,359  ...........  ..........      2,359  .........       2,359
        San Francisco, California........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Santa Clara, California..........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Santa Teresa, New Mexico.........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Seattle, Washington..............      1,651  ...........  ..........      1,651  .........       1,651
        Shenandoah Valley, Virginia......      1,966  ...........  ..........      1,966  .........       1,966
        Shreveport, Louisiana............        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Silicon Valley, California.......        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Southeast Michigan...............      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
        Spokane, Washington..............        393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
        St. Louis, Missouri..............        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        State of Alabama.................      1,022  ...........  ..........      1,022  .........       1,022
            Alabama--CVO Deployment......  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Alabama--Metro/Rural               1,022  ...........  ..........      1,022  .........       1,022
             Deployment..................
        State of Alaska..................      2,359  ...........  ..........      2,359  .........       2,359
            Alaska--CVO Deployment.......  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Alaska--Metro/Rural                2,359  ...........  ..........      2,359  .........       2,359
             Deployment..................
        State of Arizona.................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
            Arizona--CVO Deployment......  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Arizona--Metro/Rural                 786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
             Deployment..................
        State of Colorado................      1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
            Colorado--CVO Deployment.....      1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
            Colorado--Metro/Rural          .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
             Deployment..................
        State of Delaware................      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
            Delaware--CVO Deployment.....  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Delaware--Metro/Rural              1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
             Deployment..................
        State of Idaho...................      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
            Idaho--CVO Deployment........  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Idaho--Metro/Rural Deployment      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
        State of Illinois................      1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
            Illinois--CVO Deployment.....  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Illinois--Metro/Rural              1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
             Deployment..................
        State of Maryland................      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
            Maryland--CVO Deployment.....  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Maryland--Metro/Rural              1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
             Deployment..................
        State of Minnesota...............      5,505  ...........  ..........      5,505  .........       5,505
            Minnesota--CVO Deployment....  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Minnesota--Metro/Rural             5,505  ...........  ..........      5,505  .........       5,505
             Deployment..................
        State of Montana.................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
            Montana--CVO Deployment......        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
            Montana--Metro/Rural           .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
             Deployment..................
        State of Nebraska................        393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
            Nebraska, CVO Deployment.....  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Nebraska--Metro/Rural                393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
             Deployment..................
        State of Oregon..................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
            Oregon--CVO Deployment.......  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Oregon--Metro/Rural                  786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
             Deployment..................
        State of Texas...................      3,146  ...........  ..........      3,146  .........       3,146
            Texas--CVO Deployment........  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Texas--Metro/Rural Deployment      3,146  ...........  ..........      3,146  .........       3,146
        State of Vermont Rural Systems...        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        States of New Jersey and New York      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
        Statewide Transcom/Transmit            3,146  ...........  ..........      3,146  .........       3,146
         Upgrades, New Jersey............
        Tacoma Puyallup, Washington......        393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
        Thurston, Washington.............        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Towamencin, Pennsylvania.........        472  ...........  ..........        472  .........         472
        Wausau-Stevens Point-Wisconsin         1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
         Rapids, Wisconsin...............
        Wayne County, Michigan...........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
    FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONGRESSIONAL             7,752  ...........  ..........      7,752  .........       7,752
     EARMARKS--TEA-21....................
        Great Lakes ITS Implementation...      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
        Northeast ITS Implementation.....      3,932  ...........  ..........      3,932  .........       3,932
        Hazardous Materials Monitoring         1,204  ...........  ..........      1,204  .........       1,204
         Systems.........................
        Translink--Texas Transportation        1,043  ...........  ..........      1,043  .........       1,043
         Institute.......................
    EVALUATIONS OF EARMARKED PROJECTS....      1,924  ...........  ..........      1,924  .........       1,924
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTALS.......................    183,955     39,489         331      223,775     18,942     204,833
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      HIGHWAY/RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS

    Question. What is the status of each of the ITS projects intended 
to advance safety at 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, status, and expected date of completion.
    Answer. There are currently seven projects supported by USDOT that 
examine how ITS can improve safety and efficiency of travel at rail-
highway grade crossings. These seven active projects are in addition to 
the Vehicle Proximity Alert System (VPAS) field testing that was 
completed in 1994. The Federal share of funding for these seven 
projects comes from a wide variety of sources: FHWA, FRA and FTA. 
Several are grass-roots initiatives that were included as part of 
corridor or statewide ``high-priority'' (earmarked) programs that local 
participants chose to pursue without federal assistance.
Minnesota Guidestar
    Purposes and objectives.--The Minnesota Department of 
Transportation entered into a partnership with 3M Corporation and 
Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems (DVSS) to develop an in-vehicle warning 
system, and test that system in a revenue service operational railroad 
crossing environment. In addition, the partners tested a passive train 
detection system developed by DVSS.
    Amount obligated/Amount planned to be spent/Amount un-obligated.--
This project was funded as part of Minnesota Guidestar--Minnesota's 
statewide ITS program.
    Scope and nature of the project.--The system uses 3M's wireless 
vehicle and roadside communication antennas that can be built into the 
crossbuck, ``RXR'' sign and front vehicle license plate. The track?side 
unit picks up a signal from the railroad's train detection electronics 
and transmits that signal to 3M's antenna-signs. The in-vehicle 
display, provided by DVSS, alerts drivers using both visual and audible 
signals. The passive system detects an internal radio frequency 
communication emitted by the Front Rear End Device (FRED), which is 
used by most freight railroads to coordinate braking between the front 
and rear of the train. The FRED passive train detectors are installed 
directly onto the vehicles, so that no special equipment is needed at 
the crossing infrastructure. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. served as an 
independent evaluator during the tests.
    Status.--Testing took place on 30 school buses at five revenue 
service crossings, operated by Twin Cities & Western Railroad, in 
Glencoe, Minnesota--a rural community 30 miles west of the Minneapolis/
St. Paul metropolitan area. Testing of the in-vehicle warning system 
took place from December 1997 to May 1998 and testing of the passive 
train detection system took place in June 1998.
    Expected date of completion.--The project was completed in August 
1998 and a final evaluation report is available.
Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor
    Purposes and objectives.--The Illinois Department of Transportation 
is partnering with a team lead by Raytheon E-Systems to design and 
install an in-vehicle warning system, test that system in a revenue 
service operational railroad crossing environment, and provide on-going 
maintenance of the system.
    Amount obligated/Amount planned to be spent/Amount un-obligated.--
This project is being funded as part of the Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee ITS 
Corridor program.
    Scope and nature of the project.--The contract team includes Cobra 
Electronics, Calspan SRL and the Metro Transportation Group as 
subcontractors. The advisory in-vehicle warning systems were installed 
in 300 vehicles, including school buses, emergency service vehicles 
(police, fire, EMS), and commercial vehicles which regularly traverse 
the study area. The study area included five railroad grade crossings 
on the Metra-Milwaukee North Line which is in the northern Chicago 
suburbs. The in-vehicle receiver is capable of operating in three 
modes: audible only, visual only and combination audio/visual. The 
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is serving as an independent 
evaluator during the test. The University of Illinois evaluation will 
emphasize the reaction and perception of the drivers to the warning 
information provided under different modal scenarios.
    Status.--The track-side equipment was installed in Spring 1998, but 
due to technical problems, the in-vehicle equipment had to be replaced. 
This was completed in the Fall of 1999. Additional system refinement 
postponed the beginning of the demonstration until early March 2000. 
The system has begun a one-year testing period.
    Expected date of completion.--The one year testing and evaluation 
period should be completed by April 2001 and an evaluation report will 
be finished by early Fall 2001.
Long Island Railroad
    Purposes and objectives.--The New York State Department of 
Transportation is partnering with Alstom Signaling (formerly known as 
General Railway Signal Corp.) to develop an Inter-modal Control System 
(ICS) that uses ITS technologies to perform a number of functions to 
improve railroad crossing safety. NYSDOT and Alstom will test the ICS 
in an operational environment.
    Amount obligated/Amount planned to be spent/Amount un-obligated.--
Thus far the amount of federal funds that have been spent is $4.8 
million. The amount of federal monies remaining is $2.82 million. The 
matching funds that have been spent are $5 million with $975 thousand 
remaining. The total cost of the current project is $13.6 million and 
no other sources of funding have been identified to complete the 
project.
    Scope and nature of the project: Several HRI-ITS technologies will 
be tested at the New Hyde Park transit station of the Long Island Rail 
Road:
  --Uniform Time Warning System.--Sensors that detect the speed as well 
        as the presence of on-coming trains will activate bells, lights 
        and gates, so that the time between activation and the arrival 
        of the train is constant. This innovation is expected to reduce 
        gate down-time by up to 50 percent.
  --Near-Side Station Stop.--Currently, when the train is stopped at 
        the station, the train activates gates and warning lights at 
        both crossings on both sides of the station platform, which 
        creates a situation where impatient drivers might drive around 
        the lowered gates. The combination automatic/manual override 
        system will improve this situation by activating the gates and 
        warning lights at crossings that are very close to the Hyde 
        Park Station.
  --Variable Message Sign.--A variable message sign will provide 
        motorists and pedestrians with current information about train 
        operations, such as a second train approaching, etc.
  --Priority Vehicle Preemption System.--Vehicles that require 
        expedited movement, such a ambulances or fire trucks, will have 
        equipment installed on their vehicles that will allow the 
        driver to request preemption at a desired crossing. An 
        approaching train would be slowed or stopped to allow the 
        priority vehicle to cross. If the train has already passed the 
        safe breaking point, the priority vehicle will be given advance 
        notice that it will need to wait at the crossing or use an 
        alternate route.
  --Stalled Vehicle Detection.--If a vehicle becomes stopped or stalled 
        on the crossing for any reason, the ICS will detect the 
        situation and signal the train to stop before reaching the 
        crossing.
    The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center will serve as an 
independent evaluator during the test.
    Status.--Simulations conducted have shown the reduction in delay to 
motor vehicles at the crossing. The testing is expected to begin in the 
summer 2000 and the demonstration of the full system capabilities is 
expected to begin in the Fall 2000.
    Expected date of completion.--The project is expected to be 
completed and a final evaluation report made available by December 
2000.
Baltimore Light Rail Transit ``Second Train Coming''
    Purposes and objectives.--The Maryland Mass Transit Administration 
tested a second train warning system, which consists of a variable 
message sign that warns drivers on crossing multiple tracks that a 
train is approaching. The system was tested in a revenue service 
crossing environment.
    Amount obligated/Amount planned to be spent/Amount un-obligated.--
This project was funded by a grant from the Transit Cooperative 
Research Project (TCRP) program of the Transportation Research Board. 
The grant is administered by the FTA's Office of Technology (TRI-20).
    Scope and nature of the project.--The system was tested at the 
Timonium Road crossing in Timonium, MD, on the Maryland Mass Transit 
Administration's light rail transit line.
    Status.--The system became operational in September 1998.
    Expected date of completion.--The project was completed as of the 
Spring of 1999 and a final evaluation report is available.
Los Angeles Light Rail Transit ``Second Train Coming''
    Purposes and objectives.--The Los Angeles Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority is testing a second train warning system which 
consists of a variable message sign that warns drivers on which of 
multiple tracks a train is approaching. The system will be tested in an 
operational railroad crossing environment.
    Amount obligated/Amount planned to be spent/Amount un-obligated.--
This project is being funded by a grant from the Transit Cooperative 
Research Project (TCRP) program of the Transportation Research Board. 
The grant is administered by the FTA's Office of Technology (TRI-20).
    Scope and nature of the project.--The system is being tested at the 
Vernon Avenue crossing in Long Beach, CA on the Los Angeles 
Metropolitan Transportation Authority's light rail transit line.
    Status.--Installation of the equipment was completed and testing 
began in the Fall 1999.
    Expected date of completion.--The project is expected to be 
completed and a final evaluation report is expected to be available by 
the Spring 2000.
San Antonio AWARD
    Purposes and objectives.--The Texas Department of Transportation 
tested a train detection system for traffic management and traveler 
information called Advanced Warning for Railroad Delays (AWARD). The 
system was tested in an operational railroad crossing environment.
    Amount obligated/Amount planned to be spent/Amount un-obligated.--
The AWARD project was part of the San Antonio Metropolitan Model 
Deployment Initiative, a Federally-funded ITS program in four 
metropolitan areas to develop and then showcase integrated ITS systems.
    Scope and nature of the project.--Acoustic sensors and radar speed 
guns were placed upstream of three crossings along the Union Pacific 
Railroad line parallel to I-410 in San Antonio. These sensors were 
expected to detect the presence, length and speed of approaching 
trains. The time and duration of crossing blockage was then calculated. 
The predicted delay was disseminated in three ways:
  --Variable message signs upstream from the crossing to alert drivers 
        to take alternate routes or freeway exits to avoid delay.
  --The TransGuide traffic management center includes delay information 
        updated each minute and distributed via the Internet to in-
        vehicle displays.
  --Emergency service vehicles such as ambulances use the delay 
        information to plan their routes in real-time.
    MDI evaluation contractors SAIC, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 
the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center evaluated the system's 
costs and its ability to reduce travel time and increase travelers' 
perceived convenience.
    Status.--The system became operational in the Summer of 1998 and 
continued for one year through the Summer of 1999.
    Expected date of completion.--The project has been completed and a 
final evaluation report is available.
Connecticut Four-Quadrant Gate System
    Purposes and objectives.--The Connecticut Department of 
Transportation tested an in-locomotive warning system that warns the 
locomotive engineer if an obstacle, such as a stopped vehicle, is 
blocking the crossing in time to bring the train to a complete stop. 
The system was tested in a revenue service operational railroad 
crossing environment.
    Amount obligated.--$800,000 has been obligated from Section 1036 of 
ISTEA (FRA) with $200K matching funds provided by the State.
    Amount planned to be spent.--All funds have been spent, which are 
$800,000.
    Amount unobligated.--$0
    Scope and nature of the project.--A system of four-quadrant gates 
is used rather than the usual two in order to totally block the 
crossing. This four-quadrant gate system allows for the possibility 
that a vehicle might get stuck between the gates. Sensors detect if a 
vehicle or other obstacle is blocking the crossing and then signals the 
locomotive engineer in time to stop the train before the train reaches 
the crossing. A back-up system can also bring the train to a stop 
automatically, if necessary.
    Status.--The demonstration began in July 1998 and continues in 
operation today. Furthermore, a second crossing in Stonington, 
Connecticut, has been equipped and will become operational in 2000. Six 
more crossings in Connecticut are scheduled to be equipped with this 
system. An evaluation report will be prepared by the Volpe Center later 
this year (2000).
    Expected date of completion.--The project is complete and a final 
evaluation report is available.

                            ITS INVESTMENTS

    Question. What has been achieved as a result of past ITS 
investments in that area? How much is budgeted for standards 
development and operational testing in that area in fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. The investment in the Vehicle Proximity Alert System (VPAS) 
project, which tested several competing in-vehicle warning 
technologies, provided the opportunity to refine the passive train 
detection system developed by Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems (DVSS). 
The DVSS system was later tested in an operational environment in the 
Minnesota Guidestar project.
    The ITS Joint Program Office is sponsoring a cross-cutting study 
that will derive common lessons learned from the activities described 
above. One of the steps in data collection of the cross-cutting study 
was the hosting of an HRI Evaluation Workshop, which was held in 
Boston, Massachusetts May 6-7, 1999. Representatives from each of the 
seven projects described above presented their project implementation 
plan and evaluation results. This cross-cutting study will provide a 
basis for a strategic plan for future Federal HRI-ITS activities. In 
addition, the lessons learned will help guide communities throughout 
the nation in the implementation of highway-rail crossing technology.
    In addition, the Federal Railroad Administration in partnership 
with the ITS Joint Program Office conducted an Highway-Rail 
Intersection Standards Development Workshop in July, 1999. From that 
workshop came the action to develop a strategic plan for standards 
development and a plan for deployment guidance in the absence of 
standards. The strategic planning efforts are planned to begin in the 
Spring of 2000. They will be led by the Federal Railroad 
Administration.
    The fiscal year 2001 budget includes $200,000 in funding for 
standards development and another $150,000 for HRI evaluation. The 
intention in fiscal year 2001 is to finalize the HRI strategic plan and 
get early adopted standards established. With this initial foundation, 
guidance can be given to the communities for including the elements of 
the HRI architecture in the engineering studies that are conducted for 
determining the types of warning devices to be installed.
    Question. For each of the last three years, please compare your 
actual expenditures with the amounts appropriated for each ITS category 
of funds specified in the conference report. Please indicate the amount 
of carryover funds for each year by category and explain any deviations 
from amounts specified in the various conference reports beyond the 10 
percent flexibility that is allowed by the Committee.
    Answer. Attached is a table which compares actual amounts allocated 
to the various ITS fund category (program) to amounts included in the 
Conference Reports accompanying the DOT Appropriations bills for fiscal 
years 1998, 1999, and 2000.
    Fiscal year 1998 was an extremely unusual year in that the 
appropriation bill was passed several months prior to Public Law 105-
178, TEA-21, an authorization bill which significantly changed funding 
sources and programs from those envisioned at the time of the passage 
of the appropriation bill. Therefore, although the table includes a 
comparison of fiscal year 1998 Conference Report amounts with actual 
allocations, no legitimate comparison can be made due to these 
legislative changes.
    For fiscal years 1999 and 2000, an adjusted amounts column has been 
added, the purpose of these columns is to necessarily reduce the 
Conference Report amounts to comply with reductions in the ITS Research 
and Development funding as mandated annually by Section 1102(f) of TEA-
21. These reductions equated to 11.7 percent in fiscal year 1999 and 
12.9 percent in fiscal year 2000.
    In fiscal year 1999, after adjusting Conference Report amounts by 
the Section 1102(f) reductions, all of the actual funding allocations 
are within the 10 percent flexibility provision allowed by the 
Committee with the exception of Operational Tests. Fiscal year 1999 ITS 
Operational Tests were necessarily reduced to provide $6.648 million in 
funding to the National Advanced Driver Simulator (NADS) project in 
accordance with guidance included on page 1421 of the Conference Report 
which read ``National advanced driving simulator. Within the funds 
provided for ITS research and development and other surface 
transportation research contract authority programs, sufficient funds 
are included for ongoing activities of the national advanced driving 
simulator.''
    In fiscal year 2000, after adjusting Conference Report amounts by 
the Section 1102(f) reductions, all of the actual funding allocations 
are within the 10 percent flexibility provision allowed by the 
Committee with the exception of Program Support. Most of the items 
included under Program Support are multi-year contracts and cooperative 
agreements with organizations such as ITS America, Mitretek, and the 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory which provide technical programmatic and 
administrative services without which the ITS program could not 
successfully operate. Very little flexibility in the funding amounts in 
these contracts is available; therefore, the full 12.9 percent overall 
funding reduction required by Section 1102(f) could not be fully 
applied to this activity. However, the current amount allocated for 
Program Support ($8.765 million) is fully within the 10 percent 
flexibility provision when compared to the actual amount of $9.0 
million included in the Conference Report by the Committee.

                                                                               ANALYSIS OF R&D FUNDING BY CATEGORY
                                                                                     [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fiscal year 1998                            Fiscal year 1999                                    Fiscal year 2000
                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Program category                                                                                                                                                       Est.
                                                      Amount in      Actual     Unoblig.   Amount in      Adj.         Actual     Unoblig. 9-  Amount in      Adj.       Estimated    unoblig. 9-
                                                       report    allocated \1\   9-30-98    report    amounts \2\  allocated \1\     30-99      report    amounts \2\  allocated \1\     30-00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT...........................     $31,500      $39,651      $1,347     $38,000      $33,554       $35,976       $1,149     $47,450      $41,329       $40,901   ..........
OPERATIONAL TESTS..................................      83,900        8,841       2,089      17,000       15,011         7,080        4,744       6,650        5,792         6,090   ..........
EVALUATION/PROG. ASSESSMENT........................       7,000        6,000         634       6,500        5,740         5,510   ..........       7,000        6,097         6,000   ..........
ARCHITECTURE/STANDARDS.............................  ..........       10,662          23      18,000       15,894        14,429          750      16,400       14,284        14,000   ..........
INTEGRATION/MAINSTREAMING..........................  ..........       10,837         925       6,000        5,298         5,676        1,957      11,700       10,191         9,776   ..........
PROGRAM & SYSTEM SUPPORT...........................       7,760        8,654         674       9,500        8,389         8,566        3,971       9,000        7,839         8,765   ..........
NAT'L. ADV. DRIVER SIM. (NADS).....................  ..........  .............  ........  ..........  ...........         6,648   ..........  ..........  ...........  .............  ..........
                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................     130,160       84,645       5,692      95,000       83,885        83,885       12,571      98,200       85,532        85,532   ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Allocated Amounts reflect reductions in TEA-21 amounts authorized for ITS R&D as required by Section 1102(f) of TEA-21; i.e 10.9 percent in fiscal year 1998, 11.7 percent in fiscal year
  1999 and 12.9 percent in fiscal year 2000.
\2\ Adjusted Amounts reflect proportionate reductions in Conference Report amounts as required by Section 1102(f) of TEA-21; i.e 11.7 percent in fiscal year 1999 and 12.9 percent in fiscal
  year 2000.

    Question. Please prepare a detailed table showing any unobligated 
funds and funds that are obligated but not yet committed by year for 
any ITS projects specified in the fiscal year 1996-fiscal year 2000 
conference reports. What is the status of each of those projects?
    Answer.

                                                           CONGRESSIONALLY EARMARKED PROJECTS
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Fiscal year
                 Project                             State            --------------------------------------------------   Total    Obligated   Unblig.
                                                                         1996      1997      1998      1999      2000                             Bal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidestar...............................  Mn.........................     2,000     3,600     6,000  ........  ........     11,600     11,600  .........
Northeast Corridor......................  Various....................     3,500  ........     1,000  ........  ........      4,500      4,500  .........
Houston Corridor........................  Tx.........................     2,200     2,000  ........  ........  ........      4,200      4,200  .........
Milwaukee Corridor......................  Wi.........................  ........  ........     5,500  ........  ........      5,500      5,500  .........
New York State Thruway..................  NY.........................     1,500     3,000  ........  ........  ........      4,500      4,500  .........
Johnson City............................  Tn.........................     1,500  ........  ........  ........  ........      1,500      1,500  .........
Adv. Transp. Weather Info. Sys.(U of ND)  ND.........................     1,000     1,000       775  ........  ........      2,775      2,775  .........
Hazardous Materials Transp. Safety        Pa?........................     2,500     2,000     1,000  ........  ........      5,500      5,500  .........
 (NIER).
Santa Teresa Border Crossing............  NM.........................       900  ........     1,000  ........  ........      1,900      1,900  .........
Syracuse Congestion Mgmt................  NY.........................     1,500  ........     1,000  ........  ........      2,500      2,500  .........
Nat'l. Transp. Ctr. (Oakdale) (Dowling    NY.........................     2,000     2,500  ........  ........  ........      4,500      4,500  .........
 Coll.).
Adv. Railroad/Hwy. Crossings............  NY.........................     1,250     2,000  ........  ........  ........      3,250      3,250  .........
Green Light CVO Project.................  Or.........................     7,000     7,000  ........  ........  ........     14,000     14,000  .........
Paralympiad.............................  Ga.........................     1,000  ........  ........  ........  ........      1,000      1,000  .........
I-10 (Mobile) (Fog Detection System)....  Al.........................     3,000     2,000  ........  ........  ........      5,000      5,000  .........
Capitol Beltway.........................  Md/Va......................     4,000  ........  ........  ........  ........      4,000      4,000  .........
Texas Transp. Inst. (Texas A&M).........  Tx.........................       600       600     1,000  ........  ........      2,200      2,200  .........
Western Transp. Inst. (Montana State      Mt.........................     1,000  ........     1,000  ........  ........      2,000      2,000  .........
 Univ.).
I-675/SR844/Col. Glenn (Fairborn).......  Oh.........................     1,000  ........  ........  ........  ........      1,000      1,000  .........
Salt Lake City..........................  Ut.........................     2,000     5,000     3,500  ........  ........     10,500     10,500  .........
Inglewood...............................  Ca.........................  ........     1,000       500  ........  ........      1,500      1,500  .........
Mobile Adv. Traf. Mgmt. Sys.              Al.........................  ........     1,000  ........  ........  ........      1,000      1,000  .........
 (Montgomery).
Traffic Guidance System (Nashville).....  Tn.........................  ........     1,000       750  ........  ........      1,750      1,750  .........
Operation Respond.......................  Md.........................  ........     1,000  ........  ........  ........      1,000      1,000  .........
Pennsylvania Turnpike...................  Pa.........................  ........     3,000     6,000  ........  ........      9,000      9,000  .........
Nat'l. Capitol Region Congest.            Various....................  ........     3,500     6,000  ........  ........      9,500      9,500  .........
 Mitigation.
National Advanced Driver Simulator        Ia.........................  ........    14,000  ........  ........  ........     14,000     14,000  .........
 (NADS).
Kansas City Region......................  Ks/Mo......................  ........     2,500     1,000  ........  ........      3,500      3,500  .........
US/Canada CVO...........................  Wa.........................  ........     1,500  ........  ........  ........      1,500      1,500  .........
Rochester Congestion Management.........  NY.........................  ........     1,500  ........  ........  ........      1,500      1,500  .........
Urban Transp. Saf. Sys. Ctr. (Drexel      Pa.........................  ........       500       250  ........  ........        750        750  .........
 Univ., Phila.).
Arizona Nat'l. Ctr. for Traffic &         Az.........................  ........  ........     1,000  ........  ........      1,000      1,000  .........
 Logistics.
CVO, I-5 California.....................  Ca.........................  ........  ........     1,500  ........  ........      1,500  .........      1,500
Cumberland Gap Tunnel...................  Ky.........................  ........  ........     1,550  ........  ........      1,550      1,550  .........
Dade County Expressway, Fla. Toll         Fl.........................  ........  ........     1,000  ........  ........      1,000      1,000  .........
 Collect. Sys.
Franklin County Ma. Traveler Info. Sys..  Ma.........................  ........  ........       875  ........  ........        875        875  .........
I-90/I-94 Rural ITS Corridor............  Wi.........................  ........  ........     1,700  ........  ........      1,700      1,700  .........
Louisiana I-55, I-10 & 610 ITS System...  La.........................  ........  ........     5,500  ........  ........      5,500      5,500  .........
Market St. & Pa. Convention Ctr. Info.    Pa.........................  ........  ........       325  ........  ........        325        325  .........
 Ctr.
I-90 Connector, Rennselaer County, NY...  NY.........................  ........  ........     1,250  ........  ........      1,250      1,250  .........
I-275, St. Petersburg, Fla..............  Fl.........................  ........  ........     1,000  ........  ........      1,000      1,000  .........
Rt. 236/I-495, Northern Va. ITS System..  Va.........................  ........  ........       500  ........  ........        500        500  .........
Southeast Michigan Now & Ice Mgmt.        Mi.........................  ........  ........     1,150  ........  ........      1,150      1,150  .........
 (SEMSIS).
Reno ITS................................  Nv.........................  ........  ........     1,875  ........  ........      1,875      1,875  .........
Barboursville/Ona. Traffic Management...  Wv.........................  ........  ........     8,000  ........  ........      8,000      8,000  .........
North Dakota State Univ. Adv. Traffic...  ND.........................  ........  ........       600  ........  ........        600        600  .........
Sullivan Co., NY Emergency Weather        NY.........................  ........  ........     1,000  ........  ........      1,000      1,000  .........
 System.
New York City toll plaza scanners.......  NY.........................  ........  ........     1,100  ........  ........      1,100      1,100  .........
Cleveland transit maintenance environ.    Oh.........................  ........  ........     1,000  ........  ........      1,000      1,000  .........
 Proj.
Op. Respond Haz. Mat. Response Software.  Tx.........................  ........  ........     1,000  ........  ........      1,000      1,000  .........
Wash. State Radio Comm. Emergency Call    Wa.........................  ........  ........       750  ........  ........        750        750  .........
 Boxes.
Wash. State Roadway Weather Info. Sys...  Wa.........................  ........  ........     1,250  ........  ........      1,250      1,250  .........
Colo. I-25 Truck Safety Improvements....  Co.........................  ........  ........     9,000  ........  ........      9,000      9,000  .........
Tuscaloosa Traffic Integration and Flow   Al.........................  ........  ........     2,200  ........  ........      2,200      2,200  .........
 Control.
Alaska Cold Weather ITS Sensing.........  Ak.........................  ........  ........     1,000  ........  ........      1,000      1,000  .........
Amherst, Massachusetts..................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791  .........        791
Arlington County, Virginia..............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       594  ........        594        594  .........
Atlanta, Georgia........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,583  ........      1,583      1,583  .........
Brandon, Vermont........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       297  ........        297        297  .........
Buffalo, New York.......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       396  ........        396        396  .........
Centre Valley, Pennsylvania.............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       396  ........        396  .........        396
Cleveland, Ohio.........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791        791  .........
Columbus, Ohio..........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791        791  .........
Corpus Christi, Texas...................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       712     1,180      1,892        712      1,180
Dade County, Florida....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791        791  .........
Del Rio, Texas..........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791        791  .........
Delaware River, Pennsylvania............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791  .........        791
Fairfield, California...................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791       590      1,381        791        590
Fitchburg, Massachusetts................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       396  ........        396        396  .........
Greater Metro. Region--DC...............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     3,957     3,932      7,889      3,957      3,932
Hammond, Louisiana......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     3,166  ........      3,166  .........      3,166
Houston, Texas..........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,583     1,180      2,763      1,583      1,180
Huntington Beach, California............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791        791  .........
Huntsville, Alabama.....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791       393      1,184        791        393
Inglewood, California...................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,187       786      1,973      1,187        786
Jackson, Mississippi....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791        791  .........
Kansas City, Missouri...................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       396       786      1,182        396        786
Laredo, Texas...........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791        791  .........
Middlesboro, Kentucky...................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     2,374  ........      2,374      2,374  .........
Mission Viejo, California...............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791       786      1,577  .........      1,577
Mobile Alabama..........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,979  ........      1,979      1,979  .........
Monroe County, New York.................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       317       786      1,103        317        786
Montgomery, Alabama.....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       989  ........        989        989  .........
Nashville, Tennessee....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       396       786      1,182        396        786
New Orleans, Louisiana..................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,187  ........      1,187  .........      1,187
New York City, New York.................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,979  ........      1,979      1,979  .........
New York/Long Island, New York..........  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,820  ........      1,820      1,820  .........
Oakland County, Michigan................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791       786      1,577        791        786
Onandaga County, New York...............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       317  ........        317  .........        317
Port Angeles, Washington................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       396  ........        396        396  .........
Raleigh-Wake County, North Carolina.....  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,583  ........      1,583      1,583  .........
Riverside, California...................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791        791  .........
San Francisco, California...............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,187       786      1,973      1,187        786
Scranton, Pennsylvania..................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791  .........        791
Silicon Valley, California..............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,187  ........      1,187      1,187  .........
Spokane, Washington.....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       356       393        749        356        393
Springfield, Virginia...................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       396  ........        396        396  .........
St. Louis, Missouri.....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       594       786      1,380        594        786
State of Alaska.........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,187     2,359      3,546        350      3,196
State of Idaho..........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791     1,573      2,364        791      1,573
State of Maryland.......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,979     1,573      3,552      1,979      1,573
State of Minnesota......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     5,619     5,505     11,124      5,619      5,505
State of Mississippi....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791        791  .........
State of Missouri.......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       396  ........        396        396  .........
State of Montana........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       554       786      1,340        554        786
State of Nevada.........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       455  ........        455        105        350
State of New Jersey.....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     2,374  ........      2,374      2,374  .........
State of New Mexico.....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791        791  .........
State of New York.......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,979  ........      1,979      1,979  .........
State of North Dakota...................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,148  ........      1,148        297        851
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........    11,081  ........     11,081  .........     11,081
State of Texas..........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791     3,146      3,937        791      3,146
State of Utah...........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     2,849  ........      2,849      2,849  .........
State of Washington.....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,583  ........      1,583      1,583  .........
State of Wisconsin......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........     1,187  ........      1,187      1,187  .........
Temucula, California....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       198  ........        198        198  .........
Tucson, Arizona.........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791        791  .........
Volusia County, Florida.................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791  .........        791
Warren County, Virginia.................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       198  ........        198        198  .........
Wausau-Stevens Point, Wisconsin.........  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791     1,180      1,971        791      1,180
Westchester/Putnam County, New York.....  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       396  ........        396        396  .........
White Plains, New York..................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........       791  ........        791        791  .........
Albuquerque, New Mexico.................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     1,573      1,573  .........      1,573
Arapahoe County, Colorado...............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Branson, Missouri.......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Central Pennsylvania....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Charlotte, North Carolina...............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Chicago, Illinois.......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
City of Superior & Douglas Co.,           ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
 Wisconsin.
Clay County, Missouri...................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       236        236  .........        236
Clearwater, Florida.....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     2,752      2,752  .........      2,752
College Station, Texas..................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Central Ohio............................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Commonwealth of Virginia................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     3,146      3,146  .........      3,146
Delaware River, Pennsylvania............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Fargo, North Dakota.....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Florida Bay County, Florida.............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Fort Worth, Texas.......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     1,966      1,966  .........      1,966
Grand Forks, North Dakota...............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       393        393  .........        393
Greater Yellowstone, Montana............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Houma, Louisiana........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Jefferson County, Colorado..............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     1,180      1,180  .........      1,180
Las Vegas, Nevada.......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     2,202      2,202  .........      2,202
Los Angeles, California.................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Miami, Florida..........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Northeast Florida.......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Oakland, California.....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       393        393  .........        393
Oxford, Mississippi.....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     1,180      1,180  .........      1,180
Pennsylvania Turnpike, Pennsylvania.....  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     1,966      1,966  .........      1,966
Pueblo, Colorado........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Puget Sound, Washington.................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786        786  .........        786
Reno/Tahoe, California/Nevada...........  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       393        393  .........        393
Rensselaer County, New York.............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786  .........  .........  .........
Sacramento County, California...........  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786  .........  .........  .........
Salt Lake City, Utah....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     2,359  .........  .........  .........
Santa Clara, California.................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786  .........  .........  .........
Santa Teresa, New Mexico................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786  .........  .........  .........
Seatle, Washington......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     1,651  .........  .........  .........
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia.............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     1,966  .........  .........  .........
Shreveport, Louisiana...................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786  .........  .........  .........
Silicon Valley, California..............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786  .........  .........  .........
Southeast Michigan......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     1,573  .........  .........  .........
State of Alabama........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     1,022  .........  .........  .........
State of Arizona........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786  .........  .........  .........
State of Colorado.......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     1,180  .........  .........  .........
State of Delaware.......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     1,573  .........  .........  .........
State of Illinois.......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     1,180  .........  .........  .........
State of Nebraska.......................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       393  .........  .........  .........
State of Oregon.........................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786  .........  .........  .........
State of Vermont, Rural Systems.........  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786  .........  .........  .........
State of New Jersey and New York........  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     1,573  .........  .........  .........
Statewide Transcom/ransmit, New Jersey..  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........     3,146  .........  .........  .........
Tacoma Puvallup, Washington.............  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       393  .........  .........  .........
Thurston, Washington....................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786  .........  .........  .........
Towamencin, Pennsylvania................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       472  .........  .........  .........
Wayne County, Michigan..................  ...........................  ........  ........  ........  ........       786  .........  .........  .........
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals............................  ...........................    39,450    61,200    82,400    83,104    88,748    354,902    242,506    112,396
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          DEPLOYMENT PROJECTS

    Question. Please prepare a list of all of the fiscal year 1996-
fiscal year 2000 operational tests or earmarked deployment projects and 
indicate their starting date, expected date of completion, expected 
submittal date of final evaluation, remaining unobligated balances, 
remaining obligated balances, and any anticipated challenges that might 
interfere with their completion.
    Answer. With the exception of the remaining obligated balances, our 
response is provided in the tables below. In order to provide data 
regarding unspent balances, we would have to conduct a coordinated 
effort with our financial administrators both in the Headquarters, 
Resource Centers and Division Offices to search databases and cross-
reference accounting codes.
    Please note that the expected date of completion and expected 
submittal date of final evaluation are the same dates in our definition 
of project completion. Projects are not considered completed until the 
final, publicly available evaluation report is approved and submitted. 
The fiscal year 1999 earmarked deployment/integration projects are 
listed with estimated completion dates. Accurate identification of 
evaluation completion dates at this time is problematical since 
evaluation planning is, in many cases, still in progress. There are 
currently no unobligated balances of ITS funds associated with these 
projects except those listed at the end of the response in a separate 
table. The identification of anticipated challenges is based on project 
description information only.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Expected
                                    Start    completion/      Remain.
             Project                 date       final        obligated
                                             report date      balance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        OPERATIONAL TESTS

METROPOLITAN ITS INFRASTRUCTURE:     5/1/99      3/1/01       $1,000,000
 DIRECT--Phase II...............
RURAL ITS INFRASTRUCTURE:
    Acadia National Park........    11/1/99    12/30/01        1,000,000
    Arizona I-40 Traveler &         10/1/97     4/30/00          250,000
     Tourist Information System.
    Branson, MO TRIP............    10/1/97     4/30/00          600,000
    Cape Cod Rural Advanced        10/14/97     6/30/01          200,000
     Intermodal Transportation
     System.....................
    FORETELL....................   10/30/97     3/15/00        1,300,000
    Greater Yellowstone Rural       6/30/97     7/30/00        1,500,000
     ITS........................
    North Florida Rural Transit     9/30/97     5/30/02          200,000
     ITS........................
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE                   1/6/97     3/30/00        1,540,000
 INFRASTRUCTURE: Operation
 Respond........................
INTERMODAL FREIGHT:
    An Integrated Cargo Info &      9/29/99    11/30/01          698,805
     Security System for
     Intermodal Distribution....
    Deployment of ITS Technology     9/9/99    11/30/01        1,032,500
     to Facilitate Movements of
     Intermodal Freight.........
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE INITIATIVE:
    Generation 0--Freightliner     11/30/99    12/30/02        3,933,000
     Corp.......................
    Generation 0--Mack Trucks...   11/30/99    12/30/02        1,380,000
    Generation 0--Minnesota DOT.   11/30/99    12/30/02        3,886,000
    Generation 0--Volvo Trucks..   11/30/99    12/30/02        3,490,000

DEPLOYMENT/INTEGRATION PROJECTS--
  FISCAL YEAR 1997 TO JUNE 1998

METROPOLITAN ITS INFRASTRUCTURE:
    Advance Corridor                     97     6/30/01        9,884,839
     Transportation Information
     Center.....................
    Inglewood, California ATMS      9/20/97     1/30/01        1,187,204
     Project....................
    Nashville, Tennessee Traffic    8/21/97     6/30/00        1,750,000
     and Parking Guidance System
    New York-New Jersey-            10/1/96     6/30/00       10,610,000
     Connecticut (TRANSCOM) ITS
     Infrastructure Model
     Deployment.................
    Pennsylvania Turnpike           9/30/97     7/30/01        9,000,000
     Traveler Information System
    Phoenix, Arizona AZTech        10/31/96     3/30/00        7,520,000
     Model Deployment Initiative
    Rochester, New York              8/6/97    12/31/01        1,500,000
     Congestion Management.
     Anticipated challenge:
     Design analysis resulting
     in delays..................
    Salt Lake Valley ATMS           9/30/97    12/30/01        8,500,000
     Systems Integration........
    San Antonio, Texas             10/31/96     3/30/00        7,144,000
     Transguide Metropolitan
     Model Deployment...........
    Seattle, Washington Smart      10/31/96     3/30/00       13,688,000
     Trek Model Deployment......
RURAL ITS INFRASTRUCTURE: Coutts/   5/28/97     6/30/00          500,000
 Sweet Grass Automated Border
 Crossing Proposal..............
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE                 10/30/96     9/30/03       21,100,000
 INFRASTRUCTURE: CVISN--Model
 Deployment (Commercial Vehicle
 Information Systems & Networks)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the following table, the ``State of'' earmarks are designated by 
the titles of ITS Integration Program project (metro/rural) with their 
associated dates and funding. Additionally, a CVO Deployment amount 
with no associated project-related data is also listed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Expected
                                    Start    completion/      Remain.
             Project                 date       final        obligated
                                             report date      balance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPLOYMENT/INTEGRATION JULY 1998
             FORWARD

METROPOLITAN ITS INFRASTRUCTURE:
    Colorado I-25 Truck Safety     10/30/98     9/30/01       $9,000,000
     Improvements...............
    Dade County Expressway,         10/1/98         TBD        1,000,000
     Florida Toll Collection
     System.....................
    I-275 St. Petersburg,           10/1/98         TBD        1,000,000
     Florida....................
    I-90 Connector, Rensselaer     10/30/98     2/27/01        1,250,000
     County, New York...........
    Kansas City, Missouri          10/30/98     3/30/00        1,000,000
     Intermodal Common
     Communications Technology.
     Anticipated challenge:
     Schedule perform-  ance....
    Louisiana Interstate 55, 10    10/30/98     6/30/01        5,500,000
     and 610, Intelligent
     Transportation Systems.....
    Market Street and              10/30/98     7/30/00          325,000
     Pennsylvania Convention
     Center Passenger
     Information Center.........
    MONITOR.....................   10/30/98    10/30/01        6,000,000
    National Capital Region         10/1/98     4/30/02        6,000,000
     Congestion Mitigation......
    New York City Toll Plaza       10/30/98     3/30/02        1,100,000
     Scanners...................
    Route 236/I-495 Northern       10/30/98    10/30/00          500,000
     Virginia ITS...............
    Syracuse, New York Advanced    10/30/98     1/31/03        1,000,000
     Transportation Management
     System.....................
    Tuscaloosa, AL Traffic          10/1/98    12/30/01        2,200,000
     Integration and Flow
     Control....................
    Arlington, Virginia Transit     9/30/99     8/30/01          593,602
     Priority and Emergency
     Vehicle Preemption.
     Anticipated challenge:
     Possible institutional
     issues across
     jurisdictions..............
    Atlanta, Georgia ITS            9/30/99    12/30/02        1,582,939
     Component Integration--
     Phase I....................
    Cleveland, Ohio                 9/30/99    12/31/00          791,470
     Transportation Management
     and Integrated
     Communications Center.
     Anticipated challenge:
     Aggressive schedule........
    Columbus, Ohio ITS              5/30/99    10/30/01          791,470
     Integration--Phase I.......
    Corpus Christi, Texas,          9/30/99    12/30/01          712,323
     Integration of Intelligent
     Transportation Systems.....
    Del Rio, Texas Integration      9/30/99         TBD          791,470
     of Intelligent
     Transportation Systems.....
    Great Lakes Implementation..    9/30/99     3/30/01        1,582,939
    Huntington Beach, CA I-405      9/30/99    12/30/00          791,530
     Multi-Jurisdictional Smart
     Corridor and Caltrans
     District 12 Intertie
     Project. Anticipated
     challenge: Aggressive
     schedule. Hardware software
     integration................
    I-880/SR 17 Smart Corridor      9/30/99     7/30/01        1,187,204
     Improvements-Silicon
     Valley, California.........
    Intelligent Transportation      9/30/99    11/30/00          792,470
     Systems Integration Project
     for Transportation
     Operators in Solano County.
     Anticipated challenge:
     Possible schedule problems.
    ITS Improvement Project for     9/30/99    12/31/01          395,734
     Niagara International
     Transportation Technology
     Coalition (NITTEC) and
     Western New York Incident
     Management.................
    Jackson, Mississippi            9/30/99    12/31/00          791,470
     Intelligent Transpiration
     System Implementation......
    Kansas City Region              9/30/99    12/31/00          395,735
     Integrated Automation
     System Devices.............
    Laredo, Texas Integration of    9/30/99    12/30/02          791,470
     Intelligent Transportation
     Systems....................
    Law Enforcement Intelligent     9/30/99     5/30/01          791,469
     Network Systems............
    Mobile, Alabama ITS             9/30/99    12/31/02        1,979,000
     Integration................
    Montgomery, Alabama             9/30/99    11/30/00          989,337
     Intelligent Transportation
     System. Anticipated
     challenge: Possible
     schedule challenges with
     installation of
     communications.............
    Nashville, Tennessee Area       9/30/99    12/31/01          396,735
     Intelligent Transportation
     Sys-  tem..................
    Nevada Archived Data            9/30/99    12/31/00          105,095
     Subsystem Component of Las
     Vegas Area Freeway and
     Arterial System of
     Transportation.............
    New York City Multi-            9/30/99    10/30/01        1,978,674
     Operating Agency Integrated
     Transportation Management
     System (ITMS)..............
    New York City/Long Island       9/30/99    10/30/01        1,300,380
     Transportation Management
     Center (TMC) Integration...
    Raleigh/Wake Co., North         9/30/99    12/31/01        1,582,939
     Carolina ITS Integration...
    Riverside County Transit ITS    9/30/99    11/30/02          791,496
     Demonstration..............
    San Francisco, California       9/30/99     9/30/01        1,187,000
     Integrated Transportation
     Management System Project..
    Springfield, Missouri Region    9/30/99    11/30/00           45,735
     ITS Planning Document......
    Springfield, Virginia           9/30/99    11/30/01          395,735
     Interstate Interchange.....
    St. Louis Region Smart          9/30/99    12/31/00          593,602
     Integrated Metropolitan
     Area Map...................
    State of Minnesota-Metro/       9/30/99    On-going        3,699,000
     Rural......................                               1,920,000
    CVO Deployment..............
    State of Mississippi ITS        9/30/99    12/31/00          441,470
     Integration Project-Metro/                                  350,000
     Rural......................
    CVO Deployment..............
    State of New Jersey-Metro/      9/30/99    11/30/01        2,024,407
     Rural......................                                 350,000
    CVO Deployment..............
    State of New Mexico             9/30/99    11/30/00           50,000
     Statewide ITS Architecture-                                 741,000
     Metro/ Rural...............
    CVO Deployment..............
    State of Texas Statewide        9/30/99    11/30/01          791,470
     Software and Systems                                         50,000
     Integration Center-to-
     Center Communications
     Project-Metro/Rural........
    CVO Deployment..............
    Temecula, California I-15       9/30/99    11/30/00          197,867
     Traffic Surveillance and
     Signal System Integration
     Project. Anticipated
     challenge: Aggressive
     schedule. Communications
     interfaces.................
    Tucson, Arizona Integration     9/30/99     6/30/02          791,469
     of Real-Time Traffic
     Information for Adaptive
     Signal Control, Traveler
     Information and Management
     of Transit and Emergency
     Services...................
    Utah ITS Integration........    9/30/99    12/31/02        2,849,290
    Washington, DC Metropolitan     9/30/99    12/31/00        3,957,348
     Region ITS Integration.....
    Westchester/Putnam Counties,    9/30/99    10/30/01          915,734
     New York Regional Transit
     Operations Information
     Integration................
    White Plains-Westchester        9/30/99    10/30/00          791,470
     County, New York
     Interoperable Coordinated
     Signal System. Anticipated
     challenge: Aggressive
     schedule. Communications
     links......................
    Dade County, Florida.           2/11/00     2/28/01          791,000
     Anticipated challenge:
     Ambitious schedule.........
RURAL ITS INFRASTRUCTURE:
    Alaska Cold Weather ITS         10/1/98     9/30/00        1,000,000
     Sensing....................
    Cumberland Gap Tunnel and        9/1/98     6/30/01        3,924,409
     Regional Deployment
     (Middlesboro, Kentucky)....
    Franklin County,                9/30/98     6/30/00          875,000
     Massachusetts Travel
     Information System.........
    I-90/I-94 Rural Wisconsin      10/30/98    10/30/00        2,125,000
     ITS Corridor...............
    Oakland County, Michigan--      9/30/98    12/31/01           Ph I--
     Southeast Michigan Snow and                            1,150,000 Ph
     Ice Management (SEMSIM)....                             II--791,470
    Sullivan County, New York      10/30/98    10/30/00        1,000,000
     Emergency Weather System...
    Washington State Radio          10/1/98    10/30/00          750,000
     Communication Emergency
     Call Boxes.................
    Washington State Roadway        10/1/98    10/30/00        1,250,000
     Weather Information System.
    Brandon, Vermont............    9/30/99    11/30/00          296,801
    Fitchburg, Massachusetts-       9/30/99     7/30/01          395,735
     Montachusett Regional
     Transit Authority ITS
     Integration................
    Monroe County, New York         9/30/99     11/1/01          316,587
     Integration Project........
    Port Angeles, Washington....    9/30/99    11/30/01          395,735
    Rural ITS Swiss Army Knife      9/30/99     6/30/01          248,823
     Trailer....................
    Spokane, Washington State       9/30/99     4/30/01          356,161
     Route 395 Traveler
     Information Project........
    State of Idaho ITS              9/30/99    12/31/01          441,000
     Integration-Metro/Rural....                                 350,000
    CVO Deployment..............
    State of Washington ITS         9/30/99    12/31/01          973,000
     Deployment and Integration-                                 610,000
     Metro/Rural................
    CVO Deployment. Anticipated
     challenge: Possible
     software hardware
     integration challenges.....
    State of Wisconsin ITS          9/30/99    12/31/01          837,204
     Integration-Metro/Rural....                                 350,000
    CVO Deployment..............
    Warren County, Virginia.....    9/30/99    11/30/01          197,867
    Wausau/Stevens Point,           9/30/99     6/30/01          791,470
     Wisconsin..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following fiscal year 1999 earmarked sites for the ITS 
Integration Program are in the final stages of preparing final funding 
agreements, incorporating project details into State Transportation 
Improvement Programs and other measures. Imminent completion of these 
measures is anticipated at which time funds will be obligated.

Fiscal Year 1999 Earmarks which will be (but are not yet) obligated in 
fiscal year 2000

                                                       Unobligated Funds
Alaska..................................................         837,000
Amherst, Massachusetts..................................         791,000
Centre Valley, Pennsylvania.............................         396,000
Delaware River, Pennsylvania............................         791,000
Hammond, Louisiana......................................       3,166,000
Mission Viejo, California...............................         791,000
New Orleans, Louisiana..................................       1,187,000
North Dakota State University ATAC......................         302,000
Tri-State Rural ATIS (Northeast ITS Implementation).....         250,000
Onandaga County, New York...............................         317,000
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania............................      10,731,000
Scranton, Pennsylvania..................................         791,000
University of North Dakota--ATWIS.......................         549,000
Volusia County, Florida.................................         791,000

                              JPO SUPPORT

    Question. Please specify on a contract by contract basis how the 
fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000, and fiscal year 2001 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 provide program 
support to the JPO; 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 $2.5 million of the approximately $11 million 2000 annual 
budget of ITS America.
    The Mitretek Corp. provides the principal technical support 
function for the JPO. Mitretek's support can be categorized into 7 
general areas:
  --Program planning and assessment
  --The rural program
  --System architecture and deployment
  --Communications and frequency spectrum
  --Safety technology research for NHTSA
  --IVI program
  --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 1999, 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 is 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 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 expenditures for program support fall into three categories; 
ITS America, Mitretek, and miscellaneous support activities.


                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal years--
              Activity               -----------------------------------
                                         1999         2000        2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS America.........................        2.5         2.6          2.6
Mitretek............................        5.25        5.5          5.5
Misc. Support.......................        1.25        0.66         1.0
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................        9.0         8.766        9.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

              NATIONAL SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS
   
 Question. Please specify the amount and purposes of all fiscal year 
1998, fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000 contracts relating to the 
national systems architecture and standards work.
    Answer. In fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, 
$2.498 million, $4.306 million and $4.830 million, respectively, have 
been placed on system architecture contracts in support of architecture 
program activities. This includes $1.250 million in fiscal year 1998, 
$2.103 million in fiscal year 1999 and $2.355 million in fiscal year 
2000 to Lockheed Martin and $1.248 million in fiscal year 1998, $2.203 
million in fiscal year 1999 and $2.475 million in fiscal year 2000 to 
Iteris, Inc. (formally Odetics, ITS). These funds and contracts 
support:
    Architecture Deployment Support.--Deployment technical assistance 
involves direct interface with state, local, and regional 
transportation planners and engineers. As the top priority, the 
Architecture Team is conducting workshops at many sites around the 
country to help structure their individual site architectures, to 
facilitate the identification of common interfaces, and to keep them 
apprized of ITS standards related to their individual projects. As part 
of this effort to broad groups of state and local transportation 
planners, the Architecture Team has and is providing technical support, 
reviewing draft transportation plans and architectures, and giving 
presentations to stakeholders and ITS deployers at numerous meetings 
and conferences throughout the country. In addition, development of an 
interactive software tool, ``Turbo Architecture'', for ITS planners and 
designers has been completed and will be available in May 2000. This 
tool will assist them in using the National ITS Architecture as a 
reference to develop their unique ITS regional and project 
architectures.
    Architecture Training.--The Architecture Team's previously 
developed two and three-day architecture training courses have now been 
given on more than 100 occasions to nearly 2200 persons throughout the 
country through March 2000. These classes have both public and private 
sector participation and considerable interaction between the students 
and members of the architecture team. The courses include use of the 
CD-ROM version of the architecture as well as practical exercises. A 
three-day advanced architecture course has been developed as a follow-
on and is being given to FHWA and FTA ITS specialists to further 
enhance their knowledge and understanding.
    Architecture New User Service Changes.--The rural user community is 
in the process of developing a new user service to define ITS needs in 
the area of rural ``operations and maintenance''. This is expected to 
become the thirty-second user service. Work should begin in late CY 
2000 to expand the National ITS Architecture by integrating this 
stakeholder user service as had been previously done with both highway-
rail intersection and archived data.
    Maintenance of the National ITS Architecture.--The architecture 
team is maintaining and keeping the National ITS Architecture current 
based on ITS standards development efforts and deployment experiences. 
Design documents from ITS deployment efforts and draft standards from 
the five standards development organizations under DOT contract have 
and are currently being reviewed for modifications and additions to the 
architecture, with more than 100 such modifications in the most recent 
revision. In addition, a new section, market packages, was developed in 
response to stakeholder user requirements.
    Distribution of the National ITS Architecture.--Two major means are 
being used to put the architecture in the hands of transportation 
planners and engineers. More than 9000 copies of the third version 
(3.0) of the National ITS Architecture, which includes the Archived 
Data User Service (ADUS), are being distributed on CD-ROM. Distribution 
of this version began in December 1999. In addition, the most current 
version of the architecture is and has been available on the FHWA ITS 
web site as well as the ITS America web site.
    In fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000, $7.673 
million, $9.51 million, and $9 million, respectively, have been placed 
on contracts to advance standards work. The standards program is 
categorized into five areas:
    1. Research and Development, which includes analyzing and defining 
standards requirements.
    2. Standards Development, which provides funding for standards 
development organizations to write the standards and for technical 
support organizations to analyze and report on current standards and 
standards development efforts.
    3. Testing and Interoperability, which involves investigating the 
performance of the standards, measuring the degree of interoperability 
in standardized systems, rigorously ``proving'' the standards in 
realistic transportation settings under realistic operating conditions, 
and providing information about their performance to public agencies.
    4. Implementation, which provides transportation stakeholders 
involved in deploying ITS systems with outreach, resource materials and 
information, such as user guides and other documentation about the 
standards, and training and technical assistance.
    5. Conformity, which includes policy development and rulemaking 
support. For the standards program, in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 
2000, the following amounts (in thousands) were budgeted to advance ITS 
standards in the five areas:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal years--
                                           -----------------------------
                                              1998      1999      2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Development..................       400       600  ........
Standards Development.....................     5,413     4,150     4,400
    Testing and Interoperability..........     1,860     2,300     2,500
    Implementation........................  ........     2,460     1,900
Conformity................................  ........  ........       200
                                           -----------------------------
      Totals..............................     7,673     9,510     9,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the three-year period, contracts for the standards 
development effort were primarily to standards development 
organizations to write standards. Five standards development 
organizations are supported through cooperative agreements. These are 
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO), the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the 
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the Institute 
of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). Other contracts for standards development support were 
awarded to the Volpe Transportation Systems Center, to provide planning 
and analysis assistance, and The Johns Hopkins University Applied 
Physics Laboratory, to develop and evaluate dedicated short range 
communications and electronic data interchange standards. Mitretek 
Systems and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) provided technical and 
program management support.
    In the area of testing and interoperability, Battelle Memorial 
Laboratory ran the formal standards testing program, Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory tested location referencing approaches and developed metrics 
and tests for interoperability, and The Johns Hopkins Applied Physics 
Laboratory tested commercial vehicle electronic data interchange 
standards and dedicated short range communications (DSRC) standards.
    In the area of implementation, lessons learned reports were 
provided by Battelle and resource materials and training were provided 
by JPL, ITE, Volpe, the U.S. DOT Peer-to-Peer Program, the U.S. DOT 
Professional Capacity Building Program, and Equals3.

                        ITS SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

    Question. During fiscal year 1999 or fiscal year 2000, which ITS 
projects required supplemental federal funding above the amounts 
specified in their original cooperative agreements? Why were these 
additional funds added?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1999, $250,000 of additional funding was 
added to the Automated Collision Notification Operational Field Test to 
allow for additional data collection. While no other projects requested 
funding increases, several received additional earmarked funding in the 
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 appropriations.

                     INTERMODAL FREIGHT TECHNOLOGY

    Question. Please provide a description of the two projects selected 
for intermodal freight technology operational testing. What do you 
expect to gain from these tests? How much money will be spent on each 
project? What amount of cost sharing was received for each project?
    Answer. The two tests are with the ATA Foundation in conjunction 
with Illinois State DOT, and with Washington State DOT.
    The ATA Foundation project with Illinois State DOT builds on a 
phase I activity called the ``O'Hare Air Cargo Security Access System'' 
conducted by FAA, O'Hare Airport and the ATA Foundation. The phase I 
project's objective was to develop a biometric smart card access system 
that would both expedite the transfer of truck-air cargo and enhance 
the process' security. The project was developed, installed, and tested 
in Chicago using 87 trucking companies, 12 airlines and 500 drivers.
    The Phase II project is called ``An Integrated Cargo Information 
and Security System for Intermodal Distribution Channels'', which the 
focus of the partnership with USDOT. In Phase II, a secured multimodal 
electronic cargo manifest will be developed allowing for the automated 
transfer of comprehensive cargo data across transportation modes and 
political jurisdictions. The primary objective of Phase II is to 
enhance operational efficiency for freight shippers and operators, 
while ensuring cargo safety and security for the public good. Similar 
to Phase I, Phase II will involve biometric smart card technologies to 
ensure system integrity and security. The system will also utilize an 
internet-based electronic manifest. Lastly, the project will be 
installed and beta-tested in Chicago's O'Hare Airport using 
approximately 10 manufacturers, 10-15 trucking companies, and 5-10 air 
cargo carriers and receivers that will be recruited by SecurCom and the 
ATA Foundation. After the beta-test is successfully completed, a second 
airport and supply chain will be added at Newark, New Jersey.
    The total project budget is $1,098,000 with $468,000 in federal 
funds, a $630,000 match from ILDOT and ATA Foundation.
    The second project is focused on the Pacific Northwest is in 
partnership with the Washington State DOT. The purpose of the project 
is to link public highway ITS technology with private port-side 
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) systems. This will decrease operating 
costs and reduce congestion by permitting freight organizations to 
identify and bypass transportation bottlenecks.
    The project will involve the Puget Sound Regional Council, the 
Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, several maritime shipping lines, U.S. 
Customs, a private company that manufactures electronic tags and the 
Washington Trucking Association. Three test systems will be developed 
and evaluated as part of this project:
  --The use of disposable electronic container doors seal (E-Seals) as 
        a tool to track shipping containers both in the port and along 
        roadways.
  --Several traveler information systems designed to reduce congestion 
        on roads leading to a port's gate. Systems being examined 
        include Internet cameras showing roads leading to port gates 
        and a trucker-oriented web site for container pickup 
        notification.
  --Linking the many ITS in the region to collect freight data to 
        support local and regional freight planning.
  --The total project budget is $700,000, with $350,000 in federal 
        funds, a $350,000 match from Washing State DOT.

                       NATIONAL ITS ARCHITECTURE

    Question. How are investments in earmarked ITS deployment projects 
impacting the National ITS Architecture? What progress has been made 
toward implementing the TEA-21 provision regarding conformance with the 
National ITS Architecture and Standards? What issues remain?
    Answer. USDOT is using investments in earmarked ITS deployment 
projects to advance the National ITS Architecture by requiring that 
these projects use the National ITS Architecture and, in most cases, 
make provisions for development of a regional architecture.
    Requirements for ITS earmarked projects are based on the proposed 
policy on conformance with the National ITS Architecture and standards 
as contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The project 
proposal for the earmarked ITS project shall explicitly state how the 
National ITS Architecture will be incorporated into the project. The 
proposed integration project must be part of an existing regional ITS 
architecture, or, if a regional ITS architecture does not exist, the 
development of a regional ITS architecture must be either ongoing or 
proposed to be developed in conjunction with the proposed integration. 
Further, if the proposed project develops a regional architecture it 
must use the National ITS Architecture in the development; must make 
provision to include participation from all agencies with which 
information-sharing is planned; and the regional architecture must 
include a concept of operations and conceptual design.
    Considerable progress has been made toward implementing the TEA-21 
provision regarding conformance with the National ITS Architecture and 
Standards. Two NPRMs have been developed that when taken together will 
implement the TEA-21 provision regarding ITS architecture and standards 
conformance. The NPRMs are currently in the signature process. The 
proposed policy contained in the NPRMs was developed through 
significant internal discussions and through extensive feedback from 
stakeholder groups.
    The proposed policy spans the transportation planning process and 
project development; therefore, part of the proposed policy is 
contained in the NPRM on metropolitan and statewide transportation 
planning. The remainder of the policy is contained in an NPRM titled 
``Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture and Standards.'' The 
NPRMs are expected to be published in May 2000. A 90-day comment period 
follows publication after which USDOT must assess and respond to each 
comment. During the 90-day comment period, seven outreach sessions will 
be held throughout the country. The purpose of the sessions is to 
clarify the proposed rule and to encourage comment. If the comments are 
not significant, a final policy can be developed based on the NPRM and 
responses to the docket. A final policy could be published in late 2000 
but, more likely, in early 2001. Extensive comments would require 
additional time.
    The primary issues lie after publication of the final rule. 
Assuming the final rule is similar to the currently proposed rule, the 
final rule will have impact on numerous transportation agencies. USDOT 
is currently developing a strategy to support policy implementation 
with 1) federal field staff and 2) stakeholders.
    For federal field staff, technical expertise must be developed 
sufficiently to enable clear understanding, and consistent 
implementation and oversight of the policy. Additionally, we anticipate 
that federal field staff are key to supporting policy implementation 
with stakeholders. We find that developing sufficient technical depth 
requires repeated exposure to and application of the policy's 
principals. We anticipate training, application workshops and 
repetitious video and teleconferences for federal field staff.
    For stakeholders, technical expertise must be developed 
sufficiently to implement the policy. Stakeholders include Metropolitan 
Planning Organizations (MPO), state departments of transportation, city 
and county transportation departments and others. Some stakeholders, 
such as state, city and county transportation professionals and, 
possibly, technical staff within an MPO, require technical expertise at 
a depth that enables development and maintenance of a regional 
architecture. Training will be necessary in the principals of the 
policy, the technical applications of the National ITS Architecture, 
and the systems engineering process. For non-technical planning staff 
and decision-makers an understanding of the application of the policy 
is necessary at a higher level. These stakeholders need to understand 
the basic principles and benefits of integration and interoperability 
in order to apply it locally. Different training will likely be 
required for planning staff along with an outreach effort to increase 
awareness of the policy requirements.

                      INTEGRATION GOAL OF TITLE V

    Question. How are you using investments in earmarked ITS deployment 
projects to advance the integration goal of Title V of TEA-21?
    Answer. The stated goal of the ITS Integration Program is to 
accelerate the integration and interoperability of ITS across system, 
jurisdictional and modal boundaries. To that end, all ITS earmarked 
projects in metropolitan areas are required to focus on integration.
    Each earmarked project is required to submit a project proposal. 
Included in the project proposal is an explicit identification of the 
ITS components that are proposed for integration. Additionally, the 
proposal must describe the systems that will be integrated and the 
technologies that will be deployed to integrate them. USDOT guidance 
for these projects states that funding shall be used for activities 
necessary to integrate ITS infrastructure components that are either 
deployed (existing systems) or will be deployed with other sources of 
funds. For projects in rural areas, the funds may be used for 
integration purposes as well as for limited deployment of ITS. The 
guidance material goes on to specify eligible activities all of which 
are focused on integration. Development of a regional ITS architecture 
is also an eligible expenditure since it provides the ``blueprint'' for 
integrated deployment. The project proposal must also discuss how the 
project addresses the other requirements of TEA21 including match, 
architecture and standards conformance, and evaluation.
    All ITS earmarked projects are subject to a review by FHWA field 
staff and an independent validation by a mutli-agency team composed of 
headquarters FHWA and FTA staff and FHWA Resource Center staff. That 
review makes use of a checklist of key issues that must be 
satisfactorily addressed to award funding. Two items on the checklist 
are specific to integration. One item requires validation that the 
proposed project is consistent with the goals and purposes of the ITS 
Program as describe in Title V of TEA21. The other item requires 
validation that the project proposal identifies the ITS infrastructure 
components that will be integrated.
    We have prepared an interim report on the TEA-21 ITS Deployment 
Program outlining how this program is supporting integration. This 
report will be submitted to the Committees under separate cover.

                   EARMARKED ITS DEPLOYMENT PROJECTS

    Question. How are you using investments in earmarked ITS deployment 
projects to advance ITS standards work?
    Answer. ITS projects funded through Title V of TEA21 are primary 
targets for the standards testing program. The guidance materials for 
these projects requires that the project proposal identify the 
applicable ITS standards and interoperability tests that are being 
considered or are expected to be specified in the project. Further, the 
project proposal shall explicitly state that the proposed integration 
project will cooperate with the test site analysis and be prepared to 
serve as an ITS standards testing site if selected. Each project will 
be analyzed as a potential test site for the US DOT ITS Standards 
Testing Program. Each project will be evaluated based on a set of 
established criteria to find ITS field sites that can be used in the 
ITS testing program.

                       ITS STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT

    Question. With the first wave of ITS standards development nearing 
completion, what steps are being taken to incorporate these standards 
into deployment at both the state and local levels?
    Answer. Earmarked ITS deployment projects, as well as all other ITS 
deployment projects, are being treated as opportunities to advance ITS 
standards deployment, at the state and local levels, through testing, 
outreach, education, technical support, and conformity support 
activities.
    With the standards development activity now producing a number of 
approved standards, the emphasis on the standards program is shifting 
from development towards implementation support. Testing, training, and 
technical support are being given a greater emphasis and being 
supported by a greater portion of the standards budget.
    Standards testing at actual deployment sites provides information 
to potential users on the reliability, functionality and performance of 
systems based upon the standards. Building confidence in the standards 
through standards testing and the wide distribution of the test results 
will encourage early voluntary adoption of ITS standards at the state 
and local levels.
    Classroom training on the application of standards will be used to 
assist users in incorporating the standards into ITS deployments. This 
training will be developed in a modular fashion to allow easy 
incorporation into existing traffic management and operations training 
courses and to allow modules to be combined to meet the needs of a 
particular jurisdiction.
    Technical support will be provided through the development of a 
wide variety of materials such as fact sheets, user guides, sample 
procurement specifications, lessons learned and case studies. In 
addition, as sites are beginning to use standards and run into 
technical issues, the standards program is prepared to offer technical 
assistance through the Peer-to-Peer program. Individuals familiar with 
the standards and their use will be made available to deployers of ITS 
systems for short-term support and troubleshooting.
    Question. When will each of the adopted standards be required to be 
incorporated into any project receiving federal aid funds?
    Answer. Two policy setting processes must be complete for ITS 
standards to be required in a federal ITS project.
    First, the rulemaking must be complete that will require use of ITS 
standards. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRPM) has been developed 
and is currently in the signature process which implements section 
5206(e) of TEA21 on conformance with ITS architecture and standards. A 
section of that NPRM addresses the use of standards. The proposed 
policy states that any federally funded ITS project shall use USDOT 
adopted standards. The NPRM is expected to be issued in May 2000. USDOT 
must address any comments on the NPRM, and develop and publish a final 
policy. This process will likely be completed in late 2000 or early 
2001. Assuming the final policy is the same as the proposed policy 
contained in the NPRM, the use of USDOT adopted standards will then be 
required on all federally funded ITS projects.
    Second, specific ITS standards must be officially adopted by the 
USDOT. Once a standard is developed, tested, and deemed ready to use it 
must go through its own rulemaking process. Standards are proceeding in 
this manner today. DSRC for commercial vehicle operations (CVO) 
credentials and safety reports is the first standard for which 
rulemaking has been initiated. The DSRC NPRM closed on February 25, 
2000. Comments are new under review. Once the rulemaking process is 
completed, the standard is considered to be a USDOT adopted standard.
    Question. When will each of the adopted standards be required to be 
incorporated into any project receiving Title V TEA-21 funds?
    Answer. They will be required as soon as they are adopted. See the 
answer to the previous question for details on the adoption process.
    In the meantime, ITS projects funded through Title V of TEA21 are 
primary targets for the standards testing program. The guidance 
materials for these projects requires that the project proposal 
identify the applicable ITS standards and interoperability tests that 
are being considered or are expected to be specified in the project. 
Further, the project proposal shall explicitly state that the proposed 
integration project will cooperate with the test site analysis and be 
prepared to serve as an ITS standards testing site if selected. Each 
project will be analyzed as a potential test site for the USDOT ITS 
Standards Testing Program. Each project will be evaluated based on a 
set of established criteria to find ITS field sites that can be used in 
the ITS testing program.

                      DEPLOYING ITS INFRASTRUCTURE

    Question. In 1996, DOT set a goal of deploying the basic ITS 
infrastructure in the major metropolitan areas within 10 years. What 
progress has been made in achieving that goal?
    Answer. In January 1996, Secretary Pena set a goal of integrated 
ITS deployment in 75 of the largest metropolitan areas by 2006. The ITS 
infrastructure being tracked consists of nine components: Freeway 
Management; Incident Management; Transit Management; Emergency 
Management; Transit Management; Electronic Toll Collection; Electronic 
Fare Payment; Highway Rail Intersections; and, Regional Multimodal 
Traveler Information. The definition of a complete deployment will vary 
for each of the 75 metropolitan areas being tracked, in response to 
variations in local conditions. Factors such as levels of congestion, 
population growth rates, available budgets, and road and ramp geometry 
can create quite different sets of requirements for ITS infrastructure 
in each metropolitan area. Any methodology for measuring progress 
toward the Secretary's goal must take into account the lack of a single 
`one size fits all' solution.
    Because of the variation in deployment requirements, it is not 
currently possible to devise a set of individual deployment goals for 
each metropolitan area. However, experience in tracking deployment and 
integration has shown that minimum threshold levels for deployment and 
integration can be established. These thresholds can provide a common 
frame of reference for rating deployment and integration progress in 
the largest metropolitan areas. Using an assessment of the level of 
metropolitan ITS infrastructure deployment and integration of the 
individual infrastructure components, metropolitan areas can be 
assigned ratings of either high, medium, or low for their levels of 
integrated deployment.
    This methodology is based on thresholds that indicate a significant 
state of deployment--for example, the deployment of surveillance on 20 
percent of freeway miles-without necessarily indicating that deployment 
is complete. Five deployment component areas are used: Freeway 
Management/Incident Management; Arterial Management; Transit 
Management; Emergency Management; and, Regional Multimodal Traveler 
Information. A high rating is achieved when all five thresholds have 
been attained, low when none are met, and medium where some have been 
met. Integration is based on the existence of links between Freeway 
Management, Transit Management, and Arterial Management. When all three 
have at least some links, the metro area is high for integration. A 
single rating is assigned that combines the deployment and integration 
score.
    As portrayed in the following figure, 27 regions are characterized 
low, 26 as medium, and 22 as high in deployment in fiscal year 1999. 
This can be contrasted with the 1997 deployment baseline in which 39 
areas were characterized as low, 25 as medium, and 11 as high. The 
information suggests that considerable progress has been made in the 
deployment of integrated ITS over the past two years. A total of 10 
areas increased to a high level of deployment and two areas moved from 
low to medium level of integrated deployment.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY04.001

    The significance of crossing a threshold for either deployment or 
integration is that a metro area has made a sustained effort to deploy 
a significant level of at least some of the technology associated with 
the components or to begin to integrate. It does not mean that 
deployment or integration are complete. A better way to consider the 
high, medium, and low ratings is that they are indications of momentum. 
A high rating indicates broad interest in deploying a regionally 
integrated ITS infrastructure with at least a significant beginning in 
deploying and integrating all major components.
    The measurement of progress for 1999 can be set in a context of 
yearly goals leading to successful achievement of the Secretary's 2006 
goal. The following figure portrays the level of integrated deployment 
measured in 1997 and 1999 along with projected levels of deployment for 
each year through 2005. No data were collected in 1998; therefore, only 
the projected levels of integrated deployment are shown for 1998. This 
figure shows that as of 1999, nationwide integrated deployment is 
advancing at a rate compatible with the achievement of the Secretary's 
year 2005 goal.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY04.002

                  FEDERAL AID FUNDS FOR ITS DEPLOYMENT

    Question. What evidence exists that the Title V projects are 
accelerating the use of federal aid funds for ITS deployment?
    Answer. Little quantitative data exists to measure how much Title V 
projects are accelerating the use of federal aid funds for ITS 
deployment; however, it is clear from review of these projects that 
federal aid funds are being expended for ITS and that deployment is 
accelerating.
    The Title V ITS project funds require a 50 percent match. Of that 
50 percent match, 20 percent must be cash or in-kind contributions 
wholly related to the project. The other 30 percent match may come from 
other federal sources. Typically, the 30 percent match is met by other 
related ITS projects that are funded with federal aid dollars, such as 
NHS or CMAQ funds. It is common for other federally funded ITS projects 
to be significantly larger projects than the Title V ITS project.
    Additionally, Title V ITS funds are only eligible for projects that 
directly support integration and interoperability. In order for an 
integration project to be viable, infrastructure components must be in 
place. Therefore, in areas that have little existing ITS infrastructure 
in place, the Title V project provides the impetus for the installation 
of infrastructure through other funds, typically other federal aid 
funds. Local governments are anxious to take advantage of the Title V 
funds and, in many cases, that provides enough incentive for other ITS 
projects to successfully compete for federal aid funds.
    Finally, approximately 50 percent of the fiscal year 1999 and 
fiscal year 2000 Title V projects are in a top 78 metropolitan area. 
Data from the deployment tracking surveys for these locations indicates 
an increase in ITS deployment from 1997 to 1999. Of the top 78 
metropolitan areas surveyed in 1997, eleven were classified as ``high'' 
deployment areas, 25 were classified as ``medium'' and 39 were ``low''. 
In 1999, the data shows a noticeable change with 22 areas classified as 
``high'', 26 as ``medium'' and 27 as ``low''. We believe that the Title 
V ITS projects with their focus on integration has contributed to this 
increase in ITS deployment.

                           STANDARDS PROGRAM

    Question. How much of the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 
funds are likely to be spent on each of the following activities: 
standards development, standards testing, outreach and education, and 
standards refinement?
    Answer. Under the standards program, in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal 
year 2001, the following amounts (in thousands) are likely to be spent 
for the listed activities:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal years--
                                                     -------------------
                                                        2000      2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standards Development...............................     3,950     3,200
Standards Testing...................................     1,700     1,700
Outreach and Education..............................     1,900     2,300
Standards Refinement................................       450       350
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standards development activity provides funding for standards 
development organizations to write the standards and for technical 
support organizations to analyze and report on standards development, 
testing and deployment efforts. Standards testing includes formally 
investigating the correctness, completeness and operation of the 
standards, measuring the degree of interoperability in standardized 
systems, rigorously ``proving'' the standards in actual transportation 
settings under realistic operating conditions, and providing 
information about standards performance to stakeholders. While 
development and testing support has assisted in the technical elements 
of standardization, an even more significant element of the program 
relates to actual usage of the formalized standards. Outreach and 
education are priority activities that provide transportation 
stakeholders with educational resource materials and technical 
assistance in support of the deployment of ITS systems. This 
information combined with an understanding of the application of the 
standards is essential for successful implementation of ITS Standards. 
The specific products to be developed and delivered under the outreach 
and education effort include: user implementation guides, application 
fact sheets, lessons learned and case studies, sample procurement 
specifications, application training courses, and technical assistance 
with implementation. Standards refinement activities address needed 
modifications and extensions to the standards based upon information 
obtained from formal standards testing and from the experiences of 
vendors and users of the standards. Since the formal testing program is 
in its early stages, the amounts for standards refinement are 
estimated. These estimates are projected to be approximately 10 percent 
of the development costs and are currently funded out of the standards 
development budget.

                 STRATEGIC VISION FOR ITS RURAL PROGRAM

    Question. Please outline the progress that has been made in 
implementing a strategic vision for the ITS rural program and describe 
how the fiscal year 2001 request addresses priority challenges.
    Answer. We have made significant progress in defining the Rural ITS 
Program and laying out an aggressive agenda of research, field testing 
and deployment incentives to develop and deploy ITS systems and 
services that address the needs of rural travelers and operators. In 
order to focus the rural ITS research and development program and 
assure continuity, the program has been organized around a set of 
development tracks which allows for long-range output-oriented program 
development. These tracks include Regional Infrastructure, Emergency 
Services, Rural Transit, Rural Crash Prevention, Rural Traffic 
Management, Tourism/Traveler Information, and Operations and 
Maintenance. For each of these development tracks we have developed 
long-range goals and interim milestones that are being used to direct 
the program.
    Efforts are planned in fiscal year 2001 to further several of the 
rural development tracks that we consider priority areas. We will be 
pursuing the deployment of enhanced wireless 911 and automatic 
collision notification; the development of advanced signal control 
systems for small communities; the development of practical variable 
speed limit systems; the deployment of regional/multi-state traveler 
information; the availability of detailed road specific road surface 
and weather information for winter maintenance and traveler 
information; improved rural transportation services (in cooperation 
with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Labor).
    A number of important milestones will be achieved in fiscal year 
2001. Under the research program, a weather decision support systems 
for surface transportation users will be developed; signal control 
systems and traffic control strategies for small communities will be 
developed; strategies for the deployment of enhanced wireless 911 and 
automated collision notification systems will be developed; several 
examples of integrated subsidized transportation services using ITS 
technologies will be completed. Under the operational test program, we 
will initiate a test of a rural variable speed limit system; a field 
test of one or more rural safety warning systems; a multi-state 
traveler information service; a test of accurate road surface condition 
information; an enhanced wireless 911 test and an integrated subsidized 
transportation service field test.

                           ITS RURAL PROGRAM

    Question. What is the rationale for the requested fiscal year 2001 
distribution of funds between research and operational tests in the ITS 
rural program?
    Answer. We have developed a program in rural ITS that we believe is 
appropriately balanced between research and operational tests. In 
fiscal year 2001 we have proposed a research budget of $2.75 million to 
define and develop various rural ITS systems and services as defined in 
our long range program as well as $7.55 million in operational tests to 
complement the research program. As we have stated previously, there 
are a number of reasons why the emphasis has been placed on operational 
tests in the Rural ITS Program. Field operational tests allow us to 
engage other stakeholders in the program which is especially important 
in rural ITS where many of the stakeholders are not currently engaged 
in ITS nor see how ITS relates to their transportation problems. Field 
operational tests also ensure that the systems and services developed 
and tested are practical and deployable. Field operational tests allow 
us the opportunity to address some of the non-technical challenges 
associated with the deployment of rural ITS. We are also following 
advice received from the Appropriations Committee several years ago, 
when it urged FHWA to spend more on rural ITS operational tests and 
less on studies related to this program. Having said that there is 
still a need to carry on a robust program of research and development 
to address those issues that cannot adequately or efficiently be 
addressed in a field test. Field tests are not an appropriate tool for 
such important activities as assessing the extent of a problem, 
exploring alternate solutions, initial system development or guidance 
development. We believe this budget reflects that balanced approach.
                              its training
    Question. How much was spent on professional capacity building 
related to ITS during each of the last three fiscal years and how much 
is proposed for funding in fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. The following amounts were spent on training during the 
past three fiscal years:
    1998--$6.063 M (includes $1.298M for CVO)
    1999--$3,529 M (includes $998 for CVO)
    2000--$3.350 M (includes $900 for CVO)

                ITS HELPING STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Question. Please describe how the Department's fiscal year 2001 
budget request for ITS research and deployment could help states and 
local government entities improve their operations and management of 
the surface transportation system. Please exclude from the discussion 
the use of the additional contract funds requested beyond the amount 
now authorized.
    Answer. ITS research and deployment funds are being used to produce 
a wide variety of products designed to help states and local government 
entities improve their operations and maintenance practices.
    Snow, ice, fog, rain and other inclement weather reduce the 
capacity and safety of road systems. The FHWA will develop and begin 
testing a winter maintenance weather decision support system for 
managers and traveler information for travelers. This effort will build 
upon previous efforts that have focused on roadway winter maintenance, 
shifting the focus to a variety of road users (e.g., private travelers, 
commercial vehicle operators, school bus operators, transit operator, 
and emergency responders). Prototype testing will be conducted to 
determine optimal information presentation and the filtering and fusing 
of the various information sources that must take place to achieve this 
presentation.
    In support of releasing the ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS), 
the FHWA will develop case studies on its use in the transportation 
planning process. IDAS is as a cost benefit software tool that helps 
communities determine the costs and benefits of implementing specific 
ITS improvements. These case studies will supplement the training 
course on how to use IDAS most effectively. Delivery of the training 
course will begin in fiscal year 2001, and the Operations CBU will work 
through our field staff and resource centers to ensure its wide 
distribution.
    Adaptive Signal Control Systems (ACS) allow traffic signal control 
systems to respond to current traffic conditions in real time. Field 
tests on three alternative ACS algorithms will be completed in fiscal 
year 2001. The algorithms that have been developed for various 
conditions will be commercially available shortly thereafter. The 
Operations CBU will work through our field staff and resource centers 
to raise awareness of the application of ACS, what works under what 
conditions, and provide technical assistance to agencies that wish to 
implement ACS.
    Turbo Architecture is a software tool that was developed in 
response to our partners' needs in developing regional ITS 
architectures. It walks the users through the National ITS Architecture 
through a question and answer process, thereby helping them develop 
regional and local ITS architectures consistent with the National ITS 
Architecture. In support of its release at the 2000 ITS America Annual 
Meeting, training courses will be completed and delivered in fiscal 
year 2001. Also, the Operations CBU is working with the FHWA field 
staff and resource centers to ensure that proper technical assistance 
is available to Turbo Architecture users.
    CORSIM (CORridor SIMulation), which is one of the most 
comprehensive traffic simulation models in the world, allows users to 
simulate traffic and traffic control conditions on street, corridor, 
and freeway networks, and measure operational performance. Version 5.0 
of CORSIM is integral to a new user friendly version of the traffic 
simulation suite TSIS, which will provide for an easier method for user 
to enter data and view the results of the simulation. TSIS 5.0, 
released late in fiscal year 2000, enables state and local agencies to 
simulate freeways and large street networks, including ramp metering 
interactions, for alternatives analyses and planning. In fiscal year 
2001, the FHWA will continue to support CORSIM users through the 
McTrans center, as well as offer training courses on using the 
simulation.
    The ITS Professional Capacity Building (PCB) program has trained 
almost 9,000 people in various travel management topics geared toward 
the operation and management of the transportation system. We have also 
trained over 3,000 people in CVO courses, and over 12,000 people have 
seen the CVO technology truck. Several states have started to tailor 
courses to meet their specific needs, including California, Virginia, 
Florida, and Utah. The focus of the ITS PCB program, especially in 
fiscal year 2001, is on distance learning, or providing the key 
technical training courses to the people who need them, when and where 
they can obtain the training. Working with university partners, three 
web-based training courses will be delivered in fiscal year 2001, which 
will reach many additional people to assist them in operating and 
managing their transportation systems.
    In addition to activities solely funded with ITS program funds, we 
will also pursue other activities with a mix of ITS and Operations 
program funding. In the area of improved work zone operations, FHWA 
will be developing decision-making tools which will allow practitioners 
to evaluate alternate strategies to mitigate the mobility and safety 
impacts resulting from work zones. We will also continue to develop and 
deliver technical guidance and training in a number of ITS and 
operations areas, such as traveler information, traffic management, 
incident management, arterial management, HOV facilities, and travel 
demand management.

                           REALIGNMENT OF JPO

    Question. Please discuss how and whether the realignment of the JPO 
with the operations core business unit in FHWA has delivered more 
effective guidance and technical assistance regarding ITS to state and 
local government entities.
    Answer. In general, the FHWA realignment has had little impact on 
the operation of the ITS Joint Program Office (ITS JPO). The ITS JPO 
continues to provide the planning, strategic direction, coordination 
and oversight for the ITS program in an independent, multi-modal 
manner. The Director of the ITS JPO continues to report to both the 
FHWA Administrator and the Deputy Secretary of DOT. The significant 
change as a result of realignment has been the ITS JPO Director serving 
in a dual capacity as the FHWA Operations Core Business Unit, Program 
Manager. This change has improved FHWA's ability to deliver guidance 
and technical assistance regarding ITS to state and local governments 
by:
  --Streamlining the decision-making process and bringing about an 
        increased continuity between the ITS JPO and the FHWA units 
        charged with ITS Deployment;
  --Integrating ITS into the FHWA leadership through the inclusion of 
        the Operations CBU, Program Manager as part of the FHWA 
        Management Council. In this capacity the Operations, Program 
        Manager works directly with the FHWA Headquarters and Field 
        leadership on the implementation of ITS programs and policies; 
        and
  --Facilitating the creation of an ITS Deployment team within the 
        Operations CBU. This team works directly with the ITS staff in 
        the FHWA field offices to support deployment at the State and 
        local level.

                       REPORTS PERTAINING TO ITS

    Question. Please list each of the reports or strategic plans that 
pertain to ITS as specified in TEA-21 and discuss your progress on each 
one to date. How much of the fiscal year 2000 budget is allocated to 
complete those reports or plans and how much is requested in the fiscal 
year 2001 budget to further these efforts.
    Answer. There are two reports or strategic plans that pertain to 
ITS that are specified in TEA-21. The first is in Section 5206(b), and 
is the Report on Critical Standards. The TEA-21 required the Department 
to submit a report to Congress, not later than June 1, 1999, 
identifying which standards are critical to ensuring national 
interoperability or critical to the development of other standards and 
specifying the status of the development of each standard identified. 
The ITS critical standards report was completed and submitted to 
Congress in July 1999. The critical standards report is available on 
the ITS website at www.its.dot.gov. Since the report is complete, no 
funding will be required in fiscal year 2000 for this activity. The 
second item is the National ITS Program Plan as required in Section 
5205(a)(1) and (a)(2). In order to fulfill this directive in the most 
timely and useful manner, the DOT has broken down the requirement into 
three distinct parts: a Five-year Plan; a Ten-year Plan; and a National 
Deployment Strategy.
    The Five-year Plan concentrates on codifying the ITS program's 
deployment road maps that were developed by DOT in 1998. It addresses 
how DOT carries out the ITS program under TEA-21 and will broadly guide 
all program, policy and budget decisions over the next five years. The 
Draft Five-year Plan has been completed and will be transmitted to 
Congress after the Office of the Secretary completes its final review. 
It will be submitted as part of the Surface Transportation Research and 
Development Strategic Plan.
    The Ten-year Plan will focus on identifying a longer-term, next 
generation ITS research agenda. It will be developed by DOT in 
partnership with the larger ITS community through ITS America. The Ten-
year Plan effort began in February 2000 and will be completed by early 
2001.
    The National Deployment Strategy is the third part. Unlike the 
Five- and Ten-year Plans, which focus primarily on DOT activities, the 
National Deployment Strategy will define the larger array of actions 
that must be undertaken. ITS America is leading this effort which 
involves State and local governments, as well as industry, to define 
the broader strategic actions necessary--beyond DOT spending--to bring 
about widespread ITS deployment in the United States. The National 
Deployment Strategy was completed in February 2000 and is being 
printed. It will be transmitted to the Congress shortly.
    It is anticipated that $250,000 will be required in fiscal year 
2000 to develop the Ten-Year plan. No fiscal year 2001 funds have been 
requested for this effort.

                        ITS INTEGRATION PROGRAMS

    Question. As part of the ITS program, FHWA spends millions of 
dollars on outreach, public information, mainstreaming, and training. 
Please provide a table indicating the amount of funding spent on each 
of those activities for each of the last three years and how much is 
planned for fiscal year 2001.
    Answer. The following table depicts what the ITS program actually 
spent on Integration (Mainstreaming) programs in fiscal years 1998 and 
1999 and the amounts anticipated to be spent on this activity in fiscal 
years 2000 and 2001:

                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal years--
                             -------------------------------------------
                                 1998       1999       2000       2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Assistance........     $3,835     $2,950     $4,766     $5,800
Planning/Policy.............         20        450        500      1,000
Training....................      6,063  \1\ 1,559      3,350      3,700
Outreach/Comm...............        919        717        660        580
Mainstreaming...............  .........  .........        500  .........
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................     10,837      5,676      9,776     11,080
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $1.970M for CVO and Architecture training included under
  those program categories.

Note: Fiscal year 2000 amount for Mainstreaming (printing and exhibits)
  shown under Integration whereas in other fiscal years these costs were
  included in program budgets.

                     INTERMODAL FREIGHT ACTIVITIES

    Question. Please discuss the scope, nature, benefits and costs of 
the Department's ITS intermodal freight activities. How much was 
invested in that area during each of the last two fiscal years and how 
much is requested for fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. The ITS intermodal program complements One DOT efforts to 
coordinate planning and infrastructure development across transport 
modes. It ensures that technologies applied are interoperable, 
efficient, and well coordinated. Intermodal is increasingly the means 
by which trade moves. Trade is also typically multijurisdictional; that 
is, several States, localities, and other countries may be involved in 
intermodal freight movement. Given the increasingly reliance on 
intermodality and the issues of multijurisdictional coordination, a 
strong Federal presence is required to ensure a strategic and 
coordinated perspective by all parties. Between 1981 and 1997, the 
share of U.S. GDP devoted to freight logistics declined from 18.1 
percent to 10.4 percent, but has recently increased to 10.8 percent. 
Developing a strong national ITS intermodal program to improve freight 
flow efficiency will allow U.S. firms to (1) reduce freight logistics 
costs; (2) adapt innovative manufacturing/distribution strategies to 
compete more effectively in a global market; and (3) support advanced 
corporate basic and applied research programs. The partnership between 
industry and government will benefit both parties, strengthening the 
U.S. economic base, protecting U.S. jobs and providing opportunities 
for advanced technology job creation. This partnership is not possible 
without strong Federal involvement.
    Funding prior to fiscal year 1999 was focused on determining a need 
for an ITS Freight Architecture, to support an Intermodal Freight 
Technology Working Group within ITS America, and to develop a research 
design for an intermodal freight operational test. Funding was also 
used to help support an intermodal task force within US DOT.
    During fiscal year 1999, $500,000 was used to fund ITS intermodal 
freight pilot projects solicited by a March 1999 Request for 
Applications (RFA). An additional $100,000 was used to support the ITS 
America Intermodal Freight Working Group (IFTWG) initiation of the 
mapping of the intermodal freight process from origin to destination. 
The IFTWG, a one-of-a-kind public/private initiative, was identified at 
the first ITS America Intermodal Freight Identification Technology 
Conference in Reston, Virginia as the means by which a successful 
intermodal freight program could be developed and implemented. The 
creation of the IFTWG, and the process mapping project, are key inputs 
to identifying potential improvements in inter-modal freight efficiency 
including applications of ITS technology.
    During fiscal year 2000, $1,000,000 is being used to conduct six 
major tasks. The first of these is to complete the mapping of the 
intermodal freight process under the IFTWG. The border operational 
tests on safety systems, being conducted in conjunction with U.S. 
Customs, is scheduled for completion. A border crossing modeling tool 
will be developed to establish a baseline and to measure the benefits 
of ITS improvements. Oversight and evaluation of the freight 
operational tests in the Pacific Northwest and in Chicago and Newark 
will continue. These operational tests include multimodal technology 
applications to link appropriate information systems that will expedite 
the movement of trucks through major metropolitan areas as they deliver 
and pick up containers at port and air freight facilities. A National 
Freight Technology Conference will be held in Rosslyn to continue the 
partnership with the Department of Defense and industry on technology 
harmonization.
    In fiscal year 2001, $3 million is requested to build on lessons 
learned and conduct additional operational tests in major metropolitan 
areas to enhance the efficiency and safety of commercial vehicle 
traffic. Additionally the focus of attention will be on the development 
of a user service to begin the development of a freight architecture as 
a component of the ITS National Architecture. The freight architecture 
will support State and MPO responsibilities in facilitating interstate 
commerce and ensuring public safety.
    Included in that activity will be a border architecture to link the 
activities of transportation, customs and immigration. The two 
operational tests in the Pacific Northwest and Chicago and Newark are 
expected to be concluded in fiscal year 2001 and there will be 
continuing oversight on the commercial vehicle container drayage 
project.

                     COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS

    Question. What progress have you made in meeting the TEA-21 goal to 
``deploy CVISN in a majority of states by 2003?'' How many and which 
states will be using a Level 1 CVISN by 2003?
    Answer. Forty-two states are in one of the three steps for CVISN 
Level 1 deployment-planning, design, or deployment. Currently, twelve 
states are in step 1, planning; twenty states are in step 2, design; 
and ten states (the original two prototype and eight pilot states) are 
in step 3, deployment.
    Based on a recent survey of all states, eight states have indicated 
that they expect to complete Level 1 deployment by September 30, 2002. 
They consist of the two CVISN prototype and six pilot states which have 
been fully funded to complete Level 1 deployment. We expect Kentucky, 
Maryland, Washington, and Virginia to be deploying CVISN Level 1 
capabilities by the end of fiscal year 2000, and California and 
Minnesota to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2001. We also 
expect Colorado and Connecticut to complete Level 1 deployment by the 
end of fiscal year 2002.
    Thirty additional states also responded that they expect to deploy 
CVISN Level 1 capabilities by September 30, 2003, contingent upon 
receiving fiscal year 2001 federal ITS deployment funds and/or state 
resources to support CVISN deployment. The ability to direct federal 
ITS deployment funds to states which are ready to begin CVISN 
deployment will help the Department achieve the Congressional goal of 
completing CVISN deployment in a majority of states by September 30, 
2003. The lack of federal ITS deployment funds puts the FMCSA's, the 
FHWA's and the states' ability to meet this Congressional goal in 
jeopardy.
    Question. Please discuss your plans to specify a DSRC standard for 
commercial vehicles that would need to be used in projects using 
federal aid funds. When do you anticipate a final standard? Will your 
involvement in this standards process provide a neutral basis towards 
both passive and active approaches?
    Answer. Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) is the 
technology that is used to perform the electronic screening and 
clearance of commercial vehicles. Electronic screening allows trucks 
and buses that are equipped with DSRC transponders to bypass weight/
inspection stations if they are safe and legal. Electronic clearance is 
a component of CVISN, which is defined as the collection of information 
systems and communication networks that support CVO.
    The competitive battle over the selection of a technology for use 
in Dedicated Short Range Communications applications has been going on 
since the mid-eighties as part of the normal economic and competitive 
market place. There are two basic transponder technologies employed for 
DSRC: the ``passive'' approach provided by two suppliers, and the 
``active'' approach provided by two other suppliers.
    In the early nineties, when DSRC technology was applied to the CVO 
application, two consortiums of states selected the active approach to 
implement their CVO functions. These consortiums consisted of six 
states on the west coast, the HELP Crescent project, and the Advantage 
I-75 project consisting of six midwest states along the I-75 corridor. 
(These consortia are now known by their commercial names; PREPASS and 
NORPASS respectively.)
    In parallel with these CVO activities, the industry was trying to 
agree on a common standard through the American Society of Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) standards setting organization.
    The US DOT has been actively involved in this standards process 
since 1996, and has convened numerous meetings with the various 
elements of the industry and the users of DSRC technology to encourage 
the industry to arrive at a consensus. Although the DOT has financially 
supported ITS standards to accelerate the process, the industry, 
manufacturers and users are the ones that must agree on a standard. The 
DOT has not taken sides in the discussion. The DOT's interest is that a 
standard be adopted.
    However, because of their individual commercial interests and their 
large installed base, principally in electronic toll collection, the 
industry has been unwilling to agree on a single standard for DSRC. 
Therefore, at the conclusion of the standards process, the industry 
agreed to disagree and adopted a standards that includes both the 
active and passive technologies.
    As a result of the standards stalemate, the DOT entered a 
regulatory process to require the use of a single technology for CVO 
applications to ensure national interoperability.
    The only option available to the DOT is to choose a technology that 
was already being used by all the states using DSRC for CVO 
applications. Thus, the proposed solution is to build upon the 
equipment already installed, or being installed by 23 states. The 
proposed rule would require the use of the active technology that is 
now deployed, with the addition of features from the ASTM standard and 
the IEEE standard that deals with the application of the devices. This 
new device would be backward compatible with the existing equipment 
installed or planned by the states. Therefore, states would not have to 
modify their existing installations. It is proposed that this 
provisional standard be employed after January 1, 2001. This 
provisional standard would not effect electronic toll collection. This 
proposed regulation was published on December 30, 1999, as FHWA Docket 
No. 99-5844. The comment period on this proposed regulation closed on 
February 28, 2000. The US DOT is in the process of evaluating the 
comments received and expects to publish the final regulation by the 
middle of 2000.

                               DSRC PLANS

    Question. Which technology will be disadvantaged if the Department 
proceeds with its current DSRC plans?
    Answer. There currently exists a de facto standard for CVO 
applications. All of the 23 states deploying CVO technology have chosen 
the active approach. The DOT's proposed regulation would require that 
all future deployments continue to use the active approach. Thus, the 
current DSRC plans have the effect of disadvantaging the passive 
technology.

                             DSRC STANDARDS

    Question. Please discuss why the Department maintains that it must 
get involved in the DSRC standard, paying particular attention to 
regional considerations and cross country operations.
    Answer. Section 5206(c)(1) of TEA-21 states that:

          If the Secretary finds that the development or balloting of 
        an intelligent transportation system standard jeopardizes the 
        timely achievement of the objectives (interoperability), the 
        Secretary may establish a provisional standard after 
        consultation with affected parties, and using, to the extent 
        practicable, the work product of appropriate standards 
        development organizations.

    After several years of trying US DOT has concluded that the 
industry balloting process cannot nor will not achieve a standard for 
commercial vehicle operations and that the lack of a DSRC standard will 
result in non-interoperability among states and regions which are 
routinely traversed by commercial vehicles in interstate commerce.
    Section 5206(c)(2) goes on to state that:

          If a standard identified as critical in the report under 
        subsection (b) is not adopted and published by the appropriate 
        standards development organization by January 1, 2001, the 
        Secretary shall establish a provisional standard after 
        consultation with affected parties, and using, to the extent 
        practicable, the work product of appropriate standards 
        development organizations.

    The CVO application of DSRC is the only current use that is 
considered as necessary for national interoperability, as defined in 
the ``Critical Standards Report'' submitted to Congress on April.
    The objective of the CVO program is to allow vehicles that have 
good safety records to travel across the country without stopping for 
interstate or intrastate inspections. This goal can only be achieved if 
there is uniformity among the states in how the identification of 
vehicles is accomplished. Since, the industry has not been able to 
agree on a single standard for DSRC TEA-21 mandates that the DOT 
establish a provisional standard. The proposed provisional standard for 
DSRC would not apply to toll authorities, and thus, would not have any 
impact on regional toll operations.

                            TRIPLE LAYER TAG

    Question. How likely is it that any manufacturer will manufacture 
the triple layer tag that is likely to be specified by the Department?
    Answer. Both manufacturers of active DSRC devices have verbally 
indicated that they will manufacture the standard being proposed by the 
DOT.
                          NEXT GENERATION TAG

    Question. Would it be worth waiting until the next generation tag 
is developed before imposing a DSRC standard? What are the advantages 
and disadvantages of waiting?
    Answer. No. It is not worth waiting for the next generation DSRC 
device for three principal reasons.
    1. Even though the industry has begun talking about a standards for 
the next generation DSRC device at the higher frequency of 5.9 Giga 
Hertz, there is no assurance that we will actually have a single 
standard. We would likely end up with the same dilemma that exists 
today; a stalemate between the two technologies.
    2. We have no clear indication when the next generation devices 
will actually be developed, much less available for deployment. Thus, 
the states that are planning to deploy DSRC for CVO would not know 
whether to deploy or wait for the elusive next generation. It would 
substantially delay the deployment of CVISN.
    3. Right now, all states use the active transponder and have (or 
can achieve) technical interoperability. Waiting exposes the interstate 
commerce world to splitting the market between active and passive 
mode--with one set or the other being forced to give up their installed 
technology. By intervening now (as Congress directed in TEA-21) we 
avoid that problem.

                             MAILBOX SYSTEM

    Question. Previous reports have encouraged the DOT to advance the 
``mailbox'' system to catch drivers who violate out-of-service orders 
issued by MCSAP inspectors. What is the status of this system and what 
challenges, costs, and benefits are associated with its deployment? 
What progress have you made in implementing the directions regarding 
this technology that were specified in last year's conference report?
    Answer. The status is that currently over 3000 locations are 
receiving the necessary software to connect to the SAFER data mailbox. 
There are two problems delaying wide-spread implementation and use of 
the SAFER data mailbox. One is funding for wireless communication from 
the inspection location to the SAFER data mailbox. States are 
indicating that the lack of funding for communications is the major 
obstacle to implementation. Overall cost to get every state connected 
to the SDM is estimated between $7-8 million. We have developed a 
strategy to make it more cost-effective for the states to get previous 
inspection information under the Past Inspection Query (PIQ) routine. 
The states simply go through the PIQ instead of logging on and off of 
each system separately. We are in the process of implementing that 
strategy. The second is for institutional support from many of the 
states due to concern of data ownership. Some states are concerned 
about having their field officers upload inspections to the SAFER data 
mailbox before their supervisors have a chance to check the inspections 
for quality assurance. Through meetings with the states at a number of 
national forums, these institutional issues can be overcome. Those 
meetings are underway.
    In terms of benefits, the SDM has been very successful in many 
states, especially seven Eastern states. The SDM has allowed states to 
detect uncorrected out-of-service violations, identify falsified log 
books used to exceed safe hours of operation, and prevent duplicate 
inspections where there is no evidence of problems. A study published 
in 1998 showed that safety inspectors removed an additional 4,000 
unsafe drivers and vehicles attributable to advanced information 
systems. Connecticut, especially, has said that the overnight roadside 
information has proven helpful in focusing their attention on the high 
risk carriers. The SDM will be even more effective once the Unified 
Carrier Register (UCR) is operational. The UCR will provide intrastate 
carrier and commercial vehicle safety and credentials data that 
roadside inspectors can use to more effectively target high-risk 
operators.
    As a result of directions specified in last years conference report 
the strategy was developed that will allow states to query multiple 
data bases through one gateway. Also FMCSA is providing a grant to 
North Dakota to upgrade, distribute and maintain the PIQ software that 
will support that multiple query capability, with North Dakota as the 
lead state along the northern border.
    Question. What are your plans, if any, to encourage the development 
of a truly nationwide mailbox system?
    Answer. The SDM technology is fully functional and can be deployed 
nationwide. Any geographic areas where it is not functioning is due to 
local State institutional and communication infrastructure issues. Full 
deployment of a ``truly nationwide system'' requires considerable State 
infrastructure and commitment to use state-of-the-art wireless 
technology and communication protocols. The good news is that wireless 
technology is rapidly evolving and will become steadily easier to 
implement and widely available for use in State law enforcement. This 
will 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. Additional funding and State encouragement would accelerate 
State adoption of the SDM. We plan to meet with the states and 
encourage their commitment to participate in the SAFER data mailbox 
(SDM) program. We also plan to encourage states to consider using their 
2001 MCSAP funds to cover wireless communication costs. With our 
development of a system with a multiple query capability, states will 
be able to access through one gateway previous inspections, make 
registration decisions based upon safety history, check the overall 
carrier safety status, get insurance and licensing information, and 
make driver licensing queries. This will simplify the process and make 
the inspector more effective in carrying out enforcement 
responsibilities. This should help the states to justify the investment 
for remote communication capabilities.
    Question. How much is in your fiscal year 2000 spending plan to 
address this technological option?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2000, we are spending $500,000 to enhance 
and maintain the PIQ software.
    Question. How much is in your fiscal year 2001 budget request to 
address this technological option?
    Answer. The Department plans on using $100,000 out of its fiscal 
year 2001 ITS Budget SAFER request of $2,500,000 to provide enhanced 
land-line and mobile communications support to new SAFER data mailbox 
users. The Department's FMCSA fiscal year 2001 Budget request also 
includes funds to support the Field Systems Group's efforts in 
enhancing PIQ capabilities for streamlined access to multiple safety 
systems through the SDM.
    Question. What evidence do you have that the mailbox project has 
been successful?
    Answer. Identification of out-of-service violators has increased 
during the operation of the SAFER Data Mailbox (SDM). However, this 
increase is influenced by a number of factors and is not necessarily 
attributable to the SDM. Anecdotal information from individual users 
indicates that inspection queries to the SDM does help to identify 
violators, including offenders with out-of-service (OOS) violations and 
falsified log books that have been inspected earlier on the same trip. 
In addition, the anecdotal evidence that Connecticut and 6 other 
Northeastern states have had getting overnight roadside information 
through the SDM has proven helpful in focusing their attention on the 
high risk carriers.

          INSPECTIONS WITH VIOLATION OF AN OUT OF SERVICE ORDER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Total
                                                    inspections  Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997..............................................         923       .04
1998..............................................       1,105       .05
1999..............................................       1,654       .07

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS).
Note: Data does not include intrastate inspections.

                             CVISN PROJECTS

    Question. How many states have completed their CVISN project plan 
and ``top-level'' engineering design? How much of the fiscal year 2000 
budget will be used to help the states achieve that technological 
objective? How many states will be assisted during fiscal year 2001? 
What are the expected costs of those efforts?
    Answer. The two CVISN prototype states and eight pilot states 
completed their CVISN project plans and top-level designs in June 1997 
at a series of three workshops. The workshops are a week in length and 
spaced over a 9 month period of time. The first deals with scoping, to 
help the states to define the technical scope of CVISN and develop a 
partial CVISN system design. The second deals with planning, to begin 
the formal planning for the CVISN program. The third deals with design, 
to complete the detailed design of the system using the first two 
workshops as key building blocks.
    We initiated a second round of technical workshops in July 1999 and 
expect an additional 20 states to complete their CVISN project plans 
and top-level designs by the end of fiscal year 2000. The cost for 
those workshops conducted in fiscal year 2000 is estimated to be 
$467,000.
    We are planning to use $400,000 of fiscal year 2001 funds to 
sponsor a fourth round of CVISN deployment workshops for up to seven 
states that will begin during the third quarter of fiscal year 2001. In 
addition, the I-95 Corridor Coalition has agreed to sponsor a round of 
deployment workshops during fiscal year 2001 for up to six of its 
member states. As a result, we expect that up to 13 additional states 
will complete their CVISN project plans and top-level designs during 
fiscal year 2001.

                          CVO BORDER PROJECTS

    Question. Please discuss the purpose, status, challenges, and 
results of the federal investment in each of the CVO border projects. 
What are the fiscal year 2001 funding needs for each of those projects?
    Answer.
    Purpose.--The purpose of the CVO border projects was to demonstrate 
the feasibility of using ITS technology and Dedicated Short-Range 
Communication (DSRC) technology to facilitate trade and transportation 
at our international borders. This was demonstrated by installing ITS 
technology and DSRC at seven border crossing sites, in cooperation with 
the Treasury Department. Based on the field operational tests (FOTs) 
conducted at these seven sites, as well as the evaluations conducted of 
the tests, we believe we have accomplished our intended purpose and 
believe it is feasible to utilize ITS technology and DSRC at border 
crossings to facilitate trade and transportation.
    Status.--To date, DSRC and ITS technology has been installed at 
border crossings sites in Otay Mesa, CA., Nogales, AZ., El Paso, TX., 
Laredo, TX. (two sites), Detroit, MI., and Buffalo, NY. The Department 
is currently working with the Customs Service to specifically define an 
architecture and the general design for instrumenting a border 
crossing. An agreement was signed in September 1999 with US Customs to 
conduct a test of the International Border Clearance Safety System 
(IBCSS). The IBCSS communicates between the SAFER system and the 
National Customs Automation Prototype (NCAP). The tests have been held 
up due to Customs funding issues. It now appears that the tests will 
move ahead during fiscal year 2000. There are no funding expectations 
for fiscal year 2001 to complete the tests.
    Program Challenges.--There are numerous program challenges to 
achieving a seamless border environment that ensures safe and legal 
commercial motor vehicles. These include:
  --institutional challenges and impediments that have occurred with 
        getting cross-cutting, supportive budgets between USDOT and 
        Treasury;
  --coordination by Federal agencies for planning, funding and 
        deploying related border crossing initiatives;
  --Integration of disparate stakeholder processes (Federal, State, and 
        private);
  --Reliability of DSRC during the FOTs; and
  --North American Trade Automation Prototype to DSRC interface 
        stability.
    Results of Federal Investment & Funding Needs.--All the start-up 
and installation costs for existing FOTs were funded in previous years. 
The current focus of the IBCSS is on finalizing the testing safety 
screening capabilities at two border sites of Laredo, Texas and the 
Detroit Ambassador Bridge.
    Funds obligated in fiscal year 1998 were $1.125 million, and in 
fiscal year 1999 were $1.1 million to complete the safety system tests. 
No ITS funds were required in fiscal year 2000 or will be required in 
fiscal year 2001 for operational tests but emphasis will be placed on 
the TEA-21 Section 1118/1119 grant funds to the states for 
international border crossings and trade corridors, and completion of 
the IBCSS-SAFER tests at the border with Customs. This will feed into 
completion of a border architecture for future technology application. 
There will also be emphasis on the development of a simulation tool, in 
cooperation with other agencies, to measure the effects of proposed 
improvements. This will start in fiscal year 2000 and continue to the 
extent necessary in fiscal year 2001.
    The results of the federal investment can be summarized in an 
evaluation of the IBEX project at Otay Mesa, California by Booz-Allen 
and Hamilton. This evaluation focused on four major areas of interest: 
documentation of the level of system and component technical 
performance; assessment of the user acceptance of the technologies and 
services provided; estimation of the potential impacts to the trade 
community; and documentation of the institutional and technical lessons 
learned.
System Technical Performance
    While accurate statistical data regarding the technical performance 
of the IBEX system are not available, a number of conclusions regarding 
functionality can be made. As anticipated, the layout of an 
international border compound, and the operations within it, present a 
challenge in implementing current DSRC systems in a border environment. 
The large number of trucks operating in close proximity, often looping 
the inside of the compound going to and from secondary inspection 
facilities, place a premium on appropriate reader and antennae 
placement and tuning. In the import compound, the placement of the 
advance reader, and the tuning of one of the exit readers, resulted in 
both missed and extraneous transponder reads. The link between the DSRC 
system and the NATAP system, referred to as the TRAFIC hub, 
demonstrated that it was capable of providing communications between 
transponder-equipped vehicles and the Treasury prototype. However, 
review of system logs from both systems indicated a success rate of 
around 60 percent. Thus, while the technical feasibility of the concept 
was validated, success rates in excess of 90 percent would likely be 
required for the system to be of value to users.
User Acceptance
    Overall, carrier participants indicated that they liked the 
simplicity of the transponders. They also indicated that they saw a 
great deal of potential for enhancement of their operations using the 
technologies provided at the border and on their trucks. A common 
interviewee comment was that the provided technologies were capable and 
adequate to perform the intended purpose, but the processes surrounding 
the technology required further refinement. Participants generally 
agreed that the cost of technology is continually declining, and they 
do not believe that transponders and data entry devices will constitute 
a significant investment. Considering the perceived potential return in 
time savings and enhanced productivity, some initial investment was 
considered acceptable provided the process was not required to be 
duplicated on paper. The perception that the reengineering of the 
existing paper-based processing is of primary importance was echoed in 
the responses from participating customs brokers. The primary shipper 
concern was the degree to which the NATAP program and other automated 
data exchange programs could be integrated with their existing 
processes and systems. It should be noted that the commercial 
participants in this test take part in the maquiladora business model, 
and as such, represent highly integrated, cross-functional 
organizations consisting of companies operating under long-term 
relationships. Therefore, the feelings expressed by these respondents 
may not necessarily reflect those of other operating models.
Potential Impacts
    Test participants were asked to indicate what reduction in border 
crossing times that they perceived was achieved in using the services 
and technologies provided by the IBEX program in conjunction with 
NATAP. All respondents indicated that currently any time savings that 
may have occurred is tempered by the pre-processing time investment, 
and the preparation of all of the normal paper documentation that is 
still required in this phase of the NATAP test. Only when the NATAP 
test is moved to the next phase where paper documentation is not 
required do the respondents believe that they will be able to quantify 
any reduction in time required to move goods across the border. In 
general, participants interviewed believe that as congestion at the 
border increases that participation in automated pre-clearance programs 
will make the difference in the efficiency and competitiveness of their 
operations. One participant stated that benefits from the current 
process indicated that participation in the automated border crossing 
programs early will allow him to make business decisions based on the 
future character of the border rather than the current situation, once 
again, maintaining competitiveness in the market.
Lessons Learned
    The institutional environment within which international goods 
movement must take place is highly complex. This complexity has had two 
major impacts. The first is the travel delay stemming from the 
difficulty associated with processing goods, vehicles and drivers 
through the port in a timely manner. The second is the genesis of 
thriving commercial enterprises that prosper by capitalizing on the 
secondary effects of inefficient processing and increasing demand. As 
such, the implementation of systems such as IBEX and NATAP represent 
positive change from a border operations perspective, and potentially 
negative change from the perspective of the aforementioned commercial 
interests. Understandably, there is considerable skepticism regarding 
the near term success of such systems, especially as long as 
participation remains voluntary. This skepticism is, however, tempered 
by those companies who see themselves as forward-thinking, and are 
confident they can offer participation as a competitive advantage for 
clients.
                               CVO FUNDS

    Question. How were CVO funds used at the border during fiscal year 
2000?
    Answer. ITS funds from fiscal year 1999 are being used to complete 
the border operational tests on safety systems, being conducted in 
conjunction with U.S. Customs. No additional funds are anticipated in 
fiscal year 2000. The two tests are scheduled for completion in fiscal 
year 2000 but are dependent upon US Customs for information systems 
support. The support is contingent upon US Customs getting funding from 
Congress to conduct a prototype test of their new import system. Also 
in fiscal year 2000, a border crossing modeling tool will be developed 
to establish a baseline and to measure the benefits of ITS 
improvements. The tool is expected to be used to predict benefits and 
to assess the benefits once improvements have been made. The model tool 
will be built to use actual data from each border crossing being 
evaluated.

                          ITS DEPLOYMENT FUNDS

    Question. Please prepare a table showing the allocation of ITS 
deployment funds to the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 
recipients of Title V funds, being certain to show the amount used for 
integration activities and the amount used for CVISN projects.
    Answer. Attached are tables which list recipients of Title V ITS 
Deployment funds in fiscal year 1999 and projected recipients in fiscal 
year 2000. The tables also show, as requested, amounts allocated for 
CVISN and Integration activities.

                                                                  ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 1999 ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVE FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Congressionally    Designations                                                                                                                  Available for
                                   designated          exceed       Total authorized   Section 1102(f)      Subtotal           Project       Adjusted total     Available for      integration
                                     amounts       authorizations                            \1\                           evaluation \2\       available           CVISN          activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEA-21 Earmarks...............     $9,800,000.00       $836,585.37     $8,963,414.63     $1,048,719.51     $7,914,695.12       $113,067.07     $7,801,628.05  ................     $7,801,628.05
    Great Lakes ITS                 2,000,000.00       -170,731.71      1,829,268.29       -214,024.39      1,615,243.90        -32,304.88      1,582,939.02  ................      1,582,939.02
     Implementation...........
    Northeast ITS                   5,000,000.00       -426,829.27      4,573,170.73       -535,060.98      4,038,109.76        -80,762.20      3,957,347.56  ................      3,957,347.56
     Implementation...........
    Haz. Mat. Monitoring            1,500,000.00       -128,048.78      1,371,951.22       -160,518.29      1,211,432.93  ................      1,211,432.93  ................      1,211,432.93
     Systems..................
    Translink--Texas Transp.        1,300,000.00       -110,975.61      1,189,024.39       -139,115.85      1,049,908.54  ................      1,049,908.54  ................      1,049,908.54
     Inst.....................
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation    105,000,000.00     -8,963,414.63     96,036,585.37    -11,236,280.49     84,800,304.88     -1,696,006.10     83,104,298.78    $10,634,022.25     72,470,276.53
 Act..........................
    Amherst, Massachusetts....      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    Arlington County, Virginia        750,000.00        -64,024.39        685,975.61        -80,259.15        605,716.46        -12,114.33        593,602.13  ................        593,602.13
    Atlanta, Georgia..........      2,000,000.00       -170,731.71      1,829,268.29       -214,024.39      1,615,243.90        -32,304.88      1,582,939.02  ................      1,582,939.02
    Brandon, Vermont..........        375,000.00        -32,012.20        342,987.80        -40,129.57        302,858.23         -6,057.16        296,801.07  ................        296,801.07
    Buffalo, New York.........        500,000.00        -42,682.93        457,317.07        -53,506.10        403,810.98         -8,076.22        395,734.76  ................        395,734.76
    Centre Valley,                    500,000.00        -42,682.93        457,317.07        -53,506.10        403,810.98         -8,076.22        395,734.76  ................        395,734.76
     Pennsylvania.............
    Cleveland, Ohio...........      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    Columbus, Ohio............      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    Corpus Christi, Texas.....        900,000.00        -76,829.27        823,170.73        -96,310.98        726,859.76        -14,537.20        712,322.56  ................        712,322.56
    Dade County, Florida......      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    Del Rio, Texas............      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    Delaware River,                 1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
     Pennsylvania.............
    Fairfield, California.....      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    Fitchburg, Massachusetts..        500,000.00        -42,682.93        457,317.07        -53,506.10        403,810.98         -8,076.22        395,734.76  ................        395,734.76
    Greater Metro. Region--DC.      5,000,000.00       -426,829.27      4,573,170.73       -535,060.98      4,038,109.76        -80,762.20      3,957,347.56  ................      3,957,347.56
    Hammond, Louisiana........      4,000,000.00       -341,463.41      3,658,536.59       -428,048.78      3,230,487.80        -64,609.76      3,165,878.05  ................      3,165,878.05
    Houston, Texas............      2,000,000.00       -170,731.71      1,829,268.29       -214,024.39      1,615,243.90        -32,304.88      1,582,939.02  ................      1,582,939.02
    Huntington Beach,               1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
     California...............
    Huntsville, Alabama.......      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    Inglewood, California.....      1,500,000.00       -128,048.78      1,371,951.22       -160,518.29      1,211,432.93        -24,228.66      1,187,204.27  ................      1,187,204.27
    Jackson, Mississippi......      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    Kansas City, Missouri.....        500,000.00        -42,682.93        457,317.07        -53,506.10        403,810.98         -8,076.22        395,734.76  ................        395,734.76
    Laredo, Texas.............      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    Middlesboro, Kentucky.....      3,000,000.00       -256,097.56      2,743,902.44       -321,036.59      2,422,865.85        -48,457.32      2,374,408.54  ................      2,374,408.54
    Mission Viejo, California.      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    Mobile, Alabama...........      2,500,000.00       -213,414.63      2,286,585.37       -267,530.49      2,019,054.88        -40,381.10      1,978,673.78  ................      1,978,673.78
    Monroe County, New York...        400,000.00        -34,146.34        365,853.66        -42,804.88        323,048.78         -6,460.98        316,587.80  ................        316,587.80
    Montgomery, Alabama.......      1,250,000.00       -106,707.32      1,143,292.68       -133,765.24      1,009,527.44        -20,190.55        989,336.89  ................        989,336.89
    Nashville, Tennessee......        500,000.00        -42,682.93        457,317.07        -53,506.10        403,810.98         -8,076.22        395,734.76  ................        395,734.76
    New Orleans, Louisiana....      1,500,000.00       -128,048.78      1,371,951.22       -160,518.29      1,211,432.93        -24,228.66      1,187,204.27  ................      1,187,204.27
    New York City, New York...      2,500,000.00       -213,414.63      2,286,585.37       -267,530.49      2,019,054.88        -40,381.10      1,978,673.78  ................      1,978,673.78
    New York/Long Island, New       2,300,000.00       -196,341.46      2,103,658.54       -246,128.05      1,857,530.49        -37,150.61      1,820,379.88  ................      1,820,379.88
     York.....................
    Oakland County, Michigan..      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    Onandaga County, New York.        400,000.00        -34,146.34        365,853.66        -42,804.88        323,048.78         -6,460.98        316,587.80  ................        316,587.80
    Port Angeles, Washington..        500,000.00        -42,682.93        457,317.07        -53,506.10        403,810.98         -8,076.22        395,734.76  ................        395,734.76
    Raleigh-Wake County, NC...      2,000,000.00       -170,731.71      1,829,268.29       -214,024.39      1,615,243.90        -32,304.88      1,582,939.02  ................      1,582,939.02
    Riverside, California.....      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    San Francisco, California.      1,500,000.00       -128,048.78      1,371,951.22       -160,518.29      1,211,432.93        -24,228.66      1,187,204.27  ................      1,187,204.27
    Scranton, Pennsylvania....      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    Silicon Valley, California      1,500,000.00       -128,048.78      1,371,951.22       -160,518.29      1,211,432.93        -24,228.66      1,187,204.27  ................      1,187,204.27
    Spokane, Washington.......        450,000.00        -38,414.63        411,585.37        -48,155.49        363,429.88         -7,268.60        356,161.28  ................        356,161.28
    Springfield, Virginia.....        500,000.00        -42,682.93        457,317.07        -53,506.10        403,810.98         -8,076.22        395,734.76  ................        395,734.76
    St. Louis, Missouri.......        750,000.00        -64,024.39        685,975.61        -80,259.15        605,716.46        -12,114.33        593,602.13  ................        593,602.13
    State of Alaska...........      1,500,000.00       -128,048.78      1,371,951.22       -160,518.29      1,211,432.93        -24,228.66      1,187,204.27        350,000.00        837,204.27
    State of Idaho............      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51        350,000.00        441,469.51
    State of Maryland.........      2,500,000.00       -213,414.63      2,286,585.37       -267,530.49      2,019,054.88        -40,381.10      1,978,673.78      1,978,673.78  ................
    State of Minnesota........      7,100,000.00       -606,097.56      6,493,902.44       -759,786.59      5,734,115.85       -114,682.32      5,619,433.54      1,920,000.00      3,699,433.54
    State of Mississippi......      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51        350,000.00        441,469.51
    State of Missouri.........        500,000.00        -42,682.93        457,317.07        -53,506.10        403,810.98         -8,076.22        395,734.76        350,000.00         45,734.76
    State of Montana..........        700,000.00        -59,756.10        640,243.90        -74,908.54        565,335.37        -11,306.71        554,028.66        554,028.66  ................
    State of Nevada...........        575,000.00        -49,085.37        525,914.63        -61,532.01        464,382.62         -9,287.65        455,094.97        350,000.00        105,094.97
    State of New Jersey.......      3,000,000.00       -256,097.56      2,743,902.44       -321,036.59      2,422,865.85        -48,457.32      2,374,408.54        350,000.00      2,024,408.54
    State of New Mexico.......      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51        741,469.51         50,000.00
    State of New York.........      2,500,000.00       -213,414.63      2,286,585.37       -267,530.49      2,019,054.88        -40,381.10      1,978,673.78      1,729,850.30        248,823.48
    State of North Dakota.....      1,450,000.00       -123,780.49      1,326,219.51       -155,167.68      1,171,051.83        -23,421.04      1,147,630.79         50,000.00      1,097,630.79
    Commonwealth of                14,000,000.00     -1,195,121.95     12,804,878.05     -1,498,170.73     11,306,707.32       -226,134.15     11,080,573.17        350,000.00     10,730,573.17
     Pennsylvania.............
    State of Texas............      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51         50,000.00        741,469.51
    State of Utah.............      3,600,000.00       -307,317.07      3,292,682.93       -385,243.90      2,907,439.02        -58,148.78      2,849,290.24        200,000.00      2,649,290.24
    State of Washington.......      2,000,000.00       -170,731.71      1,829,268.29       -214,024.39      1,615,243.90        -32,304.88      1,582,939.02        610,000.00        972,939.02
    State of Wisconsin........      1,500,000.00       -128,048.78      1,371,951.22       -160,518.29      1,211,432.93        -24,228.66      1,187,204.27        350,000.00        837,204.27
    Temucula, California......        250,000.00        -21,341.46        228,658.54        -26,753.05        201,905.49         -4,038.11        197,867.38  ................        197,867.38
    Tucson, Arizona...........      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    Volusia County, Florida...      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
    Warren County, Virginia...        250,000.00        -21,341.46        228,658.54        -26,753.05        201,905.49         -4,038.11        197,867.38  ................        197,867.38
    Wausau-Stevens Point,           1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
     Wisconsin................
    Westchester/Putnam Co.,           500,000.00        -42,682.93        457,317.07        -53,506.10        403,810.98         -8,076.22        395,734.76  ................        395,734.76
     New  York................
    White Plains, New York....      1,000,000.00        -85,365.85        914,634.15       -107,012.20        807,621.95        -16,152.44        791,469.51  ................        791,469.51
                               =================================================================================================================================================================
Project Evaluations...........  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................      1,809,073.17      1,809,073.17  ................      1,809,073.17
                               =================================================================================================================================================================
      GRAND TOTAL.............    114,800,000.00     -9,800,000.00    106,000,000.00    -12,285,000.00     92,715,000.00  ................     92,715,000.00     10,634,022.25     82,080,977.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reduction (11.7 percent).
\2\ Reduction (2 percent).


                                                                  ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVE FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Congressionally    Designations                                                                                                                  Available for
                                   designated          exceed       Total authorized   Section 1102(f)      Subtotal           Project       Adjusted total     Available for      integration
                                     amounts       authorizations                            \1\                           evaluation \2\       available           CVISN          activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEA-21 Earmarks...............         9,800,000          -771,056         9,028,944        -1,164,734         7,864,210          -112,346         7,751,864  ................         7,751,864
    Great Lakes ITS                    2,000,000          -157,358         1,842,642          -237,701         1,604,941           -32,099         1,572,842  ................         1,572,842
     Implementation...........
    Northeast ITS                      5,000,000          -393,396         4,606,604          -594,252         4,012,352           -80,247         3,932,105  ................         3,932,105
     Implementation...........
    Haz. Mat. Monitoring               1,500,000          -118,019         1,381,981          -178,276         1,203,706  ................         1,203,706  ................         1,203,706
     Systems..................
    Translink--Texas Transp.           1,300,000          -102,283         1,197,717          -154,506         1,043,212  ................         1,043,212  ................         1,043,212
     Inst.....................
Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriation       112,850,000        -8,878,944       103,971,056       -13,412,266        90,558,790        -1,811,176        88,747,614         7,297,106        81,450,508
 Act..........................
    Albuquerque, New Mexico...         2,000,000          -157,358         1,842,642          -237,701         1,604,941           -32,099         1,572,842  ................         1,572,842
    Arapahoe County, Colorado.         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Branson, Missouri.........         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Central Pennsylvania......         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Charlotte, North Carolina.         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Chicago, Illinois.........         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    City of Superior & Douglas         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
     Co., Wisc................
    Clay County, Missouri.....           300,000           -23,604           276,396           -35,655           240,741            -4,815           235,926  ................           235,926
    Clearwater, Florida.......         3,500,000          -275,377         3,224,623          -415,976         2,808,647           -56,173         2,752,474  ................         2,752,474
    College Station, Texas....         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Central Ohio..............         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Commonwealth of Virginia..         4,000,000          -314,717         3,685,283          -475,402         3,209,882           -64,198         3,145,684         2,425,000           720,684
    Corpus Christi, Texas.....         1,500,000          -118,019         1,381,981          -178,276         1,203,706           -24,074         1,179,632  ................         1,179,632
    Delaware River,                    1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
     Pennsylvania.............
    Fairfield, California.....           750,000           -59,009           690,991           -89,138           601,853           -12,037           589,816  ................           589,816
    Fargo, North Dakota.......         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Florida Bay County,                1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
     Florida..................
    Fort Worth, Texas.........         2,500,000          -196,698         2,303,302          -297,126         2,006,176           -40,124         1,966,053  ................         1,966,053
    Grand Forks, North Dakota.           500,000           -39,340           460,660           -59,425           401,235            -8,025           393,211  ................           393,211
    Greater Metro. Capital             5,000,000          -393,396         4,606,604          -594,252         4,012,352           -80,247         3,932,105  ................         3,932,105
     Region, DC...............
    Greater Yellowstone,               1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
     Montana..................
    Houma, Louisiana..........         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Houston, Texas............         1,500,000          -118,019         1,381,981          -178,276         1,203,706           -24,074         1,179,632  ................         1,179,632
    Huntsville, Alabama.......           500,000           -39,340           460,660           -59,425           401,235            -8,025           393,211  ................           393,211
    Inglewood, California.....         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Jefferson County, Colorado         1,500,000          -118,019         1,381,981          -178,276         1,203,706           -24,074         1,179,632  ................         1,179,632
    Kansas City, Missouri.....         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Las Vegas, Nevada.........         2,800,000          -220,302         2,579,698          -332,781         2,246,917           -44,938         2,201,979  ................         2,201,979
    Los Angeles, California...         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Miami, Florida............         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Mission Viejo, California.         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Monroe County, New York...         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Nashville, Tennessee......         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Northeast Florida.........         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Oakland, California.......           500,000           -39,340           460,660           -59,425           401,235            -8,025           393,211  ................           393,211
    Oakland County, Michigan..         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Oxford, Mississippi.......         1,500,000          -118,019         1,381,981          -178,276         1,203,706           -24,074         1,179,632  ................         1,179,632
    Pennsylvania Turnpike, Pa.         2,500,000          -196,698         2,303,302          -297,126         2,006,176           -40,124         1,966,053  ................         1,966,053
    Pueblo, Colorado..........         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Puget Sound, Washington...         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Reno/Tahoe, California/              500,000           -39,340           460,660           -59,425           401,235            -8,025           393,211  ................           393,211
     Nevada...................
    Rensselaer County, New             1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
     York.....................
    Sacramento County,                 1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
     California...............
    Salt Lake City, Utah......         3,000,000          -236,038         2,763,962          -356,551         2,407,411           -48,148         2,359,263  ................         2,359,263
    San Francisco, California.         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Santa Clara, California...         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Santa Teresa, New Mexico..         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421           786,421  ................
    Seattle, Washington.......         2,100,000          -165,226         1,934,774          -249,586         1,685,188           -33,704         1,651,484  ................         1,651,484
    Shenandoah Valley,                 2,500,000          -196,698         2,303,302          -297,126         2,006,176           -40,124         1,966,053  ................         1,966,053
     Virginia.................
    Shreveport, Louisiana.....         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Silicon Valley, California         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Southeast Michigan........         2,000,000          -157,358         1,842,642          -237,701         1,604,941           -32,099         1,572,842  ................         1,572,842
    Spokane, Washington.......           500,000           -39,340           460,660           -59,425           401,235            -8,025           393,211  ................           393,211
    St. Louis, Missouri.......         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    State of Alabama..........         1,300,000          -102,283         1,197,717          -154,506         1,043,212           -20,864         1,022,347            40,000           982,347
    State of Alaska...........         3,000,000          -236,038         2,763,962          -356,551         2,407,411           -48,148         2,359,263               TBD         2,359,263
    State of Arizona..........         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421           786,421  ................
    State of Colorado.........         1,500,000          -118,019         1,381,981          -178,276         1,203,706           -24,074         1,179,632         1,179,632  ................
    State of Delaware.........         2,000,000          -157,358         1,842,642          -237,701         1,604,941           -32,099         1,572,842  ................         1,572,842
    State of Idaho............         2,000,000          -157,358         1,842,642          -237,701         1,604,941           -32,099         1,572,842           393,211         1,179,631
    State of Illinois.........         1,500,000          -118,019         1,381,981          -178,276         1,203,706           -24,074         1,179,632  ................         1,179,632
    State of Maryland.........         2,000,000          -157,358         1,842,642          -237,701         1,604,941           -32,099         1,572,842           900,000           672,842
    State of Minnesota........         7,000,000          -550,754         6,449,246          -831,953         5,617,293          -112,346         5,504,947  ................         5,504,947
    State of Montana..........         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421           786,421  ................
    State of Nebraska.........           500,000           -39,340           460,660           -59,425           401,235            -8,025           393,211  ................           393,211
    State of Oregon...........         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    State of Texas............         4,000,000          -314,717         3,685,283          -475,402         3,209,882           -64,198         3,145,684               TBD         3,145,684
    State of Vermont, Rural            1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
     Systems..................
    State of New Jersey and            2,000,000          -157,358         1,842,642          -237,701         1,604,941           -32,099         1,572,842  ................         1,572,842
     New York.................
    Statewide Transcom/                4,000,000          -314,717         3,685,283          -475,402         3,209,882           -64,198         3,145,684  ................         3,145,684
     Transmit, NJ.............
    Tacoma Puvallup,                     500,000           -39,340           460,660           -59,425           401,235            -8,025           393,211  ................           393,211
     Washington...............
    Thurston, Washington......         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
    Towamencin, Pennsylvania..           600,000           -47,208           552,792           -71,310           481,482            -9,630           471,853  ................           471,853
    Wausau-Stevens Pt. Wisc.           1,500,000          -118,019         1,381,981          -178,276         1,203,706           -24,074         1,179,632  ................         1,179,632
     Rapids, Wi...............
    Wayne County, Michigan....         1,000,000           -78,679           921,321          -118,850           802,470           -16,049           786,421  ................           786,421
                               =================================================================================================================================================================
Project Evaluations...........  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................         1,923,522         1,923,522  ................         1,923,522
                               =================================================================================================================================================================

      GRAND TOTAL.............       122,650,000        -9,650,000       113,000,000       -14,577,000        98,423,000  ................        98,423,000         7,297,106        91,125,894
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reduction (11.7 percent).
\2\ Reduction (2 percent).

                              CVO OUTREACH

    Question. Please specify the amounts that were spent or will be 
spent on outreach related to CVO during fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 
2000, and fiscal year 2001. What were the purposes of each activity and 
what was achieved? Please break down in detail your current or expected 
use of those monies on a project-by-project basis for fiscal year 1999.
    Answer. In fiscal year 1999, the FMCSA spent nearly $110,000 of ITS 
funds on outreach related to CVO. These funds were used to maintain the 
portable ITS/CVO kiosk and to ship it to and from 22 different 
requesters' sites ($45,000); to produce 250 compact disk versions of 
the portable ITS/CVO kiosk ($30,000); to replace a damaged ITS/CVO 
kiosk ($26,000); and to maintain the ITS/CVO website for document 
uploads and conversions ($8,000). No fiscal year 2000 or fiscal year 
2001 ITS funds will be spent on the ITS/CVO kiosk.
    In fiscal year's 2000 and 2001, the CVO program will coordinate 
outreach activities with the ITS Joint Program Office as part of the 
overall ITS program. Funds will be used, as part of the overall 
program, to provide CVO stakeholders printed publications, training 
materials, exhibit materials and presentations, as well as the linkage 
of the ITS CVO website to the ITS JPO website.

                          CVO MONIES ALLOCATED

    Question. Please break out in extensive detail how all of the CVO 
monies are expected to be allocated during fiscal year 2000. Please 
specify funds for all research, development, training, business plans, 
earmarks, operational tests, and IVI projects.
    Answer. The information on how all of the CVO funds for research, 
development, training, and operational tests are expected to be 
allocated during fiscal year 2000 is provided in the table below. We do 
not anticipate using any fiscal year 2000 CVO funds for business plans 
or IVI projects.

Research and Development:
    Safety Data Systems.................................      $2,650,000
    CVISN Support for Level 1 Deployment................       1,200,000
    Roadside Identification Technology..................         350,000
    Architecture Consistency............................       1,245,000
    Training............................................         900,000
    CVISN Pilots........................................       2,000,000

    In fiscal year 2000, the states identified in the table below, were 
selected by Congress to receive federal ITS earmarks. The table shows 
the fiscal year 2000 earmark, the total adjusted amount of federal ITS 
funds available to the state, and the amount of funds the state has 
agreed to use for supporting CVISN deployment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year   Adjusted total    Amount for
                              State                                2000 earmark      available         CVISN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................................................      $1,300,000      $1,022,347         $40,000
Alaska..........................................................       3,000,000       2,359,263         ( \1\ )
Arizona.........................................................       1,000,000         786,421         786,481
Colorado........................................................       1,500,000       1,179,632       1,179,632
Delaware........................................................       2,000,000       1,572,842  ..............
Idaho...........................................................       2,000,000       1,572,842         393,211
Illinois........................................................       1,500,000       1,179,632  ..............
Maryland........................................................       2,000,000       1,572,842         900,000
Minnesota.......................................................       7,000,000       5,504,947         ( \2\ )
Montana.........................................................       1,000,000         786,421         786,421
Nebraska........................................................         500,000         393,211         ( \3\ )
New Mexico-Santa Teresa.........................................       1,000,000         786,421         786,421
New York/New Jersey.............................................       2,000,000       1,572,842  ..............
Oregon..........................................................       1,000,000         786,421  ..............
Texas...........................................................       4,000,000       3,145,684         ( \1\ )
Vermont.........................................................       1,000,000         786,421  ..............
Virginia........................................................       4,000,000       3,145,684       2,425,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To be determined.
\2\ Minnesota used its fiscal year 1999 earmark to fully fund CVISN deployment. The state will not use any of
  its fiscal year 2000 earmark for CVISN deployment.
\3\ Nebraska is using its own state funds to support activities related to CVISN deployment in fiscal year 2000.

                           ITS SPENDING PLANS

    Question. Please prepare comparable fiscal year 2000 and requested 
fiscal year 2001 spending plans to demonstrate how and whether program 
continuity and completion of projects will be achieved.
    Answer.

                           FISCAL YEAR 1999 SPENDING PLAN FUNDING SOURCES AND BALANCES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Fiscal          Prior year
             Activity/project                 year   -------------------------   Total    Obligated  Unobligated
                                              1999    Unobligated  Recoveries  available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT..................    35,976      1,347          30       37,353     36,314      1,039
    TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL........     4,637      1,001          30        5,668      5,654         14
        Advanced Traffic Mgmt. Research...       265        375    ..........        640        640  ...........
            Adaptive Control System.......       265        375    ..........        640        640  ...........
                Chicago Evaluation........        15  ...........  ..........         15         15  ...........
                Ramp Metering.............       250        375    ..........        625        625  ...........
        Models............................     3,410        625          30        4,065      4,065  ...........
            TReL..........................     2,030  ...........        30        2,060      2,060  ...........
                DES.......................     1,310  ...........  ..........      1,310      1,310  ...........
                Onsite Support............       720  ...........        30          750        750  ...........
            TSIS--Enhancement and                850  ...........  ..........        850        850  ...........
             Maintenance..................
            TRANSIM.......................  ........        500    ..........        500        500  ...........
            Dynamic Traffic Assignment           150        125    ..........        275        275  ...........
             (DTA) System.................
                Lab Evaluation............       150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
                Site Testing..............  ........        125    ..........        125        125  ...........
            Computer Aided Design for            380  ...........  ..........        380        380  ...........
             Traffic Management Centers...
        ITS Deployment Analysis System           450  ...........  ..........        450        450  ...........
         (IDAS)...........................
        Other.............................       512          1    ..........        513        499         14
            ATMS Research Support Services       298  ...........  ..........        298        298  ...........
                Capacity and Level of             50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
                 Service..................
                Websites..................         8  ...........  ..........          8          8  ...........
                ATMS Models Workshop......         5  ...........  ..........          5          5  ...........
                Stand Alone Prediction            35  ...........  ..........         35         35  ...........
                 Model....................
                Support Services for FHWA        200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
                 Human Factors............
            Publications..................        84  ...........  ..........         84         84  ...........
            Turner-Fairbank Technical             65  ...........  ..........         65         65  ...........
             Support......................
            Other.........................        24          1    ..........         25         25  ...........
            IPA--Rudy Persaud, South              40  ...........  ..........         40         26         14
             Dakota DOT...................
    INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH..........    20,924          1    ..........     20,925     20,431        494
        Generation 0......................     8,859  ...........  ..........      8,859      8,859  ...........
            Performance Specifications....     1,650  ...........  ..........      1,650      1,650  ...........
                Objective Test Metrics....  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
                Driver Performance Data        1,650  ...........  ..........      1,650      1,650  ...........
                 Collection Field Tests...
            Generation 0 Field Tests......     6,400  ...........  ..........      6,400      6,400  ...........
                Generation 0 Field Tests..     6,000  ...........  ..........      6,000      6,000  ...........
                Evaluations--0 Field Tests       400  ...........  ..........        400        400  ...........
            Cross-Cutting.................       809  ...........  ..........        809        809  ...........
                Special Vehicle Needs            309  ...........  ..........        309        309  ...........
                 Assessment...............
                Develop C/B Methodology...       500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
        Generation 1......................     9,499  ...........  ..........      9,499      9,499  ...........
            Performance Specifications....     3,549  ...........  ..........      3,549      3,549  ...........
                Rear-end Performance             601  ...........  ..........        601        601  ...........
                 Specifications...........
                Roadway Departure                250  ...........  ..........        250        250  ...........
                 Performance
                 Specifications...........
                Lane Change/Merge                150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
                 Performance
                 Specifications...........
                Int. and Fleet Test of           600  ...........  ..........        600        600  ...........
                 Safety Critical Systems..
                Drowsy Driver DVI.........       100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
                EBS.......................       150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
                Test Multi Trailer               498  ...........  ..........        498        498  ...........
                 Stability--Reaward Amp.
                 Suppression Sys..........
                Transit LC/M Performance         300  ...........  ..........        300        300  ...........
                 Specifications...........
                Transit Rear End                 550  ...........  ..........        550        550  ...........
                 Performance
                 Specifications...........
                Transit Rear Impact              350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
                 Performance
                 Specifications...........
            Field Tests...................     5,550  ...........  ..........      5,550      5,550  ...........
                Rear-end CAS Field Test...     4,850  ...........  ..........      4,850      4,850  ...........
                Drowsy Driver Field Test         600  ...........  ..........        600        600  ...........
                 (NHTSA)..................
                Drowsy Driver Field Test         100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
                 (MCS)....................
            Cross-Cutting.................       400  ...........  ..........        400        400  ...........
                Lane Change Workshop......       150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
                HF Multi System                  250  ...........  ..........        250        250  ...........
                 Integration..............
        Generation 2......................       499  ...........  ..........        499        499  ...........
            Performance Specifications....       250  ...........  ..........        250        250  ...........
                Vision Enhancement          ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
                 Performance
                 Specifications...........
                Intersection Performance         250  ...........  ..........        250        250  ...........
                 Specifica-  tions........
            Cross-Cutting.................       249  ...........  ..........        249        249  ...........
                Sensor Friendly Roadway...       249  ...........  ..........        249        249  ...........
        Support...........................     2,066          1    ..........      2,067      1,573        494
            TRB Review....................       175  ...........  ..........        175        175  ...........
            Program Support (Incl.               494  ...........  ..........        494  .........        494
             Mitretek)....................
            NHTSA Support.................       400  ...........  ..........        400        400  ...........
            Transit Support...............       150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
            Human Factors Support.........       367          1    ..........        368        368  ...........
            Turner-Fairbank Technical             88  ...........  ..........         88         88  ...........
             Support......................
            ITS America...................        87  ...........  ..........         87         87  ...........
            Publications..................       305  ...........  ..........        305        305  ...........
        AHS Lessons Learned...............  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        Adjustments Required..............  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
    RURAL RESEARCH........................       985        122    ..........      1,107        610        497
        Rural ITS Support.................       407        119    ..........        526        526  ...........
        Decision Support Systems..........  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        Rural Conference..................        30  ...........  ..........         30         30  ...........
        Peer-to-Peer......................  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        Publications, etc.................  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        Turner-Fairbank Technical Support.        44  ...........  ..........         44         44  ...........
        Rural Weather Show................  ........          3    ..........          3          3  ...........
        Manassas Intersection Coll.                7  ...........  ..........          7          7  ...........
         Warning Sys......................
        Rural PR's for No Cost Contract     ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
         Modifications....................
        Rural/Weather Requirements........       497  ...........  ..........        497  .........        497
    APTS RESEARCH.........................       988  ...........  ..........        988        988  ...........
        Advanced Fleet Management Research       400  ...........  ..........        400        400  ...........
        Traveler Information & ADA               180  ...........  ..........        180        180  ...........
         Compatibility....................
        Welfare to Work (Planning)........       200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
        General and Technical Staff              200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
         Support..........................
        Publications......................         8  ...........  ..........          8          8  ...........
    COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS.........     7,192        100    ..........      7,292      7,268         24
        Safety Data Systems (Includes 3rd      3,005  ...........  ..........      3,005      3,005  ...........
         Mailbox).........................
        CVISN Support for Level 1              1,600  ...........  ..........      1,600      1,600  ...........
         Deployment.......................
        Architecture Consistency..........     1,000        100    ..........      1,100      1,100  ...........
            Architecture Consistency             800  ...........  ..........        800        800  ...........
             (Other)......................
            Freight Arch. Consistency.....       200        100    ..........        300        300  ...........
        CVO Technical Assistance..........       500  ...........  ..........        500        476         24
            CVO Technical Assistance--           350  ...........  ..........        350        326         24
             (Other)......................
            CVO Technical Assistance--           150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
             Freight......................
        CVISN Technical Training..........       998  ...........  ..........        998        998  ...........
        Publications......................        89  ...........  ..........         89         89  ...........
    INTERMODAL FREIGHT RESEARCH...........       500         10    ..........        510        500         10
        Operational Test--Facilitate             500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
         Movement of Intermodal Freight...
        TRB Conference on Intermodal        ........         10    ..........         10  .........         10
         Freight..........................
    ENABLING RESEARCH.....................       600        114    ..........        714        714  ...........
        DSRC Spectrum Issues..............       450         58    ..........        508        508  ...........
        Spectrum Consulting Services......       150         50    ..........        200        200  ...........
        Publications......................  ........          1    ..........          1          1  ...........
        State & Local Use of GPS..........  ........          5    ..........          5          5  ...........
    FREIGHT RESEARCH......................       150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
OPERATIONAL TESTS.........................     7,080      2,089         724        9,894      5,040      4,854
    APTS OPERATIONAL TESTS................     1,000  ...........  ..........      1,000      1,000  ...........
        Electronic Payment System for          1,000  ...........  ..........      1,000      1,000  ...........
         Transit & Other  App.............
    CVO OPERATIONAL TESTS.................     2,000      1,000    ..........      3,000      2,890        110
        CVISN Pilots......................     2,000      1,000    ..........      3,000      2,890        110
    RURAL OPERATIONAL TESTS...............     2,289        361    ..........      2,650      1,150      1,500
        National Park ServiceField               639        361    ..........      1,000  .........      1,000
         Operational Test.................
        Emergency Services Field                 650  ...........  ..........        650        650  ...........
         Operational Test.................
        Rural Transit Coordination Field         500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
         Operational Test.................
        Multistate Traveler Information...       500  ...........  ..........        500  .........        500
    OPERATIONAL TESTS CONTINGENCIES.......     1,791        728         724        3,244  .........      3,244
EVALUATION/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT.............     5,510        634    ..........      6,145      6,145  ...........
    EVALUATIONS...........................     3,558        634    ..........      4,192      4,192  ...........
        MMDI..............................       626         17    ..........        643        643  ...........
        CVISN.............................       500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
        FOT Crosscutting Analyses.........       567        483    ..........      1,050      1,050  ...........
        Rural FOT's.......................       805  ...........  ..........        805        805  ...........
        Intermodal Freight Evaluation.....       150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
        APTS Field Operational Test              200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
         Evaluations......................
            APTS Field Operational Test          160  ...........  ..........        160        160  ...........
             Evaluations..................
            APTS Operational Tests                40  ...........  ..........         40         40  ...........
             Evaluations (FTA)............
        Highway-Rail Evaluations..........       100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
        ADUS Support......................       200         75    ..........        275        275  ...........
        Publications......................  ........         59    ..........         59         59  ...........
        JPL Support.......................       410  ...........  ..........        410        410  ...........
        PROGRAM ASSESSMENT................     1,952  ...........  ..........      1,952      1,952  ...........
        ITS Deployment Tracking...........       755  ...........  ..........        755        755  ...........
            Metro.........................       650  ...........  ..........        650        650  ...........
            Rural.........................  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            CVISN Deployment Tracking.....       105  ...........  ..........        105        105  ...........
            JPL Support--Program Tracking.        50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
        ITS Policy Assessment.............     1,147  ...........  ..........      1,147      1,147  ...........
        Volpe Support to Assessment.......       880  ...........  ..........        880        880  ...........
            MMDI Expectations & Final            300  ...........  ..........        300        300  ...........
             Report.......................
            ATIS Conference...............       100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
            CVISN Institutional Issues            50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
             Final Repo...................
            Review CVISN Business                100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
             Practices....................
            MMDI Customer Satisfaction            50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
             Guidance.....................
            Analytical Support for                50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
             Metropolitan Track ing.......
            Volpe B/C of MMDI.............       230  ...........  ..........        230        230  ...........
            Evaluation Guidelines Support.  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        Volpe Support to Director JPO.....       267  ...........  ..........        267        267  ...........
            National Program Plan.........       155  ...........  ..........        155        155  ...........
            General Policy Support........  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            ALERT.........................        50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
            SENTRI........................        62  ...........  ..........         62         62  ...........
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS................    14,429         23    ..........     14,452     13,702        750
    ARCHITECTURE..........................     5,630         23    ..........      5,653      5,533        120
        Architecture Deployment/               2,825         23    ..........      2,848      2,848  ...........
         Implementation Support...........
            Deployment/Implementation            800  ...........  ..........        800        800  ...........
             Support......................
            Architecture Standards               800  ...........  ..........        800        800  ...........
             Development Sup port.........
            Architecture Data Base/              500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
             Configuration Control Support
            Architecture Documentation (CD        98  ...........  ..........         98         98  ...........
             ROM/Web/Doc/Printing)........
            Architecture Tool Development        377         23    ..........        400        400  ...........
             (Turbo Architecture).........
            Architecture Consistency             250  ...........  ..........        250        250  ...........
             Support......................
        Rural User Service Architecture          400  ...........  ..........        400        400  ...........
         Development Efforts..............
        Planning Data/Archiving                  399  ...........  ..........        399        399  ...........
         Architecture Changes.............
        Architecture Eng. Maint. Support..       285  ...........  ..........        285        285  ...........
        Architecture Training (Deployment        926  ...........  ..........        926        926  ...........
         and Implementation Tng.).........
        CVO Architecture..................       675  ...........  ..........        675        675  ...........
            CVO Architecture--Other.......       375  ...........  ..........        375        375  ...........
            CVO Architecture--Freight.....       300  ...........  ..........        300        300  ...........
        Publications......................  ........          1    ..........          1          1  ...........
        Turbo Architecture................       120  ...........  ..........        120  .........        120
    STANDARDS.............................     8,799  ...........  ..........      8,799      8,169        630
        Research and Development..........       594  ...........  ..........        594        594  ...........
            In-vehicle ICON...............       594  ...........  ..........        594        594  ...........
        STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT.............     4,150  ...........  ..........      4,150      4,020        130
            Infrastructure and Safety.....     1,290  ...........  ..........      1,290      1,290  ...........
                Infrastructure and Safety.     1,190  ...........  ..........      1,190      1,190  ...........
                Standards Strategic Plan..       100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
            CVO (EDI).....................       500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
            Transit.......................     1,200  ...........  ..........      1,200      1,200  ...........
                ISO TC 204 WG 8 Support          150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
                 via Volpe................
                Multi-Use Smart Card             300  ...........  ..........        300        300  ...........
                 Guidelines/ Specs........
                Other Transit Standards...       550  ...........  ..........        550        550  ...........
                Transit Standards                200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
                 Consortium to TSC........
            Rail Standards Development....       200  ...........  ..........        200         70        130
            Architectural Support.........       200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
            JPL...........................       760  ...........  ..........        760        760  ...........
        TESTING AND INTEROPERABILITY......     2,300  ...........  ..........      2,300      2,300  ...........
            Interoperability Testing           1,800  ...........  ..........      1,800      1,800  ...........
             Support......................
            Data Registration.............       500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
        IMPLEMENTATION....................     1,255  ...........  ..........      1,255      1,255  ...........
            Resource Materials............       670  ...........  ..........        670        670  ...........
            Lessons Learned...............       300  ...........  ..........        300        300  ...........
            Evaluation of Standards              285  ...........  ..........        285        285  ...........
             Implementation...............
        STANDARDS CONTINGENCIES...........       500  ...........  ..........        500  .........        500
INTEGRATION...............................     5,676        925         681        7,282      5,325      1,957
    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE..................     2,950        142         456        3,548      2,516      1,032
        Information and Technology             1,358        142          65        1,565      1,566  ...........
         Transfer.........................
            Specifications and Contract          100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
             Management...................
                Work Program Scoping        ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
                 Effort...................
                S&C Management Product           100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
                 Develop ment.............
            Tailored Technical Assistance.       800         50    ..........        850        850  ...........
                Peer-to-Peer..............  ........         50    ..........         50         50  ...........
                Service Plan Support......       800  ...........  ..........        800        800  ...........
                    Service Plan Support--       696  ...........  ..........        696        696  ...........
                 Transfer to Resource
                 Centers..................
                    Other Service Plan           104  ...........  ..........        104        104  ...........
                 Projects (NHI Training
                 Courses).................
            DTAG, RTAG, APTS Stakeholders.       100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
                FTA--DTAG, RTAG< APTS            100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
                 Stakehold-  ers..........
            Quick Response................         8  ...........  ..........          8          8  ...........
            Contracts Support.............        70  ...........  ..........         70         70  ...........
            Concept of Operation for TMC's       100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
             (A Cook book)................
            Case Studies..................       180  ...........  ..........        180        180  ...........
                Technology for                   120  ...........  ..........        120        120  ...........
                 Surveillance and
                 Detection................
                ITS Work Zone Applications        60  ...........  ..........         60         60  ...........
            Morgan Room Support...........  ........         92          45          137        137  ...........
            GMC ITS Priority Corridor       ........  ...........        20           20         20  ...........
             Information Clearinghouse....
        Transit Technical Assistance......       950  ...........  ..........        950        950  ...........
            Technical Asst. to Transit           225  ...........  ..........        225        225  ...........
             Authorities..................
            Peer-to-Peer Program Support..       125  ...........  ..........        125        125  ...........
            ITSA APTS Info. Exchange &           100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
             Program Development..........
            APTS Mobile Showcase..........       500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
        Systems Engineering Guidance             100  ...........  ..........        100  .........        100
         Documents........................
        P.B. Farradyne IQC................  ........  ...........       391          391  .........        391
        PTI Earmark.......................       442  ...........  ..........        442  .........        442
        AASHTO Steering Group for                100  ...........  ..........        100  .........        100
         Technology Deploy ment...........
    PLANNING/POLICY.......................       450  ...........  ..........        450        350        100
        Management and Operations in             350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
         Planning.........................
            Management & Operations              350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
             Product Development..........
        Traveler Response to Advanced            100  ...........  ..........        100  .........        100
         Travel Informa-  tion............
            FHWA--Traveler Response to            50  ...........  ..........         50  .........         50
             Advanced Travel Information..
            FTA--Traveler Response to             50  ...........  ..........         50  .........         50
             Advanced Travel Information..
    TRAINING..............................     1,559        747         225        2,531      1,931        600
        Delivery..........................       615        735         225        1,575      1,450        125
            ITS Software Acquisition......        40  ...........  ..........         40         30         10
            Lessons in Procurement........  ........  ...........       225          225        225  ...........
            CORSIM........................        15  ...........  ..........         15  .........         15
            Continuation of Existing             160  ...........  ..........        160        160  ...........
             Courses......................
            Delivery of Materials.........  ........         35    ..........         35         35  ...........
            Standards (NTCIP, TCIP).......  ........        700    ..........        700        700  ...........
                Standards (NTCIP, TCIP)--   ........        384    ..........        384        384  ...........
                 FHWA.....................
                Standards (NTCIP-TCIP)--    ........        316    ..........        316        316  ...........
                 FTA......................
            Distance Learning Pilots......       350  ...........  ..........        350        300         50
            Architecture Training Course          50  ...........  ..........         50  .........         50
             (Field Travel, etc.).........
        New Course Development............       500  ...........  ..........        500        300        200
            FHWA--New Course Development..       200  ...........  ..........        200  .........        200
            FTA--New Course Development...       300  ...........  ..........        300        300  ...........
        Update Existing Materials.........        33         12    ..........         45         45  ...........
            Update Existing Materials--           23         12    ..........         35         35  ...........
             FHWA.........................
            Update Existing Material--            10  ...........  ..........         10         10  ...........
             Transfer to FTA..............
        Support at NHI....................       161  ...........  ..........        161        136         25
        Consultant Management.............       250  ...........  ..........        250  .........        250
    OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONS...........       717         37    ..........        754        528        225
        Shipping and Handling Exhibits....       117         17    ..........        134        134  ...........
        New Exhibit Development...........       125  ...........  ..........        125        125  ...........
        National Associations Working            150         20    ..........        170        170  ...........
         Group (NAWG).....................
        National Governors' Association          100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
         Initiative.......................
        JPO Web-Based Activities..........       225  ...........  ..........        225  .........        225
            ITS Cooperative Deployment           225  ...........  ..........        225  .........        225
             Network......................
PROGRAM SUPPORT...........................     8,566        674         226        9,465      5,494      3,971
    ITS AMERICA...........................     2,777  ...........  ..........      2,777      2,775          2
        ITS AMERICA--Regular Contract.....     2,500  ...........  ..........      2,500      2,500  ...........
        Development of a Strategic Plan--        247  ...........  ..........        247        247  ...........
         ITS America......................
        ITSA Annual Meeting (Registration         30  ...........  ..........         30         27          3
         Fees)............................
    MITRETEK..............................     4,970        530         217        5,717      1,811      3,906
    JPL SUPPORT...........................       380  ...........  ..........        380        380  ...........
    MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL SUPPORT.......        86  ...........  ..........         86         86  ...........
        Kan Chen..........................        11  ...........  ..........         11         11  ...........
        MITRE (Chadwick)..................        75  ...........  ..........         75         75  ...........
    GENERAL PROGRAM SUPPORT...............       352        144           9          505        442         63
        C&P Contractual Support...........       150  ...........  ..........        150        150  ...........
        Columbia Services Computer Support        28  ...........  ..........         28         28  ...........
        Arrowhead Industries..............        96  ...........  ..........         96         96  ...........
        Other Misc. Program Support.......        33         81           9          123        123  ...........
        FCC Shared Resources..............        45  ...........  ..........         45         45  ...........
        TASC--Traveler Information Center.  ........         35    ..........         35  .........         35
        Unfunded Interest Payments........  ........         28    ..........         28  .........         28
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES.................    92,715      2,610       3,522       98,847     71,929     26,918
    FISCAL YEAR 1998 CONGRESSIONAL          ........      2,610       3,522        6,132      3,563      2,569
     EARMARKS.............................
        Northeast Corridor................  ........        110       3,522        3,632      2,563      1,069
        Commercial Vehicle Operations, I-5  ........      1,500    ..........      1,500  .........      1,500
         California.......................
        Dade County Expressway, Florida     ........      1,000    ..........      1,000      1,000  ...........
         Toll Collection System...........
        Rennselaer Polytechnical Institute  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
         (RPI)............................
    FISCAL YEAR 1999 CONGRESSIONAL             7,802  ...........  ..........      7,802      7,052        750
     EARMARKS--TEA-21.....................
        Great Lakes ITS Implementation....     1,583  ...........  ..........      1,583      1,583  ...........
        Northeast ITS Implementation......     3,957  ...........  ..........      3,957      3,207        750
        Hazardous Materials Monitoring         1,211  ...........  ..........      1,211      1,211  ...........
         Systems..........................
        Translink--Texas Transportation        1,050  ...........  ..........      1,050      1,050  ...........
         Institute........................
    FISCAL YEAR 1999 CONGRESSIONAL            83,104  ...........  ..........     83,104     59,505     23,599
     EARMARKS-- APPNS.....................
        Amherst, Massachusetts............       791  ...........  ..........        791  .........        791
        Arlington County, Virginia........       594  ...........  ..........        594        594  ...........
        Atlanta, Georgia..................     1,583  ...........  ..........      1,583      1,583  ...........
        Brandon, Vermont..................       297  ...........  ..........        297        297  ...........
        Buffalo, New York.................       396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
        Centre Valley, Pennsylvania.......       396  ...........  ..........        396  .........        396
        Cleveland, Ohio...................       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Columbus, Ohio....................       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Corpus Christi, Texas.............       712  ...........  ..........        712        712  ...........
        Dade County, Florida..............       791  ...........  ..........        791  .........        791
        Del Rio, Texas....................       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Delaware River, Pennsylvania......       791  ...........  ..........        791  .........        791
        Fairfield, California.............       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Fitchburg, Massachusetts..........       396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
        Greater Metro. Region--DC.........     3,957  ...........  ..........      3,957      3,957  ...........
        Hammond, Louisiana................     3,166  ...........  ..........      3,166  .........      3,166
        Houston, Texas....................     1,583  ...........  ..........      1,583      1,583  ...........
        Huntington Beach, California......       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Huntsville, Alabama...............       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Inglewood, California.............     1,187  ...........  ..........      1,187      1,187  ...........
        Jackson, Mississippi..............       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Kansas City, Missouri.............       396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
        Laredo, Texas.....................       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Middlesboro, Kentucky.............     2,374  ...........  ..........      2,374      2,374  ...........
        Mission Viejo, California.........       791  ...........  ..........        791  .........        791
        Mobile, Alabama...................     1,979  ...........  ..........      1,979      1,979  ...........
        Monroe County, New York...........       317  ...........  ..........        317        317  ...........
        Montgomery, Alabama...............       989  ...........  ..........        989        989  ...........
        Nashville, Tennessee..............       396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
        New Orleans, Louisiana............     1,187  ...........  ..........      1,187  .........      1,187
        New York City, New York...........     1,979  ...........  ..........      1,979      1,979  ...........
        New York/Long Island, New York....     1,820  ...........  ..........      1,820      1,820  ...........
        Oakland County, Michigan..........       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Onandaga County, New York.........       317  ...........  ..........        317  .........        317
        Port Angeles, Washington..........       396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
        Raleigh-Wake County, North             1,583  ...........  ..........      1,583      1,583  ...........
         Carolina.........................
        Riverside, California.............       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        San Francisco, California.........     1,187  ...........  ..........      1,187      1,187  ...........
        Scranton, Pennsylvania............       791  ...........  ..........        791  .........        791
        Silicon Valley, California........     1,187  ...........  ..........      1,187      1,187  ...........
        Spokane, Washington...............       356  ...........  ..........        356        356  ...........
        Springfield, Virginia.............       396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
        St. Louis, Missouri...............       594  ...........  ..........        594        594  ...........
        State of Alaska...................     1,187  ...........  ..........      1,187        350        837
            Alaska--CVO Deployment........       350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
            Alaska--Metro/Rural...........       837  ...........  ..........        837  .........        837
        State of Idaho....................       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
            Idaho--CVO Deployment.........       350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
            Idaho--Metro/Rural............       441  ...........  ..........        441        441  ...........
        State of Maryland--CVO Deployment.     1,979  ...........  ..........      1,979      1,979  ...........
        State of Minnesota................     5,619  ...........  ..........      5,619      5,619  ...........
            Minnesota--CVO Deployment.....     1,920  ...........  ..........      1,920      1,920  ...........
            Minnesota--Metro/Rural........     3,699  ...........  ..........      3,699      3,699  ...........
        State of Mississippi..............       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
            Mississippi--CVO Deployment...       350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
            Mississippi--Metro/Rural......       441  ...........  ..........        441        441  ...........
        State of Missouri.................       396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
            Missouri--CVO Deployment......       350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
            Missouri--Metro/Rural.........        46  ...........  ..........         46         46  ...........
        State of Montana..................       554  ...........  ..........        554        554  ...........
            Montana--CVO Deployment.......       554  ...........  ..........        554        554  ...........
            Montana--Metro/Rural..........  ........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        State of Nevada...................       455  ...........  ..........        455        105        350
            Nevada--CVO Deployment........       350  ...........  ..........        350  .........        350
            Nevada--Metro/Rural...........       105  ...........  ..........        105        105  ...........
        State of New Jersey...............     2,374  ...........  ..........      2,374      2,374  ...........
            New Jersey--CVO Deployment....       350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
            New Jersey--Metro/Rural.......     2,024  ...........  ..........      2,024      2,024  ...........
        State of New Mexico...............       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
            New Mexico--CVO Deployment....       741  ...........  ..........        741        741  ...........
            New Mexico--Metro/Rural.......        50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
        State of New York.................     1,979  ...........  ..........      1,979      1,312        667
            New York--CVO Deployment......     1,730  ...........  ..........      1,730      1,063        667
            New York--Metro/Rural.........       249  ...........  ..........        249        249  ...........
        State of North Dakota.............     1,148  ...........  ..........      1,148        297        851
            North Dakota--CVO Deployment..        50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
            North Dakota--Metro/Rural.....     1,098  ...........  ..........      1,098        247        851
                North Dakota State               247  ...........  ..........        247        247  ...........
                 University (ATAC)........
                North Dakota State Univ.--       302  ...........  ..........        302  .........        302
                 ATAC.....................
                Univ. of North Dakota--          549  ...........  ..........        549  .........        549
                 ATWIS....................
        Commonwealth of Pennsylvania......    11,081  ...........  ..........     11,081  .........     11,081
            CVO Deployment................       350  ...........  ..........        350  .........        350
            Metro/Rural...................    10,731  ...........  ..........     10,731  .........     10,731
        State of Texas....................       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
            Texas--CVO Deployment.........        50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
            Texas--Metro/Rural............       741  ...........  ..........        741        741  ...........
        State of Utah.....................     2,849  ...........  ..........      2,849      2,849  ...........
            Utah--CVO Deployment..........       200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
            Utah--Metro/Rural.............     2,649  ...........  ..........      2,649      2,649  ...........
        State of Washington...............     1,583  ...........  ..........      1,583      1,583  ...........
            Washington--CVO Deployment....       610  ...........  ..........        610        610  ...........
            Washington--Metro/Rural.......       973  ...........  ..........        973        973  ...........
        State of Wisconsin................     1,187  ...........  ..........      1,187      1,187  ...........
            Wisconsin--CVO Deployment.....       350  ...........  ..........        350        350  ...........
            Wisconsin--Metro/Rural........       837  ...........  ..........        837        837  ...........
        Temucula, California..............       198  ...........  ..........        198        198  ...........
        Tucson, Arizona...................       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Volusia County, Florida...........       791  ...........  ..........        791  .........        791
        Warren County, Virginia...........       198  ...........  ..........        198        198  ...........
        Wausau-Stevens Point, Wisconsin...       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
        Westchester/Putnam Counties, New         396  ...........  ..........        396        396  ...........
         York.............................
        White Plains, New York............       791  ...........  ..........        791        791  ...........
    EVALUATIONS OF EARMARKED PROJECTS.....     1,809  ...........  ..........      1,809      1,809  ...........
NATIONAL ADVANCED DRIVER SIMULATOR........     6,648  ...........  ..........      6,648      6,648  ...........
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTALS........................   176,600      8,303       5,183      190,086    150,596     39,489
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           FISCAL YEAR 2000 SPENDING PLAN FUNDING SOURCES AND BALANCES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Prior year
             Activity/project                Fiscal  -------------------------   Total    Obligated  Unobligated
                                           year 2000  Unobligated  Recoveries  available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.................     40,901      1,149    ..........     42,049      3,869      38,180
    TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL.......      6,200         14    ..........      6,214      1,439       4,775
        Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA)       1,900  ...........  ..........      1,900  .........       1,900
         System..........................
        Adaptive Control Systems Lite....        250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
        Pedestrian Detection.............        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
        Models...........................      1,525  ...........  ..........      1,525        800         725
            ITS Deployment Analysis              175  ...........  ..........        175         50         125
             System  (IDAS)..............
                ITS Deployment Analysis           50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
                 System (IDAS)
                 Development.............
                ITS Deployment Analysis          125  ...........  ..........        125  .........         125
                 System (IDAS)
                 Maintenance.............
            Traffic Software Integrated        1,350  ...........  ..........      1,350        750         600
             System (TSIS)...............
                Support for TSIS Version         750  ...........  ..........        750        750  ...........
                 5.0 Model Deployment....
                CORSIMS Reengineering....        600  ...........  ..........        600  .........         600
        Traffic Research Lab.(TReL) Test       1,537  ...........  ..........      1,537        320       1,217
         Bed Devel. & Supp...............
        Human Factors....................        555  ...........  ..........        555        220         335
            Human Factors Computer Aided         220  ...........  ..........        220        220  ...........
             Design (CAD) for TMC's......
            Advanced Traffic Mgmt.               100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Systems (ATMS) Support......
            Traffic Mgmt. Centers (TMC)           35  ...........  ..........         35  .........          35
             Work-  shop.................
            Traffic Mgmt. Centers                200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
             Consortium..................
        Archived Data User Service (ADUS)        100  ...........  ..........        100         25          75
         Case Studies....................
        Other Research Items.............        233         14    ..........        247         74         173
            Ramp Metering (split funding)         43  ...........  ..........         43         43  ...........
            McTrans Beta Testing.........         50  ...........  ..........         50  .........          50
            McTrans Reengineering Review.         50  ...........  ..........         50  .........          50
            Freeway Capacity.............         35  ...........  ..........         35         31           4
            ITRAF Support................         50  ...........  ..........         50  .........          50
            Queue Measurement............          5  ...........  ..........          5  .........           5
            IPA--Rudy Persaud, South       .........         14    ..........         14  .........          14
             Dakota  DOT.................
    INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH.........     23,001        494    ..........     23,495        758      22,736
        Generation 0.....................      5,500  ...........  ..........      5,500  .........       5,500
            Generation 0 Operational           4,500  ...........  ..........      4,500  .........       4,500
             Tests.......................
            Generation 0 Field Test            1,000  ...........  ..........      1,000  .........       1,000
             Evaluations.................
        Generation 1.....................     10,335  ...........  ..........     10,335  .........      10,335
            Rear-end Collision Avoidance       4,250  ...........  ..........      4,250  .........       4,250
             System Field Test...........
            Rear-end Collision Avoidance       1,400  ...........  ..........      1,400  .........       1,400
             System......................
                Rear-end Collision               900  ...........  ..........        900  .........         900
                 Avoidance System Test
                 (NHTSA).................
                Rear-end Collision               500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
                 Avoidance System Test
                 (FHWA for NHTSA)........
            Lane Change/Merge Collision          850  ...........  ..........        850  .........         850
             Avoidance System............
            Road Departure...............      2,250  ...........  ..........      2,250  .........       2,250
                Road Departure Test            1,750  ...........  ..........      1,750  .........       1,750
                 (NHTSA).................
                Road Departure Test (FHWA        500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
                 for NHTSA)..............
            Safety Impacting.............        335  ...........  ..........        335  .........         335
                Safety Impacting Test            300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
                 (NHTSA).................
                Safety Impacting Test             35  ...........  ..........         35  .........          35
                 (FHWA for NHTSA)........
            EBS..........................        250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
            Drowsy Driver Field Test.....      1,000  ...........  ..........      1,000  .........       1,000
                Drowsy Driver Field Test         750  ...........  ..........        750  .........         750
                 (NHTSA).................
                Drowsy Driver Field Test         250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
                 (CVO)...................
        Enabling Research Consortium.....      4,090  ...........  ..........      4,090  .........       4,090
            Forward Collision Warning....        500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
            Workload Metrics.............        600  ...........  ..........        600  .........         600
            ED Map.......................      1,500  ...........  ..........      1,500  .........       1,500
            Transit Rear-end.............        550  ...........  ..........        550  .........         550
            Multiple Systems Inegration          940  ...........  ..........        940  .........         940
             Study.......................
        FHWA Human Factors Research......        425  ...........  ..........        425         64         361
            In-Vehicle Information                65  ...........  ..........         65         64           1
             Systems Behavioral Model....
            Effectiveness of Multi-turn            5  ...........  ..........          5  .........           5
             Preview on Route Following
             Perf........................
            Comp. of Audio/Visual Icons            5  ...........  ..........          5  .........           5
             for Sign Recognition........
            Societal and Institutional           100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Issues......................
            Develop Cost/Benefit                 250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
             Methodology.................
        Generation 2.....................      1,300  ...........  ..........      1,300  .........       1,300
            Intersection.................        800  ...........  ..........        800  .........         800
                Intersection (NHTSA).....        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
                Intersection (FHWA for           500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
                 NHTSA)..................
            Sensor Friendly Roadway......        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
            Define Short Range                   100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Communication Needs.........
            Define Radionavigation Needs.        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
        Support..........................      1,351        494    ..........      1,845        695       1,150
            Showcase.....................        400  ...........  ..........        400  .........         400
            TRB Review...................        200  ...........  ..........        200        200  ...........
            NHTSA Support................        400  ...........  ..........        400  .........         400
            Transit IVI Technical Support        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
            Human Factors Support........        155  ...........  ..........        155  .........         155
            ITS America..................         96  ...........  ..........         96          1          95
            IVI Program Support..........  .........        494    ..........        494        494  ...........
    RURAL RESEARCH.......................      2,350        497    ..........      2,847        497       2,350
        Integration of APTS with                 300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
         Employment Service Sys..........
        Rural Safety Services............        600  ...........  ..........        600  .........         600
            ACN/PSAP Integration.........        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
            E-911 Workshop...............        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
            Design of Variable Speed             300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
             Limit (VSL) Sys.............
        Rural Information and Operations.      1,450  ...........  ..........      1,450  .........       1,450
            Development Decision Supp.           600  ...........  ..........        600  .........         600
             Sys for Winter Maintenance..
            Assimilation of Surface              200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
             Condition & Weather Observ..
            Sensors and Sensor Siting....        250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
            Refinement of Surface Transp.        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
             Weather Requirements........
            Rural ITS Toolbox............        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
        Rural/Weather Requirements.......  .........        497    ..........        497        497  ...........
    APTS RESEARCH........................        750  ...........  ..........        750  .........         750
        Fleet Management Expert System...        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
        Demand Response Dispatch                 250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
         Algorithm.......................
        Wireless Technology Analysis.....  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        Traveler Information and ADA       .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
         Compatibil-  ity................
        ITS Rail Research................        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
    CVO RESEARCH.........................      7,500        134    ..........      7,634      1,165       6,469
        Safety Data Systems..............      2,650  ...........  ..........      2,650      1,041       1,609
        CVISN Support for Level I              1,200  ...........  ..........      1,200        100       1,100
         Deployment......................
        Roadside Identification                  350  ...........  ..........        350  .........         350
         Technology  Research............
        Architecture Consistency.........      1,245  ...........  ..........      1,245  .........       1,245
        CVO Technical Assistance           .........         24    ..........         24         24  ...........
         (Minnesota).....................
        CVISN Pilots.....................      2,000        110    ..........      2,110  .........       2,110
        Available for Distribution.......         55  ...........  ..........         55  .........          55
    INTERMODAL FREIGHT RESEARCH..........        750         10    ..........        760         10         750
        Harmonizing Freight Technology...        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
            ITSA Support for Reston II           150  ...........  ..........        150  .........         150
             Confer-  ence...............
            ITSA Support for Intermodal          150  ...........  ..........        150  .........         150
             Frt. Tech. Working Group....
        International Border Crossing            450  ...........  ..........        450  .........         450
         Program Support.................
            IBC Program Support/IBC              365  ...........  ..........        365  .........         365
             Architecture Update.........
            Conduct 2 IBC Planning and            85  ...........  ..........         85  .........          85
             Deploy. Mtgs................
        TRB Conference on Intermodal       .........         10    ..........         10         10  ...........
         Freight.........................
    ENABLING RESEARCH....................        350  ...........  ..........        350  .........         350
        DSRC Spectrum Issues.............        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
        Support for FCC and ITSA.........         50  ...........  ..........         50  .........          50
OPERATIONAL TESTS........................      6,090      4,744         231       11,065        400      10,665
    APTS OPERATIONAL TESTS...............      1,090  ...........  ..........      1,090  .........       1,090
        Fleet Management Expert System...        500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
        Demand Response Algorithm........        590  ...........  ..........        590  .........         590
    ALERT (Capitol Beltway)..............      1,000  ...........  ..........      1,000  .........       1,000
    RURAL OPERATIONAL TESTS..............      3,750      1,500    ..........      5,250        400       4,850
        Statewide PSAP...................      1,000  ...........  ..........      1,000  .........       1,000
            New York Statewide PSAP......        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
            Statewide PSAP...............        800  ...........  ..........        800  .........         800
        Multi-agency Integration of Info       1,000  ...........  ..........      1,000  .........       1,000
         Sys & Trans. Coord..............
        Rural Information and Operations.      1,750        500    ..........      2,250  .........       2,250
            Multi-State Traveler               1,000        500    ..........      1,500  .........       1,500
             Information.................
            Road Weather Condition               750  ...........  ..........        750  .........         750
             Forecasting.................
        Nat'l. Park Service FOT..........  .........      1,000    ..........      1,000        400         600
    INTERMODAL FREIGHT--OPERATIONAL TEST.        250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
    OPERATIONAL TESTS CONTINGENCIES......  .........      3,244         231        3,475  .........       3,475
EVALUATION/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT............      6,000  ...........  ..........      6,000      1,555       4,445
    EVALUATIONS..........................      2,860  ...........  ..........      2,860        536       2,324
        Field Operational Tests                1,135  ...........  ..........      1,135        240         895
         Evaluations.....................
            Rural FOT Evaluations........        570  ...........  ..........        570  .........         570
            Intermodal Freight                   200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
             Evaluations.................
            APTS Field Operational Test          365  ...........  ..........        365        240         125
             Evaluations.................
                Transit FOT Evaluations          240  ...........  ..........        240        240  ...........
                 (Transfer to FTA).......
                Transit FOT Evaluations          125  ...........  ..........        125  .........         125
                 (FHWA for FTA)..........
        Deployment Evaluations...........      1,025  ...........  ..........      1,025        296         729
            Metropolitan Evaluations.....        500  ...........  ..........        500        104         396
            CVISN Evaluations............        425  ...........  ..........        425        192         233
            Hwy.-Rail Evaluations........        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
        Special Benefits Reports.........        700  ...........  ..........        700  .........         700
            Crosscutting Analyses........        700  ...........  ..........        700  .........         700
        ITS Deployment Tracking..........        950  ...........  ..........        950        870          80
            Metropolitan ITS Deployment          600  ...........  ..........        600        600  ...........
             Tracking for Fiscal Year
             2000........................
            Rural Deployment Tracking....        260  ...........  ..........        260        260  ...........
            CVISN Deployment Tracking for         90  ...........  ..........         90         10          80
             Fiscal Year 1998............
        Program Tracking.................        500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
        ITS Policy Assessment............      1,690  ...........  ..........      1,690        149       1,541
            Analytical Support...........        800  ...........  ..........        800  .........         800
            General Policy Assessment            890  ...........  ..........        890        149         741
             Support to the Director.....
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS...............     14,000        750    ..........     14,750      5,573       9,177
    ARCHITECTURE.........................      5,000        120    ..........      5,120      4,309         811
        Architecture Deployment/               2,590  ...........  ..........      2,590      2,590  ...........
         Implementation Support..........
            Deployment/Implementation          1,140  ...........  ..........      1,140      1,140  ...........
             Support.....................
            Architecture Standards               700  ...........  ..........        700        700  ...........
             Development Support.........
            Architecture Support of              100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
             Standards Testing...........
            Architecture Data Base/              500  ...........  ..........        500        500  ...........
             Configuration Control
             Support.....................
            Architecture Documentation...        100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
            Architecture Tool Development         50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
        Rural User Service/Architecture          400  ...........  ..........        400        400  ...........
         Changes.........................
        Planning Data/Archiving User             100  ...........  ..........        100        100  ...........
         Service/Architecture Changes....
        Weather User Service/Architecture         50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
         Changes.........................
        Intermodal Freight User Service/          50  ...........  ..........         50         50  ...........
         Architecture Changes............
        Emergency Services User Services/         25  ...........  ..........         25         25  ...........
         Architecture Changes............
        Regional Architecture Support,           175  ...........  ..........        175        175  ...........
         Peer to  Peer...................
        Architecture Engineering                 315  ...........  ..........        315  .........         315
         Maintenance Support.............
        Architecture Training (Deployment        800  ...........  ..........        800        800  ...........
         and Implementation).............
        CVO Architecture.................        490  ...........  ..........        490  .........         490
        Invitational Travel--Beta Test             5  ...........  ..........          5  .........           5
         Turbo Architecture..............
        Turbo Architecture...............  .........        120    ..........        120        120  ...........
    STANDARDS............................      9,000        630    ..........        500      1,264       8,366
        Standards Development Activities.      4,400        130    ..........      4,530        130       4,400
            Infrastructure and Safety....      1,765  ...........  ..........      1,765  .........       1,765
                Infrastructure & Safety..      1,665  ...........  ..........      1,665  .........       1,665
                Volpe....................        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
            CVO (EDI)....................        400  ...........  ..........        400  .........         400
            Transit......................      1,055  ...........  ..........      1,055  .........       1,055
                TCIP.....................        335  ...........  ..........        335  .........         335
                Transit Signal Priority..        110  ...........  ..........        110  .........         110
                Transit Profile for LRMS.        110  ...........  ..........        110  .........         110
                Smart Card...............        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
                ISO TC 204 WG 8 & WAG 8..        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
            Rail.........................        200        130    ..........        330        130         200
                FRA Support Devel. of      .........        130    ..........        130        130  ...........
                 Hwy.-Rail Intersection..
                Rail.....................        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
            Architecture Support.........        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
            JPL..........................        780  ...........  ..........        780  .........         780
            Mitretek.....................  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        Testing and Interoperability.....      2,500  ...........  ..........      2,500      1,100       1,400
            Interoperability Testing           1,700  ...........  ..........      1,700      1,100         600
             Support.....................
                Battelle.................      1,100  ...........  ..........      1,100      1,100  ...........
                DSRC.....................        400  ...........  ..........        400  .........         400
                LRS......................        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
            Data Registration............        800  ...........  ..........        800  .........         800
        Implementation...................      1,900  ...........  ..........      1,900         34       1,866
            Resource Materials...........        500  ...........  ..........        500         34         466
            Lessons Learned..............        500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
            Technical Asst. (Peer to             100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             peer).......................
            Training.....................        500  ...........  ..........        500  .........         500
            Evaluation...................        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
        Conformity.......................        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
            Rule Making..................        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
            Policy Development...........        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
        Standards Contingencies..........  .........        500    ..........        500  .........         500
INTEGRATION/MAINSTREAMING................      9,414      1,957    ..........     11,371      1,569       9,702
    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.................      4,766      1,032    ..........      5,798      1,361       4,437
        Direct Technical Assistance......      1,725  ...........  ..........      1,725        377       1,348
            Service Plan Implementation..      1,500  ...........  ..........      1,500        377        1123
                Service Plan                     798  ...........  ..........        798        377         421
                 Implementation..........
                Non-Targeted Funding             312  ...........  ..........        312  .........         312
                 Allotted to Resource
                 Centers  ($312,000).....
                Service Plan Funds                28  ...........  ..........         28  .........          28
                 Allotted to NHI.........
                Targeted Service Plan            363  ...........  ..........        363  .........         363
                 Funding Allotted to
                 Divisions...............
            FHWA/FTA Peer to Peer Program        225  ...........  ..........        225  .........         225
        Technical Guidance...............      1,855        100    ..........      1,955        425       1,530
            ITS Lessons Learned/Best             400  ...........  ..........        400  .........         400
             Practices Series............
                ITS Lessons Learned/Best         325  ...........  ..........        325  .........         325
                 Practices Series........
                APTA Best Practices               75  ...........  ..........         75  .........          75
                 Workshops...............
            Technical Materials for Sys          120        100    ..........        220        100         120
             Eng.........................
            APTS Showcase................        960  ...........  ..........        960        300         660
                APTS Showcase............        300  ...........  ..........        300        300  ...........
                APTS Mobile Showcase             660  ...........  ..........        660  .........         660
                 (FHWA for FTA)..........
            National Architecture Use            100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Guidelines..................
            Architecture Consistency             100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Outreach....................
                Architecture Consistency          50  ...........  ..........         50  .........          50
                 Out-  reach.............
                Arch. Consistency                 50  ...........  ..........         50  .........          50
                 Outreach Allotted to NHI
                 ($50,000)...............
            ACS Outreach.................        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
            IDAS Outreach................         75  ...........  ..........         75         25          50
        Develop. of ATIS Data Collection         230  ...........  ..........        230        194          36
         Guide-  lines...................
        Crosscutting.....................        445  ...........  ..........        445  .........         445
            Program Peer Review..........        445  ...........  ..........        445  .........         445
                ITSA Transit.............        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
                APTS Stakeholder Forum...         75  ...........  ..........         75  .........          75
                TMAG.....................         50  ...........  ..........         50  .........          50
                FTA Technical Support....        220  ...........  ..........        220  .........         220
        AASHTO ITS Deployment Task Force.         75  ...........  ..........         75  .........          75
        URBAN CONSORTIUM.................        436        442    ..........        877        224         653
            PTI FISCAL YEAR 2000 Earmark--       436  ...........  ..........        436  .........         436
             URBAN CONSORTIUM............
            PTI Fiscal Year 1999 Earmark.  .........        442    ..........        442        224         217
        PBFarradyne IQC..................  .........        391    ..........        391        141         250
        AASHTO Steering Group for          .........        100    ..........        100  .........         100
         Technology Deployment...........
    PLANNING/POLICY......................        500        100    ..........        600  .........         600
        Air Quality Impacts..............        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
        Planning Tools to Support ITS....        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
        Traveler Response to Advanced      .........        100    ..........        100  .........         100
         Travel Information..............
            FHWA--Traveler Response to     .........         50    ..........         50  .........          50
             Adv. Travel Info............
            FTA--Traveler Response to      .........         50    ..........         50  .........          50
             Adv. Travel Info............
    TRAINING.............................      3,350        600    ..........      3,950        200       3,750
        Deliver Current Courses..........        500  ...........  ..........        500         30         470
            Travel Management............        500  ...........  ..........        500         30         470
        Update Existing Courses..........        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
            Assist NHI and NTI with              100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Continuing Update...........
        Develop New Instructional              1,250  ...........  ..........      1,250  .........       1,250
         Material........................
            FTA Course--Data Management          200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
             for Transit Agencies........
            New Courses to Fill Gaps.....        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
            Develop Addtl. High Priority         750  ...........  ..........        750  .........         750
             Courses.....................
        Advanced WBT Course Development..        250  ...........  ..........        250        100         150
            Support Detailed Curricula           250  ...........  ..........        250        100         150
             Development & WBT Evaluation
        Program Management & Support.....        350  ...........  ..........        350  .........         350
            Onsite ISD Professional &            100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Onsite Secretary............
            Professional Training Spec.          150  ...........  ..........        150  .........         150
             for NTI/ FTE................
            Volpe Support for PCB Web            100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Page Development............
        CVISN Technical Training.........        900  ...........  ..........        900         20         880
        Consultant Management............  .........        250    ..........        250  .........         250
        Distance Learning Pilots.........  .........         50    ..........         50         50  ...........
        Training Funds Allocated to NHI..  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
        NHI Training Carryover from        .........        300    ..........        300  .........         300
         fiscal year  1999...............
            ITS Software Acquisition.....  .........         10    ..........         10  .........          10
            CORSIM.......................  .........         15    ..........         15  .........          15
            Architecture Training Course.  .........         50    ..........         50  .........          50
            FHWA--New Course Development.  .........        200    ..........        200  .........         200
            Support at NHI...............  .........         25    ..........         25  .........          25
    OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONS..........        660        225    ..........        885  .........         885
        Publications (new and reprints)..        250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
            Publications (new and                250  ...........  ..........        250  .........         250
             reprints)--Program Funding..
        JPO Home Page....................        180  ...........  ..........        180  .........         180
        ICDN.............................        230        225    ..........        455  .........         455
    MAINSTREAMING........................        500  ...........  ..........        500          8         492
        Shipping and Handling Exhibits...        120  ...........  ..........        120          8         112
        Exhibits (Creation/Maintenance)..         80  ...........  ..........         80  .........          80
        Outreach.........................        300  ...........  ..........        300  .........         300
            National Associations Working        100  ...........  ..........        100  .........         100
             Group (NAWG)................
            NGA Initiative...............        200  ...........  ..........        200  .........         200
PROGRAM SUPPORT..........................      8,766      3,971    ..........     12,737      4,546       8,192
    ITS AMERICA..........................      2,600          2    ..........      2,602        600       2,002
    MITRETEK.............................      5,500      3,906    ..........      9,406      3,906       5,500
    JPL SUPPORT..........................        380  ...........  ..........        380  .........         380
    GENERAL PROGRAM SUPPORT..............        286         63    ..........        349         40         309
        Smart Technology.................        110  ...........  ..........        110  .........         110
        Arrowhead Industries.............        130  ...........  ..........        130  .........         130
        Other Misc. Program Support......         46  ...........  ..........         46         40           6
        TASC-Traveler Information Center.  .........         35    ..........         35  .........          35
        Unfunded Interest Payments.......  .........         28    ..........         28  .........          28
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES................     98,423     26,918         100      125,441      1,430     124,011
    FISCAL YEAR 1998 CONGRESSIONAL         .........      2,569         100        2,669        639       2,030
     EARMARKS............................
        Northeast Corridor (Various Proj)  .........      1,069    ..........      1,069        639         430
        Commercial Vehicle Operations, I-  .........      1,500    ..........      1,500  .........       1,500
         5 California....................
        National Inst. for Enviornmental   .........  ...........       100          100  .........         100
         Renewal (NIER)..................
    FISCAL YEAR 1999 CONGRESSIONAL         .........     24,349    ..........     24,349        791      23,558
     EARMARKS............................
        Alaska...........................  .........        837    ..........        837  .........         837
        Amherst, Massachusetts...........  .........        791    ..........        791  .........         791
        Centre Valley, Pa................  .........        396    ..........        396  .........         396
        Dade County Florida..............  .........        791    ..........        791        791  ...........
        Delaware River, Pa...............  .........        791    ..........        791  .........         791
        Hammond, Louisiana...............  .........      3,166    ..........      3,166  .........       3,166
        Mission Viejo, California........  .........        791    ..........        791  .........         791
        Nevada--CVO Deployment...........  .........        350    ..........        350  .........         350
        New Orleans, Louisiana...........  .........      1,187    ..........      1,187  .........       1,187
        New York CVO Deployment..........  .........        667    ..........        667  .........         667
        North Dakota State Univ.--ATAC...  .........        302    ..........        302  .........         302
        Northeast ITS Implementation.....  .........        750    ..........        750  .........         750
            CVO Northeast Corridor.......  .........        500    ..........        500  .........         500
            Tri-State Rural ATIS.........  .........        250    ..........        250  .........         250
        Onandaga County, New York........  .........        317    ..........        317  .........         317
        Pennsylvania.....................  .........     11,081    ..........     11,081  .........      11,081
            CVO Deployment...............  .........        350    ..........        350  .........         350
            Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  .........     10,731    ..........     10,731  .........      10,731
        Scranton, Pa.....................  .........        791    ..........        791  .........         791
        University of North Dakota--ATWIS  .........        549    ..........        549  .........         549
        Volusia County, Florida..........  .........        791    ..........        791  .........         791
    FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONGRESSIONAL            88,748  ...........  ..........     88,748  .........      88,748
     EARMARKS............................
        Albuquerque, New Mexico..........      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
        Arapahoe County, Colorado........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Branson, Missouri................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Central Pennsylvania.............        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Charlotte, North Carolina........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Chicago, Illinois................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        City of Superior and Douglas             786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
         County, Wisconsin...............
        Clay County, Missouri............        236  ...........  ..........        236  .........         236
        Clearwater, Florida..............      2,752  ...........  ..........      2,752  .........       2,752
        College Station, Texas...........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Central Ohio.....................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Commonwealth of Virginia.........      3,146  ...........  ..........      3,146  .........       3,146
            Commonwealth of Virginia--CVO  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Commonwealth of Virginia--         3,146  ...........  ..........      3,146  .........       3,146
             Metro/Rural.................
        Corpus Christi, Texas............      1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
            Delaware River, Pennsylvania.        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
            Fairfield, California........        590  ...........  ..........        590  .........         590
            Fargo, North Dakota..........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
            Florida Bay County, Florida..        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Fort Worth, Texas................      1,966  ...........  ..........      1,966  .........       1,966
        Grand Forks, North Dakota........        393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
        Greater Metro. Capital Region, DC      3,932  ...........  ..........      3,932  .........       3,932
        Greater Yellowstone, Montana.....        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Houma, Louisiana.................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Houston, Texas...................      1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
        Huntsville, Alabama..............        393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
            Inglewood, California........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Jefferson County, Colorado.......      1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
        Kansas City, Missouri............        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Las Vegas, Nevada................      2,202  ...........  ..........      2,202  .........       2,202
        Los Angeles, California..........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Miami, Florida...................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Mission Viejo, California........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Monroe County, New York..........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Nashville, Tennessee.............        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Northeast Florida................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Oakland, California..............        393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
        Oakland County, Michigan.........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Oxford, Mississippi..............      1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
        Pennsylvania Turnpike,                 1,966  ...........  ..........      1,966  .........       1,966
         Pennsylvania....................
        Pueblo, Colorado.................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Puget Sound, Washington..........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Reno/Tahoe, California/Nevada....        393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
        Rensselaer County, New York......        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Sacramento County, California....        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Salt Lake City, Utah.............      2,359  ...........  ..........      2,359  .........       2,359
        San Francisco, California........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Santa Clara, California..........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Santa Teresa, New Mexico.........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Seattle, Washington..............      1,651  ...........  ..........      1,651  .........       1,651
        Shenandoah Valley, Virginia......      1,966  ...........  ..........      1,966  .........       1,966
        Shreveport, Louisiana............        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Silicon Valley, California.......        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Southeast Michigan...............      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
        Spokane, Washington..............        393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
        St. Louis, Missouri..............        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        State of Alabama.................      1,022  ...........  ..........      1,022  .........       1,022
            Alabama--CVO Deployment......  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Alabama--Metro/Rural               1,022  ...........  ..........      1,022  .........       1,022
             Deployment..................
        State of Alaska..................      2,359  ...........  ..........      2,359  .........       2,359
            Alaska--CVO Deployment.......  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Alaska--Metro/Rural                2,359  ...........  ..........      2,359  .........       2,359
             Deployment..................
        State of Arizona.................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
            Arizona--CVO Deployment......  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Arizona--Metro/Rural                 786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
             Deployment..................
        State of Colorado................      1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
            Colorado--CVO Deployment.....      1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
            Colorado--Metro/Rural          .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
             Deployment..................
        State of Delaware................      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
            Delaware--CVO Deployment.....  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Delaware--Metro/Rural              1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
             Deployment..................
        State of Idaho...................      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
            Idaho--CVO Deployment........  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Idaho--Metro/Rural Deployment      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
        State of Illinois................      1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
            Illinois--CVO Deployment.....  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Illinois--Metro/Rural              1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
             Deployment..................
        State of Maryland................      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
            Maryland--CVO Deployment.....  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Maryland--Metro/Rural              1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
             Deployment..................
        State of Minnesota...............      5,505  ...........  ..........      5,505  .........       5,505
            Minnesota--CVO Deployment....  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Minnesota--Metro/Rural             5,505  ...........  ..........      5,505  .........       5,505
             Deployment..................
        State of Montana.................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
            Montana--CVO Deployment......        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
            Montana--Metro/Rural           .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
             Deployment..................
        State of Nebraska................        393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
            Nebraska, CVO Deployment.....  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Nebraska--Metro/Rural                393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
             Deployment..................
        State of Oregon..................        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
            Oregon--CVO Deployment.......  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Oregon--Metro/Rural                  786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
             Deployment..................
        State of Texas...................      3,146  ...........  ..........      3,146  .........       3,146
            Texas--CVO Deployment........  .........  ...........  ..........  .........  .........  ...........
            Texas--Metro/Rural Deployment      3,146  ...........  ..........      3,146  .........       3,146
        State of Vermont Rural Systems...        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        States of New Jersey and New York      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
        Statewide Transcom/Transmit            3,146  ...........  ..........      3,146  .........       3,146
         Upgrades, New Jersey............
        Tacoma Puyallup, Washington......        393  ...........  ..........        393  .........         393
        Thurston, Washington.............        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
        Towamencin, Pennsylvania.........        472  ...........  ..........        472  .........         472
        Wausau-Stevens Point-Wisconsin         1,180  ...........  ..........      1,180  .........       1,180
         Rapids, Wisconsin...............
        Wayne County, Michigan...........        786  ...........  ..........        786  .........         786
    FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONGRESSIONAL             7,752  ...........  ..........      7,752  .........       7,752
     EARMARKS--TEA-21....................
        Great Lakes ITS Implementation...      1,573  ...........  ..........      1,573  .........       1,573
        Northeast ITS Implementation.....      3,932  ...........  ..........      3,932  .........       3,932
        Hazardous Materials Monitoring         1,204  ...........  ..........      1,204  .........       1,204
         Systems.........................
        Translink--Texas Transportation        1,043  ...........  ..........      1,043  .........       1,043
         Institute.......................
    EVALUATIONS OF EARMARKED PROJECTS....      1,924  ...........  ..........      1,924  .........       1,924
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTALS.......................    183,955     39,489         331      223,775     18,942     204,833
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              SMART CARDS FOR COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSES
 
   Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the Committee 
requested that FHWA provide up to $1,000,000 for the testing and 
development of a smart commercial drivers license utilizing smart card 
and biometric elements to enhance safety and efficiency. What has FHWA 
done to implement that objective? How much will be allocated during 
fiscal year 2000 on those activities?
    Answer. The FHWA began to implement this objective in 1996 with a 
study of the feasibility of smart cards for commercial drivers 
licenses. The study's final report concluded that: ``Analysis shows 
that enhancing the CDL is most feasible through the use of a smart card 
for all drivers, not only commercial drivers. However, smart card 
tracking of hours of service was not found to be institutionally 
feasible. Although beneficial to law enforcement, smart card tracking 
of hours of service could be effectively opposed by drivers and 
carriers at several stages of system implementation.'' The American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators is working to standardize 
smart card technology. One Canadian province is scheduled to issue 
smart cards beginning in calendar year 2001.
    Currently, the FMCSA is evaluating the best biometric elements to 
uniquely identify a commercial driver. The FMCSA has a Cooperative 
Agreement with the California Department of Motor Vehicles to determine 
the optimum combination of fingerprint and facial images to best detect 
license fraud and the optimum communication protocol to exchange 
fingerprint images between states electronically. California is one of 
3 states which will collect a total of 32,000 sample digital facial 
images and sets of fingerprints from volunteers. A random sample of 
records will be duplicated and sent to vendors to see if they can 
identify the duplicate records. The project started in fiscal year 1999 
with $100,000 in research funds. Funding for fiscal year 2000 is 
$100,000 in Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program funds and $100,000 
Intelligent Transportation Systems/Commercial Vehicle Operations funds. 
The project is scheduled for completion in October 2001. No further 
funding for fiscal year 2001 is planned.
    In addition the Office of Freight Management within FHWA is 
conducting an ITS freight operational test with the ATA Foundation and 
the Illinois DOT on a secure freight movement system in conjunction 
with an end-to-end electronic manifest system from manufacturer to 
customer. The overall cost of the system is $1.1 million, with $468 
thousand federal funds and the rest from the state and private 
partnerships. The system will test biometric identifiers of all the 
handlers of the freight, including commercial motor carrier drivers. A 
smart card will be used with the fingerprint captured digitally for 
each individual responsible for the freight as it moves from origin to 
destination. The evaluation of this test, expected in 2001, will 
provide additional information on the success of using a ``smart card 
and biometric elements to enhance safety and efficiency''.

                      DEPLOYMENT OF CVISN LEVEL I

    Question. FHWA states in the budget justification that in fiscal 
year 2001 you will complete the deployment of CVISN Level I in the 10 
pilot states. What is the empirical basis of this projection? What 
could be done to help the Department achieve this milestone?
    Answer. The budget justification states that CVISN is being 
developed and deployed using a building block approach, designed to 
achieve a 10-state CVISN network in fiscal year 2001. The empirical 
basis of this projection was: (1) these states completed their CVISN 
project plans and top-level designs in June 1997; (2) that it would 
take approximately 2 years to complete CVISN Level 1 deployment; and 
(3) that the funds necessary for these ten states to complete CVISN 
Level 1 deployment by fiscal year 2001 would be available. In fact, 
TEA-21 authorized a total of $184 million of federal ITS funds from FYs 
1998-2003 to deploy CVISN in a majority of states by September 30, 
2003. However, most of the federal ITS deployment funds originally 
intended to support CVISN deployment are being designated by Congress 
through the appropriations process to fund other ITS projects.
    Both the ITS Joint Program Office and FMCSA have tried to 
supplement the deployment of CVISN by using R&D and MCSAP funds have 
used a limited amount of federal funds from the ITS and FMCSA programs 
to support CVISN deployment in the prototype and pilot states. In some 
instances, these states also received Congressional earmarks and used 
all or a portion of those funds to support their CVISN deployment 
activities. As a result, we expect Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia to 
be deploying CVISN Level 1 capabilities by the end of fiscal year 2000, 
and California, Minnesota, and Washington to be completed by the end of 
fiscal year 2001. We also expect Colorado and Connecticut to be 
completed by the end of fiscal year 2002.
    The FMCSA's and the FHWA's highest priority for the use of federal 
ITS deployment funds has been and will continue to be completing CVISN 
Level 1 deployment in the pilot states. The ability to direct federal 
ITS deployment funds to complete CVISN deployment in the remaining 
pilot states of Michigan and Oregon will provide the essential 
foundation for subsequent CVISN deployment of Level 1 capabilities 
across the nation. The ability to direct federal ITS deployment funds 
to states which are ready to begin CVISN deployment will help the 
Department achieve the Congressional goal of completing CVISN 
deployment in a majority of states by September 30, 2003. The lack of 
full federal ITS deployment funds for CVISN puts the FMCSA's, the 
FHWA's and the states' ability to meet the Congressional goal in 
jeopardy. It is not a matter of spending more money but one of either 
giving the Joint Program Office the discretion to focus the deployment 
funds on the states that are already in the process of deploying, or 
have Congress do that.

                  INTELLIGENT VEHICLE INITIATIVE (IVI)

    Question. Please explain or justify the allocation between the 
amount of funds requested for research versus the amount requested for 
operational testing.
    Answer. In the fiscal year 2001 budget request for IVI we have 
requested $30 million. $14.4 million for research, $11.6 million for 
field testing of longer term systems, and $4.6 million for the 
Generation Zero Operational Tests.
  --The Research budget funds problem size and causality, functional 
        analysis, performance specifications, human factors and 
        estimation of benefits. This can be characterized by laboratory 
        and test track work on systems which lack technical maturity.
  --The field testing budget funds the test and evaluation of systems 
        that we have a significant understanding of their technical 
        performance, user acceptance and benefits. These systems are 
        sufficiently mature to be evaluated in an operational 
        environment but are not expected to be commercially available 
        within the next five years because of cost, performance and 
        institutional issues.
  --The Generation Zero Operational Tests will evaluate systems which 
        are expected to enter production preparation by 2003. The 
        purpose of these tests is to measure their effectiveness on 
        real roads with real drivers. This will allow us to measure the 
        effectiveness as well as address any other obstacles to the 
        deployment of safety impacting systems.
    In order to achieve the near-term program goals without ignoring 
the increased benefits of more advanced systems, the program is focused 
on developing multiple generations of vehicles which have increasing 
capabilities. The generation vehicles will be developed in partnership 
with industry and stakeholders for the purpose of evaluating the 
benefits, technical capabilities and user acceptance of these systems. 
This arrangement allows the government research investment to influence 
the industries which must produce these systems as well as the 
individuals and organizations that will use them.
    Fiscal year 2001 will be the fourth year of the IVI program. Fiscal 
year 1998 was spent on defining and organizing the program. In that 
limited budget year, we focused on developing the early services which 
were primarily developed under the predecessor programs to the IVI. In 
fiscal year 1999, we initiated a program to test and evaluate 
Generation 0 products (near market systems). The objective of this 
activity is to measure the effectiveness of these technologies. While 
this is in progress we will initiate field tests of some next 
generation services (Generation 1) and conduct longer term research of 
future generations (Generation 2 and beyond). All of this is conducted 
in a framework which was defined by an industry-stakeholder-government 
working group.

                       FUNDING UNDER IVI PROGRAM

    Question. Please submit detailed spending plans of the activities 
funded under the IVI program for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. 
Delineate expenditures related to the passenger platform.
    Answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 IVI FISCAL YEAR 1999 SPENDING PLAN

      Total.........................    $20,923  .......................
                                     ===========
Generation 0:
    Performance Specifications:
        Objective Test Metrics......  .........  Light Vehicle
        Driver Performance Data          $1,650  Light Vehicle
         Collection.
    Field Tests: Generation 0 Field      $6,400  .......................
     Tests.
    Cross-cutting:
        Special Vehicle Needs               309  .......................
         Assessment/HF.
        Develop C/B methodology.....        500  Light Vehicle
Generation 1:
    Performance Specifications:
        Rear-end Performance                601  Light Vehicle
         Specifications.
        Roadway Departure Perf Specs        250  Light Vehicle
        Lane Change/Merge Perf Specs        150  Light Vehicle
        Int. and fleet test of              600  .......................
         safety Critical Sys.
        Drowsy Driver DVI...........        100  .......................
        EBS.........................        150  .......................
        Test Multi Trailer Stability        498  .......................
        Transit LC/M Perf Spec......        300  .......................
        Transit Rear End Perf Specs.        550  .......................
        Transit Rear Impact Perf            350  .......................
         Spec.
    Field Tests:
        Rear-END CAS Field Test.....      4,850  Light Vehicle
        Drowsy Driver Field Test....        700  .......................
    Cross-cutting:
        Lane Change Workshop........        150  Light Vehicle
        HF Multi System Integration.        250  Light Vehicle
Generation 2:
    Performance Specifications:
        Vision Enhancement Perf Spec  .........  Light Vehicle
        Intersection Perf Specs.....        250  Light Vehicle
    Cross-cutting: Sensor Friendly          249  Light Vehicle
     Roadway.
Support:
    TRB Review......................        175  Light Vehicle
        Program Support (Incl               494  Light Vehicle
         Mitretek).
        NHTSA Support...............        400  Light Vehicle
        Transit Support.............        150  .......................
        HF Support..................        367  Light Vehicle
        TFHRC M&C...................         88  Light Vehicle
        ITS America.................         87  Light Vehicle
        Publications 2 percent......        305  Light Vehicle

     FISCAL YEAR 2000 IVI BUDGET

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
    INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH....     23,000  .......................
        GENERATION 0:
            Gen O Op Tests..........      4,500  .......................
            Gen 0 Field Test              1,000  .......................
             Evaluations.
        GENERATION 1:
            RECAS Field Test........      4,250  Light Vehicle
            Rear-end CAS............      1,400  Light Vehicle
            LC/M CAS................        600  Light Vehicle
            Road Departure..........      2,100  Light Vehicle
            Safety Impacting (Incl          335  Light Vehicle
             $35k f/TFHRC workload
             tool).
            EBS.....................        250  .......................
            Drowsy Driver Field Test      1,000  .......................
        Enabling Research
         Consortium:
            Forward Collision               500  Light Vehicle
             Warning.
            Workload Metrics........        600  Light Vehicle
            EDMap...................      1,500  Light Vehicle
            Transit Rear-End........        550  .......................
            Multiple Systems                940  Light Vehicle
             Integration Study \1\.
        FHWA Human Factors Research:
            In-Vehicle Information           65  Light Vehicle
             Systems Behavioral
             Model.
            Eff of Multi Turn                 5  Light Vehicle
             Preview on Route
             Following Perf.
            Comp of Aud & Visual              5  Light Vehicle
             Icons f/Sign
             Recognition.
            Societal and                    100  Light Vehicle
             Institutional Issues.
            Develop Cost/Benefit            250  Light Vehicle
             Methodology.
        Generation 2:
            Intersection \4\........      1,200  Light Vehicle
            Sensor Friendly Roadway.        300  Light Vehicle
            Define Short Range              100  Light Vehicle
             Communication Needs.
            Define Vehicle to               100  Light Vehicle
             Vehicle Communication
             Needs.
        Support:
            Showcase................        400  Light Vehicle
            TRB Review..............        200  Light Vehicle
            NHTSA Support...........        400  Light Vehicle
            Transit Support.........        100  .......................
            HF Support..............        155  Light Vehicle
            ITS America.............         95  Light Vehicle
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                COMMERCIAL VEHICLE-RELATED TECHNOLOGIES

    Question. How much of the IVI program during fiscal year 1998, 
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 was devoted to commercial 
vehicle-related technologies? How were those funds used?
    Answer. During fiscal year 1998, $1,824,000 was spent on commercial 
vehicle elements of the IVI program. The Commercial Vehicle element of 
the IVI program conducts research, analysis, information sharing, field 
tests and evaluations aimed at developing selected deployable 
commercial vehicle IVI technologies. The IVI Commercial Vehicle 
technologies apply to trucks and non-transit buses and are intended to 
improve safety and operational efficiency. Specifically, we invested 
$649,000 in the vehicle stability and $790,000 in the driver condition 
warning IVI Commercial Vehicle problems areas. In addition, we invested 
$385,000 in electronic braking systems (EBS) performance testing. EBS 
is an enabling technology for many of the IVI Commercial Vehicle 
Services.
    During fiscal year 1999, $5,250,000 was spent on commercial vehicle 
elements of the IVI program. The Commercial Vehicle element of the IVI 
program conducts research, analysis, information sharing, field tests 
and evaluations aimed at developing selected deployable commercial 
vehicle IVI technologies. The IVI Commercial Vehicle technologies apply 
to trucks and non-transit buses and are intended to improve safety and 
operational efficiency. Specifically, we invested $1,100,000 in the 
vehicle stability and $1,500,000 in the driver condition warning IVI 
Commercial Vehicle problems areas. In addition, we invested $150,000 in 
EBS performance testing. Three Generation 0 Operational Tests were 
awarded for Commercial Vehicle Projects and $4,500,000 was obligated to 
these projects in fiscal year 1999. The objective of these tests is to 
measure the effectiveness of systems which will be deployed by 2003. 
Freightliner will test a rollover stability advisor system. Mack Trucks 
will test an infrastructure assisted hazard warning system. Volvo will 
test a rear-end collision warning system and an advanced brake system.
    In fiscal year 2000, $5,750,000 was spent on commercial vehicle 
projects. We invested $4,500,000 to continue the Generation 0 
Operational Tests and Evaluation projects. We invested $250,000 to 
initiate development of objective test procedures for advanced braking 
systems. Fiscal year 2000 will be our final year of preparation for a 
Drowsy Driver Field Test. We invested $1 million to complete a driver 
vehicle interface and perform a final validation of the PERCLOS system.
    Question. How much of the IVI program during fiscal year 2001 will 
be devoted to technologies to improve commercial vehicle safety? How 
will those funds be used?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2001, $8.2 million of the IVI program 
funding will be devoted to technologies to improve commercial vehicle 
safety. The commercial vehicle platform will be the early deployer of 
these technologies but as system performance improves, costs decrease 
and benefits are demonstrated, these safety systems will become 
available on the light vehicle platform. Our evaluation of these 
projects will include the ``transferability'' to light vehicles. The 
fiscal year 2001 funds will be used as follows:
    Generation 0 Operational Tests and Evaluation.--$3,500,000. This 
will be the final year of funding for the four Generation 0 operational 
tests which were awarded during fiscal year 1999. Data collection will 
be conducted in fiscal year 2001 and into fiscal year 2002. All work 
should be completed in fiscal year 2002 using previous funding. This 
project is focused on driver-assistance products that will be 
commercially available within the next five years. We do not expect 
that these systems will meet the full performance required to address 
the individual problem areas, as described in our preliminary 
performance specifications. It is important to determine if these 
systems will have an impact on safety and performance, whether it is 
positive or negative. Of equal importance to safety is the impact of 
multiple systems on the driver's performance. The subject of the 
operational tests follows:
    A collision warning system (advanced Eaton-Vorad) including closing 
distance warning, blind spot object warning, and adaptive cruise 
control will be evaluated on 50 heavy vehicles and an additional 50 
vehicles will be used as a control group. The 100 test vehicles will 
operate in commercial service on public roads through the U.S.
    Infrastructure-assisted road hazard warning will be evaluated on 
143 commercial vehicle tractors. The test vehicles will operate in 
commercial service on public roads throughout the Commonwealth of 
Virginia.
    A truck ``Rollover Stability Advisor'' (RSA) to warn truck drivers 
of potential instability will be evaluated. Six tractors coupled to 
tanker semi-trailers will operate in commercial service in the Midwest. 
Three of the tractors will be equipped with the countermeasure and 
three will serve as the unequipped control group. The test fleet will 
be dispatched and managed from LaPorte, IN, about 45 miles southeast of 
Chicago.
    Generation 1--Vehicle Stability Operational Test--$1,000,000.--This 
field test will build on technologies developed under the IVI 
commercial vehicle platform in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 to 
test on commercial vehicle operators in real world, revenue producing 
operations the effectiveness of electronic braking systems (EBS). This 
will also test the enhanced safety benefits of using EBS as these 
systems have the potential to: reduce brake response and release times; 
decrease stopping distance; improve anti-lock braking performance; 
provide the capability for stability corrections by selective braking; 
optimize braking strategies for brake pressure distribution, optimize 
brake lining wear; enhance braking compatibility between tractors and 
trailers; and foster development of collision avoidance systems for 
commercial vehicles. It is expected that commercial vehicle 
manufacturers and commercial vehicle fleets will cooperatively work 
with the Department in field testing these devices. In addition, this 
work may be done in separate tests in order to assess EBS performance 
on double and triple trailer combination trucks. These systems 
potentially offer many advantages, compared to pneumatically-controlled 
systems, in terms of safety, efficiency, productivity and reliability, 
including: reduced brake response and release times, decreased stopping 
distance, and an optimized strategy for brake pressure distribution and 
adhesion utilization.
    Generation 1--Drowsy Driver Operational Test--$2,000,000.--This 
operational test will be the second year of a three year operational 
test of drowsy driver technology developed under the IVI commercial 
vehicle platform in previous years. This technology detects and warns 
of drowsiness of drivers of commercial vehicles in real world, revenue 
producing operations. This Operational Test will evaluate the use of 
such a system in preventing crashes involving fatigued commercial 
vehicle drivers. It is expected that commercial vehicle manufacturers 
and commercial vehicle fleets will be working cooperatively work with 
the Department in field testing of these devices.
    Generation 1--Vehicle Stability Field Test--$1,000,000.--This field 
test will build on technologies developed under the IVI commercial 
vehicle platform in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 to test on 
commercial vehicle operators in real world, revenue producing 
operations the effectiveness of electronic braking systems (EBS). This 
will also test the enhanced safety benefits of using EBS as these 
systems have the potential to: reduce brake response and release times; 
decrease stopping distance; improve anti-lock braking performance; 
provide the capability for stability corrections by selective braking; 
optimize braking strategies for brake pressure distribution, optimize 
brake lining wear; enhance braking compatibility between tractors and 
trailers; and foster development of collision avoidance systems for 
commercial vehicles. It is expected that commercial vehicle 
manufacturers and commercial vehicle fleets will cooperatively work 
with the Department in field testing of these devices. In addition, 
this work may be done in separate tests in order to assess EBS 
performance on double and triple trailer combination trucks. These 
systems potentially offer many advantages, compared to pneumatically-
controlled systems, in terms of safety, efficiency, productivity and 
reliability, including: reduced brake response and release times, 
decreased stopping distance, and an optimized strategy for brake 
pressure distribution and adhesion utilization.
    Generation 2--Vehicle Stability Problem Area Research--$700,000.--
This project will support advanced activities in this problem area that 
build on the capabilities addressed in the ongoing filed test. This is 
a core activity of the Commercial Vehicle Intelligent Vehicle program 
and will explore the most promising method of integrating the stability 
enhancement and vehicle diagnostic research to develop the fully 
integrated IVI Commercial Vehicle. The performance specifications 
developed for other platforms will be expanded to incorporate adverse 
weather, complex road geometry and night time driving conditions. It is 
expected that the role of infrastructure cooperative and vehicle to 
vehicle cooperative systems will be increased. Supporting research 
areas include in-vehicle naturalistic vehicle following studies, 
benefits methodology developments including NADS and traffic simulation 
methods. This activity will also include the development of tools that 
will be used to quantify the performance of concepts and specific 
systems to be integrated in any IVI Commercial Vehicle Operational Test 
of the developed technology.

                             IVI CHALLENGES

    Question. Is the Department having any problems or facing any 
challenges in moving the IVI forward expeditiously? If so, please 
describe the scope and nature of those challenges and discuss how and 
whether the fiscal year 2001 budget will address those concerns.
    Answer. The IVI seeks to expedite the commercial availability of 
advance vehicle control and safety systems that will reduce driver 
workload and improve decision making in complex traffic or hazardous 
situations. By its nature this is a difficult and complex problem to 
solve. From its inception, this program has been designed to address 
these challenges.
    Developing solutions to the eight problem areas is a highly complex 
undertaking. It involves determining causality, developing performance 
specifications for potential countermeasures, measuring the technical 
performance and user acceptance of applicable systems, estimating and 
validating benefits. In order to provide near term benefits, the IVI 
will not wait to develop the optimal solution, but will evaluate and 
encourage the deployment of effective systems that may only partially 
address the problem areas. In order to implement this incremental 
approach, the IVI will focus on developing generations of vehicles with 
increasing capabilities which address the eight problem areas. During 
the period covered by TEA-21, U.S. DOT intends to support work on 
generations zero, one, and two. Each succeeding generation is expected 
to address systems with more advanced capabilities, higher levels of 
integration and increased infrastructure cooperation.
    Fiscal year 2001 will be the final year of funding for the 
Generation 0 Operational Tests. These tests will demonstrate the 
effectiveness and benefits of systems which will be deployed by fiscal 
year 2003. We will continue our preparation for Generation 1 Field 
Tests. This will include development of objective test procedures, 
evaluation methodologies and driver vehicle interface requirements. 
Generation 2 research will focus on extending the benefits of IVI 
systems through cooperation with infrastructure and inter-vehicle 
communications. A central theme which runs through all of our research 
and operational testing is a concern for the effect IVI systems will 
have on driver distraction and behavior. To address these issues we are 
collecting naturalistic driving data, developing workload metrics, 
developing driver-vehicle interface guidelines and field testing IVI 
systems.

                       COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEM

    Question. In fiscal year 2001 does the Department intend to issue 
another solicitation inviting participation in operational tests to 
advance technologies tested in the passenger vehicle platform? What 
would be the scope and nature of that solicitation?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2001, we intend to solicit participation in 
a field test of a Generation 1 road departure collision avoidance 
system for light vehicles (passenger vehicles). We intended to issue 
this solicitation in fiscal year 2000, but it was delayed in order to 
complete evaluation methodologies and objective test procedures. This 
will be a competitive solicitation open to teams led by an automotive 
manufacture or tier one supplier who will provide significant cost 
share. This project will equip and test a fleet of vehicles with a 
first-generation road departure collision avoidance system. This system 
may be vehicle based or have infrastructure cooperative elements. The 
evaluation will include a study of driver workload, driver acceptance, 
and behavioral adaptation. This will be a 3-year effort.

                         NAS PEER REVIEW PANEL

    Question. What are the principal findings from the National Academy 
of Sciences peer review panel on the IVI?
    Answer. The panel published its first letter report in June 1999. A 
second report is expected in June of this year. A summary of the 
committee's key findings and the DOT response from the June 1999 report 
follows:
    1. ``The main point of confusion was the scope of program 
activities, specifically whether highway as well as vehicle 
improvements are part of the IVI program mission. In their 
presentations to the committee, IVI program staff made clear the safety 
goal and vehicle-related, near-term focus of the program, but the 
committee believes the documentation would be more compelling if 
program goals were described more simply and clearly in future 
revisions of these materials.''
    The scope of the IVI covers vehicle-based systems. This includes 
autonomous countermeasures which are completely contained on the 
vehicle, and cooperative systems which have an on-board component that 
communicate with an infrastructure-based component. The 1997 Business 
Plan has been revised in part, to clarify the program goals.
    2. ``The committee is unanimous in its support of safety as the 
primary program goal. Moreover, it agrees that DOT has an appropriate 
and important role to play in facilitating the development of IV 
technologies, and evaluating their impact on safety as they appear on 
more and more vehicles.''
    We agreed with this statement and reiterated that the program goal 
as documented in the business plan is to increase safety on U.S. roads.
    3. ``The committee believes the safety goal of the IVI program 
would be better served if DOT were to acknowledge the limits of its 
role in accelerating the deployment of in-vehicle technologies, and 
place greater emphasis on accelerating enabling research, facilitating 
standards setting, and understanding the crash reduction potential and 
other safety effects of candidate IV technologies both in development 
and commercially available.''
    We believe we have acknowledged our limitations. The program 
mission states that we are ``facilitating'' the acceleration of 
deployment. We have engaged the true deployers of these systems and 
engaged them in cooperative research and testing. The activities that 
were recommended (``accelerating enabling research, facilitating 
standards setting, and understanding the crash reduction potential and 
other safety effects of candidate IV technologies both in development 
and commercially available'') are already the core activities of the 
IVI program.
    4. ``Consideration should be given to allocating part of the 
program budget to human factors research on IV technologies that have 
already reached the marketplace.''
    The IVI program addresses technologies that have already been 
deployed in two ways. First, we have defined a problem area titled 
``Safety Impacting Services.'' This category addresses the system 
performance as well as human factors related impact with regard to 
safety of in-vehicle ITS systems, such as in-vehicle computers, that 
are entering or already in the marketplace. Secondly, within each of 
the other problem areas, we evaluate the performance of these systems 
which are already on the market, on a case by case basis. For example 
we are conducting an operational test of the Eaton-VORAD Collision 
Warning System, and are conducting test track studies of in-vehicle 
computing systems. We published a compendium of our ongoing and planned 
human factors activities to document this.
    5. ``The program would also benefit from a more detailed discussion 
of how proposed human factors research will be integrated into each 
stage of technology development and assessment.''
    We provided a detailed presentation on this subject during the 
November 1999 committee meeting. A briefing paper on our human factors 
strategy and a copy of the compendium of our ongoing and planned human 
factors activities was included in the committee's pre-meeting reading 
materials and is available on our web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
    6. ``At the broadest level, the committee believes the federal 
government's role in the IVI program should be to facilitate (rather 
than accelerate) the development and to monitor and evaluate the 
deployment of new motor vehicle technologies with the potential to make 
the driving task safer.''
    We agree with this statement and believe the activities described 
in the program documentation are intended to achieve facilitation.
    7. ``In the committee's judgment, the appropriate role for 
government in the IVI program should be more sharply defined than it is 
at present, so that the value added by government participation will be 
evident.''
    The IVI can only be effective at reducing motor vehicle crashes if 
the widespread deployment of vehicle-based and infrastructure 
cooperative safety enhancing products and systems is achieved. In order 
to achieve this vision, U.S. DOT has a two-part role. The first, is to 
ensure that safety is not comprised by the introduction of in-vehicle 
systems. A particular interest for the IVI is the safety impact of 
combining multiple systems, such as route guidance and navigation, 
adaptive cruise control, cellular telephones, and in-vehicle computers. 
We will investigate the impact that these systems may have on driver 
behavior by measuring any changes in the level of driver workload and 
distraction.
    The second part of the Federal role in IVI, addresses our 
responsibility for reducing deaths, injuries and economic losses 
resulting from motor vehicle crashes. This role, which is a cornerstone 
of U.S. DOT's mission, will be carried out by facilitating the 
development, deployment and evaluation of driver-assistance safety 
products & systems. An analysis conducted by NHTSA showed that the 
widespread deployment of advanced driver assistance systems which 
address just three of the 8 IVI problem areas can reduce motor vehicle 
crashes by 17 percent annually. Based on this analysis, the IVI program 
was formed to more definitively evaluate the effectiveness of these 
technologies and depending on the results encourage their availability 
in the marketplace.
    There are several factors which influence the definition of an 
effective role for U.S. DOT in this endeavor.
  --IVI systems will be primarily developed by the private sector. U.S. 
        DOT will work cooperatively with industry to define performance 
        specifications for safety systems.
  --IVI services will be deployed by the motor vehicle industry, fleet 
        operators and local transportation agencies. U.S. DOT will 
        support these stakeholders by providing information on the 
        necessary technical performance, user acceptance and benefits 
        of systems which address the IVI problem areas.
    With these factors in mind, we have defined a role for U.S. DOT (as 
documented in the revised business plan) that will define the 
performance requirements for crash avoidance systems, evaluate their 
effectiveness and depending on results encourage their market 
availability. Some products which address the IVI problem areas with 
varying levels of effectiveness have and will continue to be made 
available even without a federally funded IVI program. But with the IVI 
program, we may expect better systems available sooner.
    8. ``In general, the government role in the IVI program should 
encompass activities (Enabling research, Research on technology 
integration, Research on unintended safety consequences of commercially 
available IV technologies), that industry or others are unlikely or 
unwilling to perform.''
    The IVI program does encompass these activities. This is documented 
in the program business plan.
    9. ``Government should help provide at least three types of data 
(Data and methodologies for benefit estimation, Baseline data on driver 
behavior, Data on crashes).''
    The IVI program will help provide this data. This is documented in 
the program business plan.
    10. ``A key government role is to facilitate the necessary 
infrastructure investments for specific IV technologies that require 
cooperation between the vehicle and the highway (e.g., intersection 
collision avoidance systems).''
    The scope of the IVI covers vehicle-based systems. This includes 
autonomous countermeasures which are completely contained on the 
vehicle, and cooperative systems which have an on-board component that 
communicate with an infrastructure-based component. We will assess the 
need for infrastructure cooperation within each of the problem areas. 
We have initiated a system study for the intersection and road 
departure collision problem areas. The results of these systems studies 
will define the path of future research. We have formed a consortium of 
State DOTs to address infrastructure issues. Additionally, we have 
several cross-cutting activities that address sensor friendly 
infrastructure and communication needs.
    11. ``The committee urges that this information be brought together 
in one place and clarified so that the federal role, and the resources 
that support it, is clearly identified for each program activity.''
    This has been done in the revised business plan.
    12. ``Given the reduced budget, narrower mission, and near-term 
objectives of the IVI program, the committee believes it is critical 
for the program to be well focused and for the roles of government and 
industry to be clearly defined.''
    This has been documented in the revised business plan. A briefing 
paper on this topic was provided to the committee and is available on 
our web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
    13. ``DOT should set targets with respect to the crash reduction 
potential of particular technologies, and establish milestones for 
monitoring progress toward the deployment of those technologies and the 
realization of safety benefits.''
    A presentation on our strategy for benefits estimation was provided 
during the November meeting. We have initiated an activity to develop 
benefits estimates for the problem areas. This activity is difficult 
because of the nature of crash avoidance (long deployment cycles, 
difficult to measure) and the limited role of government (not a vehicle 
developer or deployer) but our work will lead to surrogate measures and 
protocols which will allow us to quantify benefits.
    14. ``The committee applauds DOT efforts to keep the IVI program 
focused. However, certain IV technologies also have important potential 
application for improved crashworthiness and injury mitigation once 
crashes have occurred. Some committee members urged that more provision 
be made in the program for these applications.''
    DOT recognizes and supports crash-worthiness efforts, however given 
the reductions in funding for IVI activities; it is a conscious 
decision by DOT to focus on crash avoidance.
    15. ``An important role for government is to facilitate the 
involvement of these new participants in appropriate partnership 
arrangements and other relevant program activities.''
    The mutual governance structure is intended to accomplish this. The 
non-traditional players will be brought in either to support the car, 
truck or infrastructure consortiums or the Federal Advisory Committee. 
A briefing paper was provided to the committee and is available on our 
web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
    16. ``The committee urges that more of such material on problem 
identification and expected safety benefits be included in future 
revisions of IVI program documents.''
    The committee was provided with a briefing paper on this topic 
which is available on our web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).

                              NAS FINDINGS

    Question. What actions has DOT taken to address these findings?
    Answer. The panel published its first letter report in June 1999. A 
second report is expected in June of this year. A summary of the 
committee's key findings and the DOT response from the June 1999 report 
follows:
    1. ``The main point of confusion was the scope of program 
activities, specifically whether highway as well as vehicle 
improvements are part of the IVI program mission. In their 
presentations to the committee, IVI program staff made clear the safety 
goal and vehicle-related, near-term focus of the program, but the 
committee believes the documentation would be more compelling if 
program goals were described more simply and clearly in future 
revisions of these materials.''
    The scope of the IVI covers vehicle-based systems. This includes 
autonomous countermeasures which are completely contained on the 
vehicle, and cooperative systems which have an on-board component that 
communicate with an infrastructure-based component. The 1997 Business 
Plan has been revised in part, to clarify the program goals.
    2. ``The committee is unanimous in its support of safety as the 
primary program goal. Moreover, it agrees that DOT has an appropriate 
and important role to play in facilitating the development of IV 
technologies, and evaluating their impact on safety as they appear on 
more and more vehicles.''
    We agreed with this statement and reiterated that the program goal 
as documented in the business plan is to increase safety on U.S. roads.
    3. ``The committee believes the safety goal of the IVI program 
would be better served if DOT were to acknowledge the limits of its 
role in accelerating the deployment of in-vehicle technologies, and 
place greater emphasis on accelerating enabling research, facilitating 
standards setting, and understanding the crash reduction potential and 
other safety effects of candidate IV technologies both in development 
and commercially available.''
    We believe we have acknowledged our limitations. The program 
mission states that we are ``facilitating'' the acceleration of 
deployment. We have engaged the true deployers of these systems and 
engaged them in cooperative research and testing. The activities that 
were recommended (``accelerating enabling research, facilitating 
standards setting, and understanding the crash reduction potential and 
other safety effects of candidate IV technologies both in development 
and commercially available'') are already the core activities of the 
IVI program.
    4. ``Consideration should be given to allocating part of the 
program budget to human factors research on IV technologies that have 
already reached the marketplace.''
    The IVI program addresses technologies that have already been 
deployed in two ways. First, we have defined a problem area titled 
``Safety Impacting Services.'' This category addresses the system 
performance as well as human factors related impact with regard to 
safety of in-vehicle ITS systems, such as in-vehicle computers, that 
are entering or already in the marketplace. Secondly, within each of 
the other problem areas, we evaluate the performance of these systems 
which are already on the market, on a case by case basis. For example 
we are conducting an operational test of the Eaton-VORAD Collision 
Warning System, and are conducting test track studies of in-vehicle 
computing systems. We published a compendium of our ongoing and planned 
human factors activities to document this.
    5. ``The program would also benefit from a more detailed discussion 
of how proposed human factors research will be integrated into each 
stage of technology development and assessment.''
    We provided a detailed presentation on this subject during the 
November 1999 committee meeting. A briefing paper on our human factors 
strategy and a copy of the compendium of our ongoing and planned human 
factors activities was included in the committee's pre-meeting reading 
materials and is available on our web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
    6. ``At the broadest level, the committee believes the federal 
government's role in the IVI program should be to facilitate (rather 
than accelerate) the development and to monitor and evaluate the 
deployment of new motor vehicle technologies with the potential to make 
the driving task safer.''
    We agree with this statement and believe the activities described 
in the program documentation are intended to achieve facilitation.
    7. ``In the committee's judgment, the appropriate role for 
government in the IVI program should be more sharply defined than it is 
at present, so that the value added by government participation will be 
evident.''
    The IVI can only be effective at reducing motor vehicle crashes if 
the widespread deployment of vehicle-based and infrastructure 
cooperative safety enhancing products and systems is achieved. In order 
to achieve this vision, U.S. DOT has a two-part role. The first, is to 
ensure that safety is not comprised by the introduction of in-vehicle 
systems. A particular interest for the IVI is the safety impact of 
combining multiple systems, such as route guidance and navigation, 
adaptive cruise control, cellular telephones, and in-vehicle computers. 
We will investigate the impact that these systems may have on driver 
behavior by measuring any changes in the level of driver workload and 
distraction.
    The second part of the Federal role in IVI, addresses our 
responsibility for reducing deaths, injuries and economic losses 
resulting from motor vehicle crashes. This role, which is a cornerstone 
of U.S. DOT's mission, will be carried out by facilitating the 
development, deployment and evaluation of driver-assistance safety 
products & systems. An analysis conducted by NHTSA showed that the 
widespread deployment of advanced driver assistance systems which 
address just three of the 8 IVI problem areas can reduce motor vehicle 
crashes by 17 percent annually. Based on this analysis, the IVI program 
was formed to more definitively evaluate the effectiveness of these 
technologies and depending on the results encourage their availability 
in the marketplace.
    There are several factors which influence the definition of an 
effective role for U.S. DOT in this endeavor.
  --IVI systems will be primarily developed by the private sector. U.S. 
        DOT will work cooperatively with industry to define performance 
        specifications for safety systems.
  --IVI services will be deployed by the motor vehicle industry, fleet 
        operators and local transportation agencies. U.S. DOT will 
        support these stakeholders by providing information on the 
        necessary technical performance, user acceptance and benefits 
        of systems which address the IVI problem areas.
    With these factors in mind, we have defined a role for U.S. DOT (as 
documented in the revised business plan) that will define the 
performance requirements for crash avoidance systems, evaluate their 
effectiveness and depending on results encourage their market 
availability. Some products which address the IVI problem areas with 
varying levels of effectiveness have and will continue to be made 
available even without a federally funded IVI program. But with the IVI 
program, we may expect better systems available sooner.
    8. ``In general, the government role in the IVI program should 
encompass activities (Enabling research, Research on technology 
integration, Research on unintended safety consequences of commercially 
available IV technologies), that industry or others are unlikely or 
unwilling to perform.''
    The IVI program does encompass these activities. This is documented 
in the program business plan.
    9. ``Government should help provide at least three types of data 
(Data and methodologies for benefit estimation, Baseline data on driver 
behavior, Data on crashes).''
    The IVI program will help provide this data. This is documented in 
the program business plan.
    10. ``A key government role is to facilitate the necessary 
infrastructure investments for specific IV technologies that require 
cooperation between the vehicle and the highway (e.g., intersection 
collision avoidance systems).''
    The scope of the IVI covers vehicle-based systems. This includes 
autonomous countermeasures which are completely contained on the 
vehicle, and cooperative systems which have an on-board component that 
communicate with an infrastructure-based component. We will assess the 
need for infrastructure cooperation within each of the problem areas. 
We have initiated a system study for the intersection and road 
departure collision problem areas. The results of these systems studies 
will define the path of future research. We have formed a consortium of 
State DOTs to address infrastructure issues. Additionally, we have 
several cross-cutting activities that address sensor friendly 
infrastructure and communication needs.
    11. ``The committee urges that this information be brought together 
in one place and clarified so that the federal role, and the resources 
that support it, is clearly identified for each program activity.''
    This has been done in the revised business plan.
    12. ``Given the reduced budget, narrower mission, and near-term 
objectives of the IVI program, the committee believes it is critical 
for the program to be well focused and for the roles of government and 
industry to be clearly defined.''
    This has been documented in the revised business plan. A briefing 
paper on this topic was provided to the committee and is available on 
our web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
    13. ``DOT should set targets with respect to the crash reduction 
potential of particular technologies, and establish milestones for 
monitoring progress toward the deployment of those technologies and the 
realization of safety benefits.''
    A presentation on our strategy for benefits estimation was provided 
during the November meeting. We have initiated an activity to develop 
benefits estimates for the problem areas. This activity is difficult 
because of the nature of crash avoidance (long deployment cycles, 
difficult to measure) and the limited role of government (not a vehicle 
developer or deployer) but our work will lead to surrogate measures and 
protocols which will allow us to quantify benefits.
    14. ``The committee applauds DOT efforts to keep the IVI program 
focused. However, certain IV technologies also have important potential 
application for improved crashworthiness and injury mitigation once 
crashes have occurred. Some committee members urged that more provision 
be made in the program for these applications.''
    DOT recognizes and supports crash-worthiness efforts, however given 
the reductions in funding for IVI activities; it is a conscious 
decision by DOT to focus on crash avoidance.
    15. ``An important role for government is to facilitate the 
involvement of these new participants in appropriate partnership 
arrangements and other relevant program activities''
    The mutual governance structure is intended to accomplish this. The 
non-traditional players will be brought in either to support the car, 
truck or infrastructure consortiums or the Federal Advisory Committee. 
A briefing paper was provided to the committee and is available on our 
web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
    16. ``The committee urges that more of such material on problem 
identification and expected safety benefits be included in future 
revisions of IVI program documents.''
    The committee was provided with a briefing paper on this topic 
which is available on our web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
         research, development, and technology transfer (rd&t)
    Question. In the fiscal year 2000 report, for surface 
transportation RD&T the conferees encouraged FHWA to provide funding 
for a list of specified projects. For each project listed, please 
detail how FHWA responded to the request for support, being certain to 
identify the amount of funding that will be provided for each project.
    Answer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      TEA-21            Conference
                                                              -----------------------------------------
                           EARMARK                              STR \1\  TDIPP \1\    TDIPP               Total
                                                                 (less      (less      (50     STR (50
                                                                  OL)       OL)     percent)  percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure...............................................   $20,251    $17,420      $500    $4,425   $42,596
    Seismic Research (UCSD)..................................       871  .........  ........  ........  ........
    Seismic Res. Prog. (U. of Buffalo).......................     1,742  .........  ........  ........  ........
    Fundamental Prop. of Asphalts (WRI)......................     2,613  .........  ........  ........  ........
    Recycled Materials Res. Center (UNH).....................     1,307  .........  ........  ........  ........
    Asphalt Research (Auburn U.).............................       218  .........  ........  ........  ........
    Long-Term Pavement Performance...........................     8,710  .........  ........  ........  ........
    Concrete Pavement........................................     4,355  .........  ........  ........  ........
    Corrosion Control and Prevention.........................       435  .........  ........  ........  ........
    Geothermal Heat Pump (OK State U)........................  ........        871  ........  ........  ........
    Intell. Bridge Stiffener (U of OK).......................  ........        871  ........  ........  ........
    Innovative Bridge Research & Constr. Program.............  ........     15,678  ........  ........  ........
    Geosynthetic Mat'l.--Pavements (Montana St.).............  ........  .........  ........       200  ........
    Polymer Additives--Asphalt Pavements.....................  ........  .........  ........       750  ........
    Silica Fume HPC..........................................  ........  .........  ........       500  ........
    Polymer Binder (SC State/Clemson)........................  ........  .........  ........       625  ........
    Seismic Retro/NDE (Utah DOT).............................  ........  .........  ........       750  ........
    Adv. Eng./Wood Compos. (SD State/U of ME)................  ........  .........  ........       600  ........
    Center for Excellence (WVU)--Structures/Pvmts............  ........  .........  ........     1,000  ........
    ASR/LIthium--TDIPP.......................................  ........  .........       500  ........  ........
Planning and Environment.....................................       975      5,575  ........     2,475     9,025
    Global Climate Research (U of AL)........................       174  .........  ........  ........  ........
    STECRP Advisory Board \2\................................       261  .........  ........  ........  ........
    TCM Model \2\............................................       261  .........  ........  ........  ........
    Ecosystem Study \2\......................................        87  .........  ........  ........  ........
    Performance Indicators \2\...............................       105  .........  ........  ........  ........
    Ferry Study \2\..........................................        87  .........  ........  ........  ........
    Adv. Vehicle Research (U of A @ Tuscaloosa)..............  ........        349  ........  ........  ........
    Transp. Economic & Land Use Sys. (NJIT)..................  ........        871  ........  ........  ........
    Low-Speed Urban MagLev (from Title III--FTA).............  ........      4,355  ........  ........  ........
    Native Vegetation Center (UNI)...........................  ........  .........  ........       150  ........
    Continuation of the PM-10 study..........................  ........  .........  ........        50  ........
    Particulate Matter Study.................................  ........  .........  ........       500  ........
    Nat. Transportation. Network Analysis Capability.........  ........  .........  ........     1,250  ........
    Nat. Environmental Research Center.......................  ........  .........  ........        25  ........
    Red River Trade Corridor (carryover fr. fiscal year 1998)  ........  .........  ........       500  ........
Operations...................................................  ........      2,932     1,000  ........     3,932
    Intelligent Transp. Infrastructure (PA)..................  ........      1,480  ........  ........  ........
    Adv. Traffic Monitoring & Response (PA)..................  ........      1,452  ........  ........  ........
    Ctr. for Adv. Sim. Tech., Long Island, NY (TDIPP)........  ........  .........     1,000  ........  ........
Motor Carrier and Highway Safety.............................  ........      4,050  ........        50     4,100
    Adv. Trauma Care (U of A @ Birmingham)...................  ........        653  ........  ........  ........
    Center for Transp. Injury Res. (Calspan; NY).............  ........      1,742  ........  ........  ........
    Head & Spinal Cord Injury Res. (LA St. & GWU)............  ........        435  ........  ........  ........
    Motor Vehicle Safety Warning Sys. (GA Tech)..............  ........        610  ........  ........  ........
    Motor Carrier Adv. Sensor Control Sys....................  ........        610  ........  ........  ........
    MUTCD Highway/Rail Crossing..............................  ........  .........  ........        50  ........
    Highway Watch Program--(MC)..............................  ........  .........  ........       750  ........
    Truck Driving Ctr Safety Init. (Crowder Col.)--(MC)......  ........  .........  ........       500  ........
    Truck Driver Alertness--(MC).............................  ........  .........  ........     1,000  ........
Federal Lands................................................  ........  .........  ........  ........  ........
Agency-Wide (Policy).........................................       436  .........  ........  ........       436
    International Outreach...................................       436  .........  ........  ........  ........
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................    21,662     29,977     1,500     6,950    60,089
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ STR--Surface Transportation Research funds; TEA-21 Sec. 5001(a)(1). TDIPP--Technology Deployment Program
  funds; TEA-21 Sec. 5001(a)(2).
\2\ Level of Funding Not Specified in TEA-21.

Note: Motor Carrier Earmarks Shown for Information Only--not computed in the table.

                   SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT

    Question. Please delineate in detail how the $7.7 million proposed 
for supplemental technology deployment will be used. Please break out 
the proposed use of those funds.
    Answer. FHWA proposes to distribute the $7.7 million Supplemental 
Technology Deployment funds for marketing and technology delivery 
programs proportionately among our strategic goals, based upon the 
percentages in our original fiscal year 2001 budget request. Funds will 
be provided to support activities in the Resource Centers, Division 
Offices and Headquarters that promote innovation. Among the technology 
deployment tools that will be supported are demonstration projects, 
test and evaluation programs and the development of training materials 
to introduce and implement new technology.

                                            PRELIMINARY DISTRIBUTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Percent of      Portion of
                              Goal                                 2001 request       request          $7.7m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobility........................................................         $62,015              49      $3,773,000
Safety..........................................................          18,950              15       1,155,000
Productivity....................................................          14,525              12         924,000
Environment.....................................................          19,825              16       1,232,000
National Security...............................................             665               1          77,000
Tech.Del./Market................................................           9,200               7         539,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................         125,180             100       7,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PERFORMANCE MEASURES

    Question. Please describe in extensive detail the scope, nature, 
and objectives of your request for $1.85 million for performance 
measures.
    Answer. There are three key objectives in our request of $1.85 
million for performance measures:
    (1) Although some performance indicators were included in the FHWA 
strategic plan, and others have been developed and reported to FHWA 
management, considerable work remains. For example, there are a number 
of unquantified GPRA measures like travel time, freight productivity, 
life-cycle cost/return on investment, etc.
    (2) A conceptual framework has yet to be put in place for measuring 
the effectiveness of FHWA R&T expenditures. This activity is integral 
to assessing how R&T programs contribute to successful achievement of 
the agency's strategic goals. If we receive the level of funding 
requested in fiscal year 2001, the strategic assessment framework for 
evaluating R&T contributions should be in place by fiscal year 2002 
with goal owners developing and applying performance measures to assess 
the contribution of R&T activities to their strategic goals.
    (3) In the highway field, Federal activities are generally only a 
part of achieving results. Much of the responsibility for 
implementation falls to the state and local goals and private sector. 
As we implement GPRA responsibilities, we will continue to engage our 
partners, customers, and stakeholders in improving, refining and 
setting performance goals, targets and measures. The funds will be used 
to complete implementation, coordinate data collection and conduct an 
overall assessment of the approach.
    Question. What is the empirical basis for this request? How much is 
FHWA spending on similar activities, including the improvement of its 
performance measures in fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2000, FHWA is using a combination of our 
general operating expenses, R&T funds, in-house staff, partners, and 
consultants to assist us in developing performance measures, 
facilitating meetings, and conducting GPRA-related studies.
    Question. Why does FHWA maintain that it is important that this 
proposal be funded now?
    Answer. It is important that we fund this proposal now because FHWA 
wants to develop and mobilize a long-term strategy for improving the 
agency's ability to meet the GPRA responsibilities and to carry out our 
overall mission. The funds will be used to develop a number of the 
unquantified GPRA measures like travel time, freight productivity, 
life-cycle cost/return on investment, etc.
    The difficulty of linking R&T to specific outcomes does not 
preclude the application of performance measures to FHWA R&T programs 
or the incorporation of R&T into the broader framework of the Strategic 
Plan. Likewise, it does not prevent meaningful consideration of the 
real or potential contribution of specific research to future 
accomplishments. The definition and attainment of performance measures 
for future years will benefit from well-designed and implemented 
research activities that increase the understanding of issues and 
challenges, provide the foundation for solutions, demonstrate benefits, 
and generally support the implementation of successful innovations.
    If we receive the level of funding requested in fiscal year 2001, 
the strategic assessment framework for evaluating R&T contributions 
should be in place by fiscal year 2002 with goal owners developing and 
applying performance measures to assess the contribution of R&T 
activities to their strategic goals. In which case, the fiscal year 
2002 funds would be used to complete implementation, coordinate data 
collection, and conduct an overall assessment of the approach. If the 
level of funding is reduced, fiscal year 2002 funds would be used to 
put performance measures in place.
    Question. Could some of these activities be conducted as part of 
the surface transportation R&D analyzes performed by RSPA?
    Answer. The U.S. DOT Research and Technology Coordinating Council 
for DOT-level R&T strategic planning activities (as directed by TEA-21 
Sec. 5108) requires support from all modal administrations for this 
work. RSPA relies on input from FHWA and other modal administrations 
which is provided through the Council. As the lead DOT agency for this 
activity, RSPA advises us of system-level, policy research areas which 
would contribute to Departmental R&T objectives. RSPA's analysis of the 
surface transportation R&D does not get down to the individual program 
level. It is primarily responsible for supporting the overall 
departmental level of analysis and for balancing departmental 
priorities and policy.

                     TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

    Question. Could you now conduct some of these activities using the 
Transportation Research Board at much less expense?
    Answer. The Research and Technology Coordination Council of the 
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Research 
Council (NRC), acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB), 
convened the Committee for Review of the National Transportation 
Science and Technology to review and comment on DOT's Strategic Plan, 
Performance Plan, and Program Performance Report (required under GPRA) 
with regard to surface transportation research and technology 
development. The committee formulated two key recommendations: (1) R&T 
priorities and activities should be tied more explicitly to the 
Department's strategic and performance goals and their relationship to 
these goals should be articulated more clearly; and (2) the R&D Plan 
should include the funding budgeted for specific R&T activities and 
performance goals, since budgets are a tangible reflection of the real 
priorities of an agency. The committee also recommended that the 
Department adopt explicit criteria and methodologies for prioritizing 
R&T activities, and specific performance measures for analyzing 
results. We believe that the Transportation Research Board has already 
given us their recommendations and now it is up to FHWA to develop 
strategies for implementing those recommendations in a systematic way. 
To be most effective, performance measurement should be the 
responsibility of the agency responsible for goal delivery.

                         GPRA RESPONSIBILITIES

    Question. How are you now performing your GPRA responsibilities and 
your strategic planning pertaining to the R&D program without these 
funds?
    Answer. We are now carrying out our GPRA responsibilities and 
strategic planning pertaining to the R&D program with a combination of 
general operating expenses, R&T funds, in house staff, partners, and 
consultants. However, in order for goal owners to develop and apply 
performance measures to assess the contribution of R&T activities to 
their strategic goals, we should have in place a well-designed 
strategic assessment framework for evaluating R&T contributions.

                         TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT

    Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the conferees 
directed that FHWA respond by December 1, 1999, to each of the 
recommendations presented in the Transportation Research Board report 
on technology deployment. Was this response submitted to both the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations? If not, please explain why.
    Answer. Yes, on March 9, 2000.

                  TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND EVALUATIONS

    Question. In light of the TRB report, how will FHWA improve its 
mechanisms of technology transfer and evaluations. What changes will be 
made in response to this report?
    Answer. FHWA held a senior leadership retreat in January to examine 
how the new organizational structure is working. The first 
recommendation, that an FHWA headquarters office be assigned 
responsibility for agency wide technology transfer management, was a 
key item on the agenda. Our leadership agreed that while the new 
organization was intended to create a closer connection with potential 
users of technology, it also spread technology transfer expertise 
across many offices, making a corporate view on technology transfer 
difficult to achieve.
    The FHWA senior leadership agreed to give responsibility for agency 
wide coordination of technology transfer management to the Office of 
Research and Technology Services, within the Research, Development, and 
Technology Service Business Unit. That office will coordinate 
technology transfer activities across the CBU's, as well as 
coordinating the preparation of a management plan and strategy for the 
agency's technology transfer activities, recommended by the RTCC. The 
office will also serve as a repository for technology transfer 
management expertise, identifying and sharing information regarding 
what works in the long run, in terms of technology transfer methods, 
for research products and FHWA customers.
    In order to ensure close coordination between the various offices, 
I have asked each CBU and RC to designate a lead position specifically 
responsible for technology transfer. We have also agreed to establish a 
staff level technology transfer coordinating committee which will 
consist of representatives of each of the CBU's and RC's. Chaired by 
the Office of Research and Technology Services, this committee will 
develop an agency-wide technology transfer strategy and identifying 
appropriate venues and mechanisms for technology transfer. The 
committee will meet monthly to share expertise and coordinate 
technology transfer activities.
    Finally, with regard to the third recommendation, we agree with the 
RTCC that FHWA needs to develop strong partnerships with those who use 
and implement highway technologies, as well as the decision-makers who 
are responsible for funding related to innovation. A National R&T 
Partnership Initiative, is currently underway, facilitated and 
coordinated by TRB, to establish stronger working relationships with 
key partner and customer groups. The objectives of the National 
Partnership Initiative are to broaden the range of contacts between the 
FHWA and the user community, to help develop a national consensus on 
the need for highway R&T, to determine priorities for highway R&T, to 
establish a national R&T agenda, and to identify the appropriate roles 
of the Federal Government, state and local governments, universities 
and the private sector in implementing an R&T program. Five Working 
Groups have been established under the National Partnership Initiative 
covering the areas of safety, infrastructure renewal, policy analysis 
and system monitoring, operations and mobility, and planning and 
environment. Representatives of FHWA are active participants in these 
working groups, and we will be tracking the overall FHWA effort, to 
ensure that there is sufficient communication between the working 
groups and a cross-cutting look at the issues identified.
    Question. How is this reflected in the fiscal year 2001 budget 
request?
    Answer. Although we did not specifically identify this function as 
a line item the responsibility for this management function will be 
with RD&T. Funding for this will be redirected from the Agency wide 
activities supporting the R&T program.

                     SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNT

    Question. For the surface transportation account, please compare 
your actual expenditures for each RD&T budget category, including 
technology assessment and deployment, against the amounts appropriated 
for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. Please explain any deviation 
of more than 10 percent and be certain to exclude any carryover funds.
    Answer.

                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal years--
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                   Transportation research                        1998         1999         2000         2001
                                                              Enacted \1\  Enacted \2\  Enacted \3\  Request \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Transportation......................................      $85,536      $85,651      $84,488      $98,000
    Safety..................................................        6,861       11,068       12,368       13,900
    Pavements...............................................        9,243       11,611       11,367       11,240
    Structures..............................................        8,447       14,216       13,065       14,260
    Environment.............................................        2,971        4,680        5,400        6,546
    Policy..................................................        4,123        4,768        3,484        7,000
    Planning & Right-of-Way.................................        5,856        3,854        3,484        4,729
    Motor Carrier...........................................        5,572        5,651        5,574  ...........
    Highway Operations......................................  ...........          662          653        5,580
    Freight R&D.............................................  ...........  ...........          436  ...........
    Technical Assessment and Deployment.....................       10,163       12,362       12,194  ...........
    R&T Technical Support...................................        8,711        6,623        6,533        8,600
    Long Term Pavement Performance..........................       10,000        8,830        8,710       10,000
    Advanced Research.......................................  ...........          883          784          900
    International Outreach..................................          889          442          436        1,500
    National Advanced Driver Simulator......................       11,806  ...........  ...........  ...........
    SHARP II/RSPA...........................................          894  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Federal Lands...........................................  ...........            9  ...........          700
    Asset Management........................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        1,400
    Supplemental Technology Deployment......................  ...........  ...........  ...........        7,000
    Agency-Wide Activities..................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        4,645
Technology Deployment Program...............................       31,185       30,905       34,840       45,000
Training and Education......................................       12,474       13,245       13,936       18,000
    National Highway Institute..............................        4,455        5,298        5,226        7,000
    Local Technical Assistance Program......................        6,237        6,181        6,968        9,000
    Eisenhower Fellowship Program...........................        1,782        1,766        1,742        2,000
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.........................       31,000       31,000       31,000       31,000
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)....................      174,636      176,600      183,955      218,000
    Research................................................       40,429       33,554  ...........  ...........
    Operation Test..........................................        6,580       15,011  ...........  ...........
    Evaluation/Program Assessment...........................        6,000        5,740  ...........  ...........
    Architecture and Standards..............................       10,662       15,894  ...........  ...........
    Integration.............................................       10,837        5,298  ...........  ...........
    Program Support.........................................        8,654        8,389  ...........  ...........
    Deployment Incentives--Earmarks.........................        1,483  ...........  ...........  ...........
    ITS Deployment..........................................       89,991       92,715  ...........  ...........
University Transportation Research..........................       22,854       22,649       23,735       27,250
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total...........................................      357,685      360,050      371,954      437,250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The column reflect the actual allocation of funds based on 89.3 percent of total contract authority contain
  in TEA21.
\2\ The column reflect the actual allocation of funds based on 88.3 percent of total contract authority contain
  in TEA21.
\3\ The column reflect the actual allocation of funds based on 87.1 percent of total contract authority contain
  in TEA21.
\4\ These columns reflect the amounts authorized in TEA21.

                            CARRYOVER FUNDS

    Question. Please indicate the amount of carryover funds for each of 
the last three years by subaccount or research category.
    Answer. The carryover funds for each of the last three fiscal years 
are shown below by subaccount or research categories.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal years--
                   Program                    --------------------------
                                                 1999     1998     1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Transportation Research:
    Safety...................................      594      100    1,235
    Pavements................................    1,873    1,408  .......
    Structures...............................    2,212    1,634       88
    Environment..............................      251      370       95
    Real Estate Services.....................        3  .......  .......
    Policy...................................       60  .......       30
    Planning.................................      172  .......  .......
    Motor Carriers...........................      454      858    2,327
    Basic Research...........................      441       72       72
    Technology Assessment and Deployment.....      937       65      300
    Long-Term Pavement Performance...........       16       11  .......
    R&T Technical Support....................    1,419      345  .......
    Local Technical Assistance Program.......      242      407  .......
    National Highway Institute...............      718      130      669
    Eisenhower Fellowship....................      335      116        1
    Advanced Research........................       34  .......  .......
    Highway Operations.......................       41  .......  .......
    Minority Business Enterprise.............  .......  .......       14
    International Transportation.............      101      191      168
    Russia Technical Assistance..............  .......  .......        2
    Federal Lands Contamination Clean-up.....  .......    1,774    1,774
                                              --------------------------
      ITS Research and Development...........   38,129    3,773      351
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD ASSISTANCE

    Question. For each of the last three years, how much did FHWA 
allocate to TRB for coordination and technical assistance to the RD&T 
program? Exactly what did TRB provide FHWA?
    Answer. Over the last 3 years, FHWA has allocated to Transportation 
Research Board (TRB) for coordination and technical assistance to the 
RD&T program $2,665,740 in fiscal year 1998, $2,738,650 in fiscal year 
1999, and $2,032,000 in fiscal year 2000.
    TRB possesses a unique capability for the coordination and 
dissemination of research and technology (R&T) results as well as the 
promotion, review, and critique of the national program and has been of 
significant assistance to FHWA. TRB provides a source of national and 
international expertise to focus on critical national agenda items upon 
which the FHWA could draw in formulating and delivering its Research 
and Technology Program, and it provides a mechanism for considering the 
views of research bodies, highway users, suppliers, and contractors, 
along with economic, social, energy, and environmental concerns, as 
these issues related to highway transportation research and technology 
policy and programs. TRB also addresses issues related to the 
implementation of research results and the application of technology in 
the highway transportation field.
    TRB brings its unique capabilities to performing a series of 
activities in support of the FHWA's R&T Program.
    Conduct an Annual Meeting.--TRB conducts an annual national meeting 
in the Washington, D.C., area as a forum for the presentation of 
highway research results. In conjunction with the annual meeting, it 
provides FHWA with display areas and meeting facilities, arranges for 
providing miscellaneous items such as electrical hookups, easels, spot 
lighting, etc., and solicits, reviews, and selects appropriate papers 
to be presented at the meeting. The annual meeting is held within the 
context of an overall transportation research meeting involving various 
modes of transportation. As part of and in conjunction with the annual 
meeting, TRB provides facilities and support for the various technical 
committees established by the TRB. TRB also provides for registration 
of all FHWA employees requesting registration (approximately 600) at 
the annual meeting at a lump sum amount.
    Technical Committees.--TRB maintains standing committees of 
authorities in subject areas of interest to the FHWA. These committees 
are responsible for promoting the exchange of technical research 
information, for advancing the state of the art in the areas of their 
expertise, and for identifying research needs. It also establishes 
appropriate new committees as the need is demonstrated to respond to 
changing issues facing the transportation industry and conducts 
committee-sponsored conferences and workshops as determined appropriate 
by the technical committees.
    Maintenance of National Overview of Highway Research.--TRB 
maintains a national overview of highway research. It visits 
approximately 17 State highway agencies per year and 50 State highway 
agencies over a 3-year period to assess the interest, competency, and 
relevancy of the research conducted by each State highway agency as 
well as encouraging a coordinated national transportation emphasis. In 
conjunction with these visits, TRB visits selected key universities and 
public/private researchers responsible for highway-related research.
    Maintenance and Dissemination of Research Results.--TRB processes 
publications into the Transportation Research Information Service 
(TRIS) (estimated at approximately 30,000 publications per year). In 
addition, it provides TRIS searches for FHWA and it provides FHWA a 
statistical summary of requests of TRIS which originate from State DOTs 
on a semi-annual basis. TRB has also partnered with the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, to 
develop and make available web access to TRIS as a means of increasing 
accessibility to TRIS for users.
    Publication and Distribution of Reports.--TRB develops, publishes, 
and distributes a variety of reports and periodicals to assist in the 
transfer of technical information. Publications include, among other 
areas, general non-technical reports related to very specific topics. 
Reports have also been developed to summarize and highlight some of the 
key papers presented at the annual meeting. TRB also prepares and 
annually updates a mailing list for distribution of all publications. 
The annual update shall be coordinated through the AOTR.
    Research and Technology Review, Coordination, and Communications 
Program.--TRB conducts and documents a program to maintain a national, 
federally-funded research and development coordination and 
communications program. The program examines national highway research 
needs and focuses on global transportation issues that
  --Provides FHWA technical information about other ongoing research 
        needs and activities relative to FHWA's Research and Technology 
        Program.
  --Ensures that the States, the private sector, all other highway 
        research bodies, highway users, associated interest groups, and 
        other highway research interests have input to the national 
        agenda of research needs and programs.
  --Supports the National R&T Partnership Initiative and facilitate the 
        operations of the working groups established as part of the 
        initiative.
  --Ensures that economic, social, cultural, manufacturing, 
        environmental, and technical voices are heard for planning and 
        developing highway research programs.
  --Ensures that products evolving from the highway research process 
        are directed towards market development and application, both 
        in national and international arenas.
  --Reduces redundancy and fragmentation, fosters innovation and 
        focuses resources in all major highway research programs.
  --Positions the United States' highway research programs for 
        preeminent world leadership in technical expertise and 
        knowledge.
  --Encourages improved government, public-private, and international 
        harmonization in other highway-related fields and in multi-
        modal transportation research.
  --Enhances interest, awareness, and opportunities for highway 
        research careers with all participating agencies.
  --Increases opportunities for participation in FHWA programs by 
        public agencies and private sector constituents.
    To accomplish these objectives, the TRB will use the services of a 
Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC) established under 
its auspices. The RTCC is composed of 15 to 20 members, selected from 
among researchers, administrators, users, and practitioners from the 
public, private, and academic sectors. Specifically it will provide 
technical information in the following areas:
  --Identify gaps in research which FHWA can use in formulating and 
        delivering its Research and Technology Program.
  --Monitor and support the National R&T Partnership Initiative, 
        especially by contributing to the activities of the working 
        groups formed to advance this initiative, synthesizing the 
        output of the working groups and distributing appropriately, 
        and providing a mechanism for the groups to issue formal 
        consensus-based advice.
  --Use national and international technical expertise to focus on 
        critical national highway research agenda items.
  --Identify areas of duplication of effort.
  --Provide a mechanism for gathering research needs from research 
        bodies, highway users, suppliers, and contractors, along with 
        identifying economic, social energy and environmental concerns 
        as they relate to highway research needs.
  --Consider ways and means to increase State, local, and private 
        sector participation in highway research and innovation.
  --Address issues related to the implementation of research results 
        and the application of technology in the highway field.
    Through the agreement, TRB provides adequate staffing, travel, and 
facilities support to meet its responsibilities including committee 
support functions.
    A second group, the Surface Transportation Environmental 
Cooperative Research Program Advisory Board (STECREP), was established 
by TRB on behalf of FHWA. STECREP was established as a result of 
congressional direction in TEA-21 to create an advisory board to 
recommend environmental and energy conservation research, technology 
development, and technology transfer activities related to surface 
transportation. The board includes 17 members representing perspectives 
from various levels of government administration, environmental groups, 
private industry, and university research centers. STECREP is 
responsible for:
  --Recommending a national agenda of environmental and planning 
        research priorities and technology transfer strategies to be 
        conducted by the Transportation community.
  --Supporting outreach and collaborations on research by:
    --Identifying and recommending opportunities for partnerships and 
            collaboration on outreach, research and development, and 
            technology transfer and dissemination, both among USDOT 
            offices and with other federal agencies, research 
            organizations, and partners.
    --Identifying and recommending potential opportunities for pool-
            funded research and opportunities to leverage research 
            findings.
    --Supporting the coordination of environmental and planning 
            research conducted through programs such as NCHRP, TCRP, 
            and university research centers with that conducted through 
            USDOT offices.
    --Supporting the increased visibility of research programs on 
            transportation and environment.
    --Supporting research evaluation by directly participating in the 
            design of research program evaluation, products, and 
            technology dissemination activities, including the 
            assessment of customer satisfaction.
    STECRP also serves as one of the working groups in the National R&T 
Partnership Initiative for topics in areas relevant to its environment 
and planning charter.
    Conduct an Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) 
Program.--TRB conducts an annual Innovations Deserving Exploratory 
Analysis (IDEA) Program, stressing innovation, product oriented 
proposals, with the potential to produce significant technological 
improvements in the highway community. The program is administered as 
part of the NCHRP.
    Individuals and members of institutions, universities, small and 
large businesses, consulting firms and research laboratories in the 
United States and abroad and anyone working in the broad science and 
engineering areas that are associated with, or have relevance to, 
highway technology are eligible for the program.
    All proposals are evaluated on a competitive basis. The proposals 
meeting the technical eligibility criteria are evaluated by an Expert 
Task Group consisting of technical experts from the various science and 
engineering disciplines. The awards under this program are fixed price 
contracts in the range of $10,000 to $100,000 and with contract 
durations ranging from a few weeks to a year.
    As of fiscal year 1999, FHWA no longer contributes funds to the 
IDEA Program. Even during FHWA's funding participation, the TRB 
obtained additional funding from other sources, primarily the AASHTO 
member States. Participating researchers in the projects are expected 
to provide matching funds to those provided through the program.
    Special Studies, Reviews, and Conferences.--In addition to the core 
services TRB provides to the FHWA for the funds noted, TRB also 
conducts special studies, program reviews, and conferences when 
requested by FHWA. Each request is funded individually outside of the 
funding for the core services.
    Question. How much will be allocated for this assistance in fiscal 
year 2001?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2001, $2,800,000 will be allocated for TRB 
for coordination and technical assistance to the RD&T program.

                       ADVANCED RESEARCH PROGRAM

    Question. Please discuss the scope and nature of your fiscal year 
2000 advanced research program and indicate the amount and purpose of 
each relevant contract funded under that sub-account.
    Answer: $100,000--This safety portion of the fiscal year 2000 
Advanced Research funding sponsored a feasibility study aimed at 
increasing the magnitude of improvements in impact performance of 
roadside safety structures. The work is looking at the present safety 
design process in reverse. Specifically, starting with a pre-selected 
amount of safety improvement, the study will determine if present-day 
computer power can be used to guide a designer to a structural 
configuration that provides the selected level of improvement. Most of 
the literature on this method (Inverse Analysis) focuses on linear 
systems. There is a small research community trying to apply this 
method to non-linear events. Vehicle/safety structure impacts are very 
non-linear and this effort will establish feasibility for the use of 
Inverse Analysis on this subject area. If successful, follow-on funding 
will develop a production tool for use by practicing safety designers. 
The goal is to more rapidly increase the level of potential crash 
safeness residing within the roadside structures along the Nation's 
highways.
    $100,000--This safety portion of the fiscal year 2000 Advanced 
Research funding sponsored development of an Automated Sign Recognition 
System (ASRS) using previously developed Equation Shell Software (EQS) 
which was delivered to the State of Connecticut in fiscal year 2000. 
This effort produced ASRS software capable of recognizing a finite set 
of individual traffic stop signs from the State's photolog database of 
highway video images. The ASRS software will replace manual detection 
of stop signs in the State's photolog database resulting in an 
inventory maintenance cost saving. The ASRS software was interfaced 
with the State's database and selected training sets for pattern 
recognition have been provided. The ASRS software is presently being 
develop with the State's most recent photolog data. $100,000--This 
safety portion of the fiscal year 2000 Advanced Research funding is 
sponsoring development of a Software Reliability Handbook. Public 
safety depends on the correctness of the output of highway related 
software in areas such as bridge and highway design, bridge monitoring, 
collision avoidance and traffic management. Errors can result either 
from bugs in the software, using the software incorrectly, or using it 
outside its intended application area. This handbook will provide 
techniques to lower the frequency of errors produced by software in 
highway engineering.
    Software called SpecChek was developed to test the correctness of 
software and is being applied to the Interactive Highway Safety Design 
Module (ISHDM) software. Tests of the ISHDM software are underway.
    For the Infrastructure part of Advanced Research, the scope has 
been considerably reduced since the passage of TEA 21 and the resulting 
budget cuts. The program had to be severely reduced in fiscal year 1999 
and now is focused on maintaining essential research capabilities at 
Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center and associated activities at 
the Center for Neutron Research at the National Institute of Standard 
and Technology (NIST). This supports staff research in the areas of 
materials science of concrete and nondestructive materials 
characterization.
    Specific staff research projects include: (1) application of 
nonlinear 3-dimensional finite element computer models and chaos theory 
analysis to structural health monitoring of bridges and (2) advanced 
materials characterization of fly ashes for improvement of concrete 
properties. These two projects are conducted by postdoctoral research 
associates through an interagency program administered by the National 
Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences under a contract 
with FHWA. Another area of staff research concerns the application of 
nuclear nondestructive methods to highway materials. This is being done 
through an in-house contractor, Wiss Janney and Elstner as part of the 
NDE Validation Center at TFHRC. A fourth staff project concerns the 
development of a detailed chemical kinetics model for the curing of 
Portland cement concrete. This involves the use of neutron scattering 
methods at the NIST Center for Neutron Research as well as the heavy 
ion beam accelerator at the University of the Ruhr in Bochum, Germany. 
Finally, a major in-house research program concerns the problem of 
concrete deterioration associated with delayed ettringite formation. 
This consists of experimental studies and chemical model development 
performed in collaboration with the University of Maryland and Howard 
University. It should be noted that these collaborations are not funded 
by FHWA, but by NSF and DOE respectively.
    In addition to contractor support for staff research, there are a 
few research grants to universities to continue projects started in 
prior years. Two of these involve advanced materials characterization 
methods for the delayed ettringite problem. One is with the University 
of California at Berkeley, cofunded with NSF, and uses neutron 
diffraction an synchrotron radiation to determine micro structure 
changes. The other, at the University of Hawaii, uses the scanning 
acoustic microscope and Raman spectroscopy to characterize ettringite 
mineralogy. The final grant to New Mexico State University, cofunded 
with the New Mexico DOT, concerns the installation of Bragg grating 
fiber optic sensors to monitor strain during construction and operation 
of the Rio Puerco Bridge near Albuquerque, culminating several years of 
research on this topic.
    The allocation of fiscal year 2000 funds is summarized in Table 
76.1 below. Please note that this does not include funds from 
collaborating organizations which have averaged roughly $1 million per 
year over the last 3 fiscal years.

Table 76.1.--Allocation of Fiscal Year 2000 Infrastructure Advanced 
Research Budget

                        [In thousands of dollars]

        Title (Contractor)                              Fiscal year 2000
Nuclear NDT Laboratory (Wiss Janney Elstner)......................    99
Application of Neutron Methods (NIST).............................   140
Postdoctoral Associates (National Academy of Sciences)............    70
Concrete Deterioration Mechanisms (UC Berkeley/NSF)...............    50
Advanced Microscopy Methods for Concrete (U Hawaii)...............    45
Fiber Optics in Bridges (New Mexico State U.).....................    35
Small Purchases for Services, etc.................................    45
                                                                  ______
      Total.......................................................   484

              TABLE 76.2.--EXTERNAL FUNDING FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS (FISCAL YEARS 1998-2000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Partner
                   Project                                       Partner                      Total      share
                                                                                              funds    (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ettringite expansion test....................  University of Maryland.....................       $150        100
Concrete deterioration.......................  UC Berkeley/NSF............................        200         50
Neutron diffraction of ettringite............  Missouri U.\2\/NSF.........................        150        100
Calcium leaching in concrete Northwestern....  U./NSF.....................................        150        100
Cement hydration kinetics \1\................  W.R. Grace.................................        100        100
Neutron chloride measurement \1\.............  W.R. Grace.................................        150        100
Ledyard Bridge Fiber Optic System............  Dartmouth College..........................         10         30
Kealakaha Bridge Fiber Optic System..........  Hawaii DOT.................................        200        100
Rio Puerco Bridge Fiber Optic System.........  New Mexico DOT.............................         60         70
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Fiber Optic System \1\.  Drexel University..........................         75        100
Fiber Optic Weigh in Motion..................  State Pooled Fund..........................        118        100
Electrochemical ASR Tests....................  State Pooled Fund..........................        230        100
Aerial Robotics Bridge Inspection............  State Pooled Fund..........................        400         75
Microwave Fatigue Crack Detector.............  SBIR.......................................        600        100
Digital Acoustic Emissions System............  State Pooled Fund..........................        600        100
                                                                                           -----------
      Total..................................  ...........................................      3,193  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Proposed.
\2\ PI transferring to another university.

                      ADVANCED RESEARCH CONTRACTS

    Question. Please discuss the scope and nature of your fiscal year 
2001 advanced research program and indicate the amount and purpose of 
each relevant contract likely to be funded under that sub-account.
    Answer. $100,000--This safety portion of Advanced Research funds 
will be applied to developing a final roadside safety design tool for 
practicing safety designers assuming feasibility is demonstrated in 
fiscal year 2000. (See fiscal year 2000, Inverse Analysis description.)
    $100,000--This safety portion of Advanced Research funds will be 
applied to an on-going effort by the Advanced Research staff in the 
area of Data Mining and Multi-Dimensional Data Visualization. Past 
funding on this subject has been small and limited in scope. The 
objective is to make these general purpose powerful analysis methods 
more readily available to the researchers at the laboratory in the form 
of a free service. The goal is to accelerate the quantity and quality 
of insight that is extracted from a variety of data available at the 
laboratory. It is anticipated that the increase and improvement in 
``problem domain insight'' will lead directly to increases in 
innovative solutions.
    $50,000--This safety portion of Advanced Research funds will be 
applied to continue an on-going effort that utilizes a neural network 
as a basis for a drowsy driver warning system. Preliminary work on this 
topic has demonstrated feasibility, and, if no other source of funds 
are available, Advanced Research funds will be used to continue 
exploratory work on this topic. Although initial potential applications 
were envisioned for the large truck portion of the Nations vehicle 
fleet, the concepts explored in the feasibility phase indicate that it 
can also be considered for the total vehicle fleet.
    $100,000--This safety portion of Advanced Research funds will be 
applied to extending the ASRS to recognize other types of signs and 
roadside safety hardware. The condition of roadside hardware will be 
addressed and application of the ASRS software to other State's 
databases. The EQS software will be applied to other highway 
applications such as traffic sensor and pavement applications.
    $100,000--This safety portion of Advanced Research funds will be 
applied to improving techniques and software for testing highway 
software to improve reliability. The Software Reliability Handbook will 
be applied to highway software to test the techniques in the handbook.
    With no increase in funds over fiscal year 2000, the Infrastructure 
part of Advanced Research would continue to be a maintenance level 
activity with scope and nature the same as described in the answer to 
the question above.
    Increased funding in fiscal year 2001 would permit the accelerated 
progress in existing research activities. It would also allow the 
restarting of dormant research projects in the mechanisms of concrete 
deterioration. These include: (1) application of ice mechanics to 
freeze-thaw damage processes; (2) innovative methods for monitoring 
corrosion of reinforcing steel; (3) advanced analytical methods for 
determining alkali reactivity of aggregates; and (4) colloidal 
chemistry of delayed ettringite formation. Additional funds would 
permit new starts in: (1) application of nanotechnology to highway 
structures as part of the National Nanotechnology Initiative; (2) aging 
of steel in bridges; (3) optimization and standardization of fiber 
optic bridge monitoring systems; and (4) nonlinear dynamic 3-
dimensional computer modeling of pavements.
                           earmarked projects
    Question. For each of the earmarked projects or university 
activities specified in TEA-21 for fiscal year 2001 that pertain to 
RD&T, please specify the scope and nature of the RD&T to be conducted, 
and describe how those projects or activities will be integrated into a 
national research agenda.
    Answer.
 tea-21 earmarked projects or university activities--scope & nature of 

                                  R&T

Programs funded from Technology Deployment Initiatives and Partnerships 
        Program [503]: Sec. 5001 (a)(2)
    Organization.--University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa
    Program Title.--Center for Advanced Vehicle Technologies
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($0), fiscal year 1999 ($353,200), and 
fiscal year 1900 ($348,400)
    Current Status.--The Center began operation in late 1998. The 
objective is to form a well-equipped interdisciplinary capability at 
the University to address a range of issues related to advanced vehicle 
development and operation.
    Results.--During the first year of operation, progress was made to 
develop the administrative structure for the Center. Highlights include 
hiring of an administrative secretary and a key researcher to work in 
the Center. Equipment was purchased to improve the measurement of key 
engine properties including emissions. Five grants were awarded on 
various vehicle issues and a lecture series was introduced which brings 
experts from other parts of the country to share insights. Finally, Dr. 
Bell made several presentations throughout the country to introduce the 
Center to others and to begin build partnerships.
    Organization.--Oklahoma State University
    Program Title.--Smart Bridge Research Project
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($0), fiscal year 1999 ($883,000), and 
fiscal year 1900 ($871,000)
    Current Status.--The researchers have submitted quarterly progress 
reports, indicating all proposed tasks are well underway.
    Results.--A medium-scale deck section has been constructed. They 
are currently working to develop and validate advance modeling 
software. The research team is refining their deck heating system 
design. Continuous investigations are underway into systems to measure 
and analyze weather data, including sensor testing and development of 
integrated control strategies. Work has also begun on corrosion 
assessment, life-cycle economic analysis, and an operational web site 
for technology transfer.
    Organization.--University of Oklahoma
    Program Title.--Intelligent Stiffener for Bridge Stress Reduction
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($0), fiscal year 1999 ($883,000), and 
fiscal year 1900 ($871,000)
    Current Status.--Due to the recent death of the principal 
researcher, a proposal for this research grant has not been completed. 
A new researcher has been designated for the project, and a proposal is 
expected in the near future.
    Results.--No results are available at this time.
    Organization.--University of Alabama at Birmingham
    Program Title.--Study of Advanced Trauma Care
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($0), fiscal year 1999 ($662,250), and 
fiscal year 1900 ($653,250)
    Current Status.--The Alabama Trauma Registry (ATR) has been 
established. Hospitals in the State that see a sizeable number of 
trauma patients each year were identified and contacted to obtain their 
support in collecting data using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) 
trauma registry database (TRACS). A protocol and time line has been 
developed to transfer the data to the ATR.
    Results.--The transfer of data from the participating hospitals to 
the ATR is presently in the pilot phase. However, it is expected that 
all major trauma hospitals in the State will be providing trauma data 
to the ATR by July 2000. Data from this project and others will be used 
to make recommendations and establish protocol for the routine 
collection of data to provide better patient care.
    Organization.--Calspan--University of Buffalo Research Center
    Program Title.--Transportation Injury Research
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($1,782,000), fiscal year 1999 
($1,766,000), and fiscal year 1900 ($1,742,000)
    Current Status.--Grantees are in their second year of effort of 
interdisciplinary research on ways to reduce the occurrence, severity, 
and consequences of crash related injuries that now amount to nearly 
five million people each year in the U.S., including 42,000 deaths. 
CenTIR projects are underway to provide real-world demonstrations and 
evaluations of advanced technologies, systems and programs. These 
projects are advancing crash detection and notification technologies 
with crash injury assessment. The are also improving the process of 
providing emergency triage, transport, and treatment of crash injured 
people.
    Results.--CenTIR research has advanced technical and governmental 
understanding of technological opportunities for, and institutional 
hurdles to, improving the safety of U.S. motorists. CenTIR research has 
helped define the safety potential for automatic crash notification 
technologies and the need for providing enhanced wireless 9-1-1 service 
nationwide. CenTIR research is being used at the Federal, State and 
local levels. At the Federal level, CenTIR communications on the safety 
potential of using wireless technologies to improve crash safety has 
been used in the NHTSA, FHWA, and JPO. In addition, CenTIR research has 
been a part of the deliberations of the NTSB, the FCC, and the 
Congress. On October 26, 1999, the President signed into law the 
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 that found 
``emerging technologies can be a critical component...to reduce 
emergency response times and provide appropriate care.'' Stated its 
purpose as ``to encourage and facilitate the prompt deployment 
throughout the United States of a seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable 
end-to-end infrastructure . . . to meet the Nation's public safety and 
other communications needs.'' We expect that there will be continued 
use of the findings of CenTIR research to advance the public safety by 
DOT and other agencies at all levels of government.
    Organization.--Louisiana State University and The George Washington 
University
    Program Title.--Head and Spinal Cord Research
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($0), fiscal year 1999 ($441,500), and 
fiscal year 1900 ($435,500)
    Current Status.--Louisiana State University has commenced work in 
the following areas: (a) development and implementation of a motor 
vehicle crash victim data registry, (b) investigation of mechanisms of 
neurotrauma, and (c) exploration and evaluation of novel 
neuroprotective drugs.
    The George Washington University has commenced work in collision 
avoidance research and crash analysis research. Under collision 
avoidance, the following tasks are underway: (a) literature review of 
collision avoidance methods and developments, (b) development of a 
driving simulator laboratory, and (c) review and comparison of specific 
adaptive or intelligent cruise control systems. In the category of 
crash analysis research, the following tasks are underway: (a) finite 
element modeling of vehicles, (b) development of a folded/vented airbag 
model, (c) mathematical simulation of crash test dummy certification 
procedures and comparison to equivalent laboratory data, and (d) airbag 
modeling code evaluation and validation.
    Results.--Louisiana State University: (a) The motor vehicle crash 
data base now contains data on 400 victims with more than 2000 
documented injuries. A Microsoft Access database is maintained on an 
Internet server, providing 24 hour update capability and access. (b) An 
improved percussion apparatus has been developed to support 
experimental head trauma experiments utilizing a rat model. (c) 
Preliminary studies have been conducted to identify up-regulation of 
the COX-2 gene in the brain preceding irreversible injury. 
(d) Experimental strategies for screening and evaluation of 
neuroprotective drugs have been devised.
    George Washington University.--(a) Preliminary collision avoidance 
literature review is completed. (b) All components required to assemble 
the driver simulator are now available for assembly. (c) Portions of 
vehicle model development have been completed. (d) Air bag code 
evaluation has begun.
    Organization.--Georgia Technical Research Institute
    Program Title.--Motor Vehicle Safety Warning System
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($623,700), fiscal year 1999 ($618,100), 
and fiscal year 1900 ($609,700)
    Current Status.--The Georgia Technical Research Institute is 
conducting an evaluation of radio and microwave technology for a motor 
vehicle safety warning system. The three elements that comprise the 
safety warning system are a mobile transmitter, a fixed site 
transmitter for roadside deployment, and an in-vehicle receiver and 
display unit. The study is currently evaluating the viability of 
sending variable text messages to vehicles and assessing potential 
application including rail crossing safety systems.
    Results.--Georgia Tech. has confirmed that the fixed site 
transmitter can be remotely programmed in real time via a modem. This 
will allow an operator of an advanced traffic management system to 
change the information as needed to provide timely safety warnings to 
drivers through the remote fixed site transmitter. Potential 
applications that take advantage of this function will now be 
evaluated.
    Organization.--Booz-Allen & Hamilton
    Program Title.--Motor Carrier Advanced Sensor Control System
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($623,700), fiscal year 1999 ($618,100), 
and fiscal year 1900 ($609,700)
    Current Status.--The initial task of the study is underway. It 
includes a literature review and related analyses of accident 
databases. A meeting with interested original equipment manufacturers 
(OEMs) and Commercial Motor Vehicle operators will be held in late 
February. The detailed project scope is under development. The Truck 
Manufacturers Association is working with the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration and the contractor to implement this program.
    Results.--No information available at this time.
    Organization.--Signal Corporation
    Program Title.--Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure System
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($1,514,700), fiscal year 1999 
($1,501,100), and fiscal year 1900 ($1,480,700)
    Current Status.--Project design is well underway in Pittsburgh and 
will begin later this year in Philadelphia. System implementation is 
expected around July 2000 in Pittsburgh and November in Philadelphia.
    Results.--No results are available at this time
    Organization.--State of Pennsylvania
    Program Title.--Advanced Traffic Monitoring and Emergency Response
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($1,485,297), fiscal year 1999 
($1,471,961), and fiscal year 1900 ($1,451,957)
    Current Status.--Little, if any work has been initiated on this 
project. A feasibility and needs' study is underway with completion 
expected in July 2000.
    Results.--No results are available at this time.
    Organization.--New Jersey Institute of Technology
    Program Title.--Development of a Transportation Economic and Land 
Use System
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($891,000), fiscal year 1999 ($883,000), 
and fiscal year 1900 ($871,000)
    Current Status.--The TELUS project began in August of 1998. The 
objective is to support State governments and Metropolitan Planning 
Agencies by developing an automated data base to report on the status 
of projects. The TELUS suite of programs will also include modules to 
analyze economic and land use impacts of projects.
    Results.--A Beta test group, composed of 15 MPOs, has been formed 
and is currently testing an early release of TELUS. The Beta test group 
has reported very good results and is anxious to receive the final 
version.
    Organization.--Twenty State Departments of Transportation 
(discretionary)
    Program Title.--Innovative Bridge Research and Construction 
Program--Construction Component
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($8,910,000), fiscal year 1999 
($13,245,000), and fiscal year 1900 ($14,807,000)
    Current Status.--Allocations of funds have been made to all 20 
States participating in the program for fiscal year 1998 & fiscal year 
1999. There are 60 different projects being conducted on varying 
schedules according to the individual States' construction programs. 
Some projects have already awarded for construction. One example is the 
replacement of deteriorated a concrete deck on the Salem Avenue Bridge 
over the Great Miami River Bridge in Dayton, Ohio. Most other projects 
are underway or will be awarded for construction in the Spring of 2000.
    Results.--Results will vary according to the scope and complexity 
of the individual projects. At the Great Miami River Bridge in Dayton, 
Ohio, the deck replacement was completed successfully after solving 
several installation problems.
    Organization.--Various outside organizations (discretionary)
    Program Title.--Innovative Bridge Research & Construction Program--
Research & Technology Component
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($891,000), fiscal year 1999 
($13,245,000), and fiscal year 1900 ($14,807,000)
    Current Status.--The Ohio DOT has completed the replacement of a 
deteriorated concrete deck on the Salem Avenue bridge over the Great 
Miami River. The new deck was constructed using modular sections of 
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite materials. The complete 
sequence of section fabrication and installation was videotaped in 
order to provide other potential users with the benefits of Ohio DOT's 
experience. The Precast Concrete Institute has scheduled the 
International Symposium on High Performance Concrete for Bridges for 
September 25-27, 2000, in Orlando, Florida.
    The University of Nebraska--Lincoln is preparing to conduct the 
National Conference on High Performance Steel for Bridges in Baltimore, 
Maryland, November 29-December 1, 2000.
    Results.--The results of the re-decking of the Salem Avenue bridge 
over the Great Miami River have been documented. This project was the 
first major project where a bridge was rehabilitated using a 
lightweight modular FRP deck which was prefabricated offsite and 
installed on the existing girders after the concrete deck was removed. 
The lessons learned and captured on video during this pioneer project 
will be disseminated to all bridge owning agencies in order to help 
with the further application of FRP as a bridge material.
    Organization.--General Atomics Corporations
    Program Title.--Advanced Technology Pilot Program (low speed 
magnetic levitation--Maglev)
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($4,455,000), fiscal year 1999 
($4,415,000), and fiscal year 1900 ($4,355,000)
    Current Status.--The FHWA is partnering with the FTA to carry out 
this project. To date, one project group has been selected. General 
Atomics Corporation (GA) will lead a team to develop Maglev technology 
for the purpose of providing a solution to urban and regional 
transportation problems. The GA team will develop low speed magnetic 
levitation technology in the following main task areas: (1) system 
studies, (2) base technology development (including technical risk 
identification and resolution), (3) route specific requirements, and 
(4) projection of overall system performance and a preliminary design 
for a full scale demonstration system concept. The team comprises: GA, 
Macklin Engineering, Hall Industries, Booz Allen & Hamilton, Western 
Pennsylvania Maglev Development Corporation, Union Switch & Signal, 
Port Authority of Allegheny County, Sargent Electric Company, Mr. 
Richard Portis (DBE), P.J. Dick, Argonne National Laboratory, Carnegie 
Mellon University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the 
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
    Results.--The project was recently started and there are no 
measurable results at this time.
    Organization.--Dowling College and Auburn University
    Program Title.--Advanced Simulation Technologies
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($0), fiscal year 1999 ($1,766,000), and 
fiscal year 1900 ($1,742,000)
    Current Status.--The contracts for this have been recently awarded 
in early fiscal year 2000; little, if any work has been initiated on 
this project.
    Results.--No results are available at this time.
Discretionary programs
    In support of the Technology Deployment Initiatives and Partnership 
Program, numerous activities under several core areas, to include: 
Infrastructure, Safety, Planning and Environment, Federal Lands, and 
Operations have been initiated.
Highlight of Several Activities:
  --In a joint effort with Kansas DOT, developed a Concrete Pavement 
        Smoothness Implementation package, which included a video on 
        smoothness construction and benefits.
  --Prepared documentation on the role of the Highway Economic 
        Requirement System Model in the statewide planning process.
  --Updated the Pavement Management Systems Software catalog, and 
        expanded it to include pavement condition data collection 
        equipment.
  --Instructed and deployed information to State DOT's on Heat 
        Straightening Repairs of Steel Bridges.
  --Designed a booklet ``Building on the Past, Traveling to the 
        Future,'' which is aimed at promoting the use of transportation 
        enhancement funds for historic preservation projects and 
        providing technical information.
  --Produced a guidebook for the planning practioner.
  --Developed a methodology for establishing an initial baseline for 
        assessing the NEPA process.
  --Supported International Scanning efforts in which several 
        significant technologies were observed and documented to 
        include: Bridge Scour Countermeasures, Steel Bridge Fabrication 
        and Erection Technology, Methods and Procedures to Reduce 
        Motorist Delay in Construction Zones, Recycled/Secondary 
        Materials, Sustainable Transportation Development, and 
        Durability of Concrete Segmental Bridges.
  --Formulated the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and 
        reviewed the docket report.
  --Converted the Federal Program manual to CD-ROM, and distributed to 
        industry.
  --Continued implementation of High Performance Concrete and Superpave 
        into the Federal Lands program.
  --Further development of the Rural ITS program.
  --Coordinated development for Innovative Contracting activities.
  --Developed a flow chart and mobility/safety recommendations and best 
        practices report.
  --Supported initiatives under the International Operations and 
        Transportation Research Board and Performance Measures program.
  --Supported the technology deployment initiatives of the Superpave 
        and concrete pavement programs to State and local governments.
    Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($10,008,603), fiscal year 1999 
($514,789), and fiscal year 1900 ($2,249,793)
Programs Funded from Surface Transportation Research Program 
        [Sec. 502]: Sec. 5001(a)(1)
            Seismic Research Program
    $5.2 million has been awarded to date. The research is focusing on 
development of a Seismic Risk Analysis method which will be applicable 
to a major metropolitan area. To date, preliminary testing of the 
method has been tested using the Memphis, Tennessee area. A second 
focus area is the development of a seismic retrofitting manual for long 
span bridges. Finally, seismic specifications for standard brides has 
been updated and will be submitted to AASHTO for their consideration in 
fiscal year 2000.
            Asphalt Research
    Section 5116(c) calls for $250,000 grants in each of fiscal year 
1999 and 2000 to Auburn University for asphalt research. The National 
Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) at Auburn is currently 
constructing a pavement test track for evaluating the performance of 26 
asphalt test sections during 2 years of heavy loading. The TEA-21 
grants are being used for the construction of two polymer-modified 
asphalt sections (in the spring of 2000), to evaluate the rutting 
performance of a common commercial modifier and of chemically modified 
crumb rubber. The test track program is being funded by Alabama, 7 
other States, the TEA-21 grants, and private sector partners. The 
complete 26-section experiment will yield comparative performance data 
on a number of asphalts and aggregates and further validate and improve 
the Superpave binder selection and mixture design systems.
            Fundamental Properties of Asphalts and Modified Asphalts
    Under Section 5117(b)(5), the Western Research Institute is 
continuing its study of fundamental properties of asphalts and modified 
asphalts. Several techniques and concepts were developed which have the 
potential to improve the Superpave binder specifications. A modulated 
differential scanning calorimetry (MDSC) method was developed as a 
reliable and rapid means of predicting low temperature asphalt 
properties. Researchers found the physical properties of thin (< 50 m) 
asphalt films--characteristic of asphalt mixtures and pavements--could 
not be predicted from the bulk physical properties of asphalts which 
are measured in the current Superpave binder specifications. The WRI 
team also found water, in the form of saturated humidity, has a major 
effect on the rheology of aged asphalts, and, further, found aging in a 
humid environment was not predictable from the results of currently 
used dry aging procedures. To validate these and other developments 
from the TEA-21 research, the WRI researchers worked with the Wyoming 
DOT to construct a well-controlled test pavement section in Albin, 
Wyoming; construction of test sections is planned at three other sites 
during the 2000 construction season.
            Recycled Materials Resource Center
    In 1999, the Recycled Materials Resource Center (RMRC) at the 
University of New Hampshire fully established its staff and advisory 
board. The RMRC initiated nine research projects covering a range of 
topics, including a study of the weathering and leaching behavior of 
by-product materials, development of specifications for recycled 
materials in transportation applications, and monitoring of 
construction projects using recycled materials. Most of these projects 
involve State DOTs and industry. Outreach activities included 
establishment of the center website and client database. In 1999, there 
were 7,000 visitors to the website and over 400 clients have registered 
with the center. The RMRC has also publicized and shared its work 
through participation in and sponsorship of regional and national/
international conferences, and participated in a FHWA scanning tour to 
review European recycling practices and innovations, for which center 
personnel are preparing the final report.
            Seismic Research
    An initial $883,000 has been awarded to the University of 
California at San Diego (UCSD) for the development of a major national 
seismic shaking table which will be used to evaluate seismic design and 
response of retrofitted highway bridges. The study is jointly funded by 
the California Department of Transportation. The first series of 
testing will evaluate seismic isolation systems that will be 
retrofitted into major bridges in California.
            Corrosion Control and Prevention
    $883,000 has been awarded to CC Technologies and NACE for a two-
year study to investigate the cost of corrosion and develop preventive 
strategies. To date, three reports have been published in the Materials 
Performance NACE International Journal. The study will update the cost 
of corrosion to the nation, estimated in 1975 to be 4.2 percent of GNP 
or $70 billion for 36 specific industry sectors.
            Long-term Pavement Performance (LTPP)
    Significant accomplishments for the LTPP program last year include 
the release of the DataPave 2.0 software. DataPave is a CD-ROM version 
of the LTPP database that provides the LTPP data in an easy to 
understand and useable format. DataPave 2.0 is a two CD-ROM set that 
includes triple the amount of data in DataPave 1.0. FHWA and the 
American Society of Civil Engineers sponsored a contest in the analysis 
of the LTPP data. The contest winner in 1999 presented a new method of 
analyzing and understanding the profile of concrete pavements that has 
the potential to greatly improve the performance of future concrete 
pavements. Another product that was improved and released is LTPPBind 
2.1. The improved LTPPBind has more information and significant 
improvements in functionality. This software enables highway agencies 
and industry in the selection of the most cost effective Superpave 
binders. Lastly, LTPP is cooperating with the National Cooperative 
Highway Research Program efforts in the development of the 2002 
Pavement Design Guide. LTPP plays a critical role in the development of 
the new guide as the source of pavement data for the validation and 
calibration of the new Guide and in several instances as a source of 
information and procedures in the use of the new Guide.
            Concrete Pavement
    One of the significant products of the Concrete Pavement Program in 
the last year was the delivery of the HIPERPAV software and 
documentation. This user-friendly program allows engineers to predict 
and prevent early-age distress which may occur during the construction 
process. The result will be longer-lasting, better performing 
pavements. Also, procedures and equipment were developed for measuring 
the work ability of concrete prior to construction. This test will help 
avoid problems with placing and consolidating the concrete on the job.
              earmarked projects or university activities
    Question. For each of the earmarked projects or university 
activities specified in TEA-21 that pertain to RD&T, please specify the 
expected fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 budget amount and 
funding source.
    Answer.

                                                      DESIGNATED PROGRAMS AND RECIPIENTS OF R&T FUNDS IN TEA 21 WITH TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Program Name                1998 \1\  1999 \2\  2000 \3\ \4\   2001    2002    2003     Total        Designated Recipient (if applicable)                 TEA 21 Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs Funded from Surface
 Transportation Research Program [Sec.
 502]: Sec. 5001(a)(1):
    Seismic Research.....................  ........     .883        .871      1.0     1.0    ......     3.754  University of California at San Diego.........  5116(a)(5-73)
    Global Climate Research..............  ........     .177        .174       .2      .2      .2       0.951  University of Alabama in Huntsville...........  5116(b)(5-73)
    Asphalt Research.....................  ........     .221        .218     ......  ......  ......     0.439  Auburn University.............................  5116(c)(5-74)
    Fundamental Properties of Asphalts        .891     2.649       2.613      3.0     3.0     3.0      15.153  Western Research Institute at the U of Wyoming  5117(5)(5-81)
     and Modified Asphalts.
    Recycled Materials Resource Center...    1.337     1.325       1.307      1.5     1.5     1.5       8.469  U of New Hampshire............................  5117(8)(5-83)
    Seismic Research Program.............    1.782     1.766       1.742      2.0     2.0     2.0      11.29   Natl Center for Earthquake Engineering          5001(c)(1)(B), 5102[502(f)](5-18)
                                                                                                                Research at the U of Buffalo.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------
      Designated Recipient Total.........    4.01      7.021       6.925      7.7     7.7     6.7      40.056
                                          ====================================================================
    Corrosion Control & Prevention.......  ........    0.442       0.436     ......  ......  ......     0.878  ..............................................  5117(b)(4)
    International Outreach...............     .446     0.442       0.436      0.5     0.5     0.5       2.824  ..............................................  5001(c)(1)(C), 5106 [506]
    Long-Term Pavement Performance.......    8.910     8.830       8.71      10.0    10.0    10.0      56.45   ..............................................  5102[502(d)]
    Concrete Pavement....................    4.455     4.415       4.355      5.0     5.0     5.0      28.225  ..............................................  5001(c)(1)(D)
    Advanced Research....................  ........  ........  ............  ......  ......  ......  ........  ..............................................  5102[502(d)]
    Infrastructure Investment Needs        ........  ........  ............  ......  ......  ......  ........  ..............................................  5102[502(g)]
     Report.
    Surface Transportation-Environment     ........  ........  ............  ......  ......  ......  ........  ..............................................  5107[507]
     Cooperative Research Program.
    Surface Transportation Research        ........  ........  ............  ......  ......  ......  ........  ..............................................  5108[508]
     Strategic Planning.
    Future SHRP..........................  ........  ........  ............  ......  ......  ......  ........  ..............................................  5112
    Transportation Management Plan for     ........  ........  ............  ......  ......  ......  ........  ..............................................  1223(d)
     Olympics.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------
      Undesignated Recipient Total.......   13.811    14.129      13.937     15.5    15.5    15.5      88.377
      STRP Total.........................   17.821    21.15       20.862     23.2    23.2    22.2     128.43
                                          ====================================================================
Programs funded from Technology
 Deployment Initiatives and Partnerships
 Program [Sec.  503]: Sec. 5001(a)(2)
    Advanced Vehicle Research............  ........     .353        .348       .4      .4      .4       1.901  University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa...........  5116(d)(5-74)
    Geothermal Heat Pump Smart Bridge      ........     .883        .871      1.0      .5    ......     3.254  Oklahoma State University.....................  5116(e)(5-74)
     Program.
    Intelligent Stiffener for Bridge       ........     .883        .871       .5    ......  ......     2.254  U. of Oklahoma................................  5116(f)(5-75)
     Stress Reduction.
    Study of Advanced Trauma Care........  ........     .662        .653       .75     .75     .75      3.565  U. of Alabama at Birmingham...................  5116(g)(5-75)
    Center for Transportation Injury         1.782     1.766       1.742      2.0     2.0     2.0      11.29   Calspan of Buffalo Research Center............  5116(h)(5-76)
     Research.
    Head and Spinal Cord Injury Research.  ........     .442        .436       .5      .5      .5       2.378  Louisiana State U. & Geo. Washington U........  5116(i)(5-76)
    Motor Vehicle Safety Warning System..    0.624      .618        .610       .7      .7      .7       3.952  Georgia State is understood to be recipient--   5117(1)(5-77), 5117(b)(1)
                                                                                                                not stated in bill.
    Intelligent Transportation               1.515     1.501       1.481      1.7     1.7     1.7       9.597  State of Pennsylvania.........................  5117(3)(5-78)
     Infrastructure.
    Advanced Traffic Monitoring and          1.485     1.472       1.452      1.667   1.667   1.667     9.41   Pennsylvania Transportation Institute at        5117(6)(5-82)
     Response Center.                                                                                           Letterkenny Army Depot.
    Transportation Economic and Land Use      .891      .883        .871      1.0     1.0     1.0       5.645  New Jersey Institute of Technology............  5117(7)(5-83)
     System.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------
      Designated Recipient Total.........    6.297     9.463       9.335     10.217   9.217   8.717    53.246
                                          ====================================================================
    Transit/Magnetic Levitation..........    4.455     4.415       4.355      5.0     5.0     5.0      28.225  ..............................................  3015(c)(3-62)
    Innovative Bridge RD&T...............     .891      .883        .871      1.0     1.0     1.0       5.645  ..............................................  5001(c)(2)(A), 503(b)(3)(A)(i)
    Innovative Bridge Construction.......    8.910    13.245      14.807     20.0    20.0    20.0      96.962  ..............................................  5001(c)(2)(B, )503(b)(3)(A)(ii)
    Motor Carrier Advanced Sensor Control    0.624     0.618       0.610      0.7     0.7     0.7       3.952  ..............................................  5117(b)(2)
     System.
    Driver Fatigue.......................  ........  ........  ............  ......  ......  ......  ........  ..............................................  4021 (may use)
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------
      Undesignated Recipient Total.......   14.88     19.16       20.64      26.70   26.70   26.70    134.78
      TDIP Total.........................   21.177    28.624      29.978     36.917  35.917  35.417   188.030
                                          ====================================================================
Designated Research & Technology Programs
 Funded Separated from Title V:
    TRANSIMS.............................    3.6       2.6         5.8        5.0     4.0     2.5      23.5    ..............................................  1210
    Transportation & Community & Systems   ........   17.7        21.8       25.0    25.0    25.0     114.5    ..............................................  1221
     Preservation.
    School Transportation Safety.........  ........  ........      0.174      0.2    ......  ......     0.2    TRB...........................................  4030 ``authorized to be
                                                                                                                                                                appropriated''
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..............................    3.6      20.3        27.6       30.2    29.0    27.5     138.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligation limitation applied for fiscal year 1998 was 89.1 percent.
\2\ Obligation limitation applied for fiscal year 1999 was 88.3 percent.
\3\ Obligation limitation applied for fiscal year 2000 was 87.1 percent.
\4\ All amounts to be fully obligated by the end of fiscal year 2000.

Note: Section 1213, Studies and Reports, contains requirements for which funds may be sought from Section 5001 (a)(1). Two of these requirements also are given authority to appropriate
  additional funds. Section 2007 requires two safety studies for which funds may be sought from Section 5001(a)(1).

          IG AUDIT OF TURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTER

    Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the conferees 
directed that FHWA identify and submit specific corrections it plans to 
take in response to the Inspector General's audit of the Turner-
Fairbank Highway Research Center contracting activities. That document 
was to be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations by December 1, 1999. When will this requirement be 
implemented? What specific corrections are anticipated?
    Answer. In response to the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the 
Action Plan developed in response to OIG Report No. MA-1999-095 was 
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on 
November 30, 1999, under cover of letter from the FHWA Administrator. 
The Action Plan, which was developed jointly by the FHWA Office of 
Acquisition Management and the FHWA Office of Research, Development and 
Technology, proposed a schedule of twenty-six specific corrective 
actions to take place over the course of the period from June 1, 1999, 
through September 30, 2000. Of these twenty-six actions, twenty-one 
have been completed to date. Actions completed include the revision and 
conduct of ethics training for hundreds of TFHRC and other FHWA 
personnel, training for Contracting Officer Technical Representatives 
(COTRs) in a number of areas, the issuance of agency guidelines on the 
use of interagency agreements, a restructuring of COTR delegation 
process, and a new reporting format for tracking progress under 
contracts. Key actions remaining for completion include: a 
comprehensive COTR guideline/manual on the FHWA StaffNet (the draft of 
this manual is completed and electronic publication is anticipated by 
the end of fiscal year 2000); an internal compliance review of the 
Office of Acquisition Management (scheduled for completion by September 
30, 2000); and the development of agency policy on monitoring and 
control of Government property under contracts.

               TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND DEPLOYMENT FUNDS

    Question. Please prepare a table showing the Technology Assessment 
and Deployment funds derived from the surface transportation R&D 
account for fiscal year 2000 and proposed for fiscal year 2001. To the 
extent possible, please specify total amounts as well as amounts 
associated with each of the traditional categories of surface 
transportation R&D.
    Answer. Fiscal year 2000 was the last year that Technology 
Assessment and Deployment (TAD) was included as a separate line item in 
FHWA's R&T budget request. With the closing of the Office of Technology 
Applications, R&T initiatives under the TAD line item have been shifted 
to the appropriate corporate business units (CBUs) and other parts of 
the agency in accordance with FHWA's strategic goals. This approach 
recognizes that development and delivery of technology is integral to 
advancing FHWA goals and objectives, and meeting the needs of our 
customers. The table below outline current program plans for funding 
``TAD-type'' activities.

                            SAFETY RESEARCH

    Question. Why are you proposing to reduce safety research funded 
out of the surface transportation R&D account?
    Answer. Actually, we are not. The fiscal year 2000 Appropriations 
Conference Report indicated a total of $14.2 million for the safety 
line item. After the required obligation limitation reduction (12.9 
percent for fiscal year 2000), $12.4 million was available for the 
traditional category of safety R&D. The fiscal year 2001 request is for 
$13.9 million for the traditional safety R&D category. The 
Administration's proposal includes a provision that the obligation 
limitation requirement be removed from the R&T funding categories. With 
approval of this provision the amount requested for fiscal year 2001 is 
an increase over the amount provided in fiscal year 2000. In addition, 
the Administration is proposing to increase TEA-21 authorization 
amounts for research and technology categories by a total of $50 
million, and safety would receive an additional $5 million as part of 
this action. Approval of this request would improve our ability to 
advance critical safety R&T initiatives.
    With about 40,000 highway fatalities per year, safety is certainly 
a high national priority. The fiscal year 2001 funds will be used for 
research and development for run-off-road (33 percent), pedestrian and 
bicycle (15 percent), human centered (12 percent), safety management 
(14 percent), speed management (20 percent), and work zones (6 
percent).

                    EDUCATIONAL AND OUTREACH EFFORTS

    Question. Please update your answer from last year regarding 
educational and outreach efforts to combat the problem of drivers 
running off the road. Please estimate fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 
2001 funds allocated or planned for this purpose and provide the 
funding source of these monies. What other relevant activities have 
been implemented?
    Answer. The FHWA will have new starts and continue efforts started 
in fiscal year 2001 and prior to combat the problem of drivers running 
off the road. New starts include the development of training courses, 
demonstrations, and showcasing start-of-the-art technologies for 
practitioners. These include training courses/workshops for the highway 
practitioner in designing safer roadways e.g. Interactive Highway 
Safety Design Model, and Accommodating Older Drivers in Highway Design 
and Traffic Operations; the development and dissemination of technical 
guides and handbooks, e.g. Older Driver Highway Design Handbook, 
Highway Safety Design and Operations Guide; the showcasing and 
deployment of four Mobile Sign Retroreflectometer vans; and 
accelerating the deployment of roadside safety hardware to States and 
local communities.
    Outreach efforts include a campaign on Run-Off-Road for safety 
practitioners and the highway public. This started in fiscal year 2000 
and will be intensified in fiscal year 2001. The focus will be on three 
areas: keep the vehicle in lane, alert drivers when leaving their lane, 
and minimize the impact of the vehicle in the event of running off the 
road. Materials will be developed and disseminated focusing on these 
issues, e.g. rumble strips, share-the-road, specific user groups, 
techniques to improve roadside safety, skid resistant pavement, 
improved geometric designs, traffic control devices, better and 
improved methods for measuring the retroreflectivity of signs and 
markings.
    Funding source.--Surface Transportation Research (STR)
    Funds.--Fiscal year 2000--$375,000; fiscal year 2001--$750,000.
                      run-off-the-road activities
    Question. On a project-by-project basis, please break down your 
request for $4.570 million regarding run-off-the-road activities.
    Answer.
        Project                                                  Request
Policy Review Module for Multilane Rural Highways.......        $100,000
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model Training Course.         200,000
Rural Multilane Crash Prediction Model..................         300,000
Safety Effectiveness of Roadway Improvements............         200,000
Safety Effectiveness of Interchange Improvements........         300,000
Beta Testing of IHSDM...................................         150,000
IHSDM Driver Performance Module.........................         330,000
Vehicle Performance for Operational Situations..........         100,000
Safety Evaluation Measures from TWOPAS..................         200,000
IHSDM Software Development..............................         200,000
Geometric Design Laboratory.............................         500,000
Safety Evaluation of Ultraviolet Headlamps..............................
Night Visibility Enhancement............................         210,000
Night Driving and Highway Lighting Requirements for the 
    Older Driver........................................................
Development of Fog and Ice Detection Systems (SBIR 
    funded).............................................................
Service Support for Photometric and Visibility Facility.          70,000
Dynamic Testing of Posts in Soil........................         100,000
Safety Hardware Performance on Non-level Terrain........         150,000
Vehicle Tripping and Rollover Mechanisms................         300,000
Side-impact Relevance Study.............................         200,000
Simulation Centers of Excellence........................         200,000
Cooperative Research, Maintenance & Operation of the 
    FHWA/NHTSA NCAC.....................................         360,000
Cooperative Agreement with AAMA to Use Finite Element 
    Analysis Instead of Crash Tests.....................         100,000
Development of DYNA3D Analysis Tools for Roadside 
    Hardware Applications...............................................
Federal Outdoor Impact Laboratory.......................         300,000
Roadside Safety Audits..................................         150,000
Roadway Design Guide....................................         100,000
Retroreflectivity.......................................         200,000
IHSDM Marketing.........................................         150,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      TOTAL.............................................       5,170,000
                     pedestrian and bicycle safety
    Question. On a project-by-project basis, please break down your 
request for $2.150 million regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety.
    Answer.
        Project                                                  Request
Automatic Pedestrian & Bicycle Counting Devices.........        $300,000
Accommodation of Non-Motorists in Restricted ROW........         315,000
Intersection Hazard Index for Pedestrians (formerly 
    titled: Effects of Intersection Design on Pedestrian 
    & Bicyclist Safety).................................         275,000
Evaluation of Safety, Design, and Operation of Shared 
    Use Paths (formerly titled: Design and Operations of 
    Shared Use Paths)...................................         230,000
Pedestrian Facilities Design Training Course (Funded by 
    NHI)................................................................
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Reference Set, Version 2...........         150,000
In-Service Trials/Technologies & Partnerships for 
    Pedestrian/Highway Safety...........................         450,000
Facilitator Training for ``Pedestrian Safety Roadshow''.         100,000
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Reference..........................................
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Awareness..........................         330,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      TOTAL.............................................       2,150,000

                  EFFECTIVENESS OF SAFETY RD&T PROGRAM

    Question. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of your safety RD&T 
program? What measures of success are used? Please describe those 
results.
    Answer. For products that are part of the Safety RD&T program, 
action plans that have input from the user community are developed. 
Part of the action plan includes what products have been developed and 
who the users are. Measures of success are: when the product is 
transferred from RD&T to CBUs and Field offices; delivery and 
deployment of new RD&T products included in CBU, Resource Center and 
Division Office Unit Plans; use of product by state DOT; and adoption 
of new product by state DOT.
    Also, the effectiveness of the RD&T program is evaluated on many 
levels from determination of need to deployment and implementation at 
the state and local level. In the determination of need, workshops are 
held involving state and local personnel, FHWA field staff, and other 
partners (e.g. AASHTO, TRB, ITE, NSC, etc) to assess the safety need, 
research and/or focus area. During the program schedule additional 
workshops are held to provide guidance and ensure that the output of 
the activity meets the need and expectations of the user. The initial 
output of the activity can be an applied research product (e.g. Older 
Driver Highway Design Handbook), a process that improves highway design 
and safety (e.g. Interactive Highway Safety Design Model, Equipment for 
measuring signs and pavement marking retroreflectivity, Road Safety 
Audits, etc), the development of training workshops (e.g. Facilitator 
training for the Pedestrian Safety Roadshow), the deployment of 
technologies for test and evaluation (e.g. In-Service Trials/
Technologies & Partnerships for Pedestrian Safety), the development of 
Safety Campaigns (e.g. Red-light-Running, Work Zone Safety, etc.) and 
the development of guidelines, safety brochures, PSA's or other safety 
related information packages (e.g. Safely Moving across America CD).
    Each of these incorporate unique and different methods of 
evaluation, an example would be:
Older Driver Highway Design Handbook
    First level of evaluation was based purely on demand for product--
more than 7,000 copies were requested and disseminated.
    Second level of evaluation was based on user/safety practitioner 
feedback to initial product--the safety practitioners, once exposed to 
the issues on accommodating the older driver in highway design and 
traffic operations, demand that a workshop be developed based on the 
above handbook, also numerous requests were made to FHWA for 
presentations at international (e.g. TRB, ATSSA, etc), national and 
state meetings.
    Third level of evaluation was based on demand for indirect 
products--within a 30 month period FHWA conducted over 30 one-day older 
driver workshops, providing classroom instruction and discussion to 
over 1,000 engineers and other safety practitioners from the state and 
local agencies.
    Fourth level of evaluation is based on actual field deployment made 
by states and local communities--in this particular activity we are now 
evaluating this task.
    Fifth level of evaluation is the measure of success--is to assess 
the fourth level of evaluation by collecting data before and after 
crashes and conflicts to determine success.
    Sixth level of evaluation is inclusion into guidelines and policy 
issued by FHWA (e.g. AASHTO Green Book, MUTCD, etc.). This is measured 
by adoption of the state and inclusion in their policy and guidelines.
    Finally, the last measure of the program--is in looking at the 
overall crash picture, with focus on the segments to gauge the relevant 
reduction in fatalities and injuries.

                    TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES

    Question. How much will be spent on technology deployment 
activities related to safety? How will this help the states?
    Answer. $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2000. The ``technology 
deployment'' activities will help States by:
  --Creating an awareness among top management and administrators of 
        the benefits, impacts, and resources associated with safety 
        process, countermeasures, and technologies.
  --Providing information and demonstrations of proven state-of-the-art 
        safety technologies to practitioners.
  --Promoting concepts of new technologies, both hardware and software.
  --Effectively showcasing safety processes, countermeasures and other 
        related technologies.The technology deployment activities will 
        assist in improving the road safety of the nation by 
        accelerating the deployment/implementation of safety processes, 
        countermeasures and other related technologies at the state and 
        local level.

                      ROAD CONSTRUCTION WORK ZONES

    Question. Please update your answer from last year regarding 
training programs to educate new drivers on the dangers of road 
construction work zones.
    Answer. Currently PR # 42-01-0073 is being processed through 
Acquisition Management. The PR was designed to develop a national 
program effort to heighten the awareness of new drivers to the dangers 
involved with traveling through work zones. The program is scheduled to 
be awarded in September 2000 and consists of the following bullets:
    (1) Literature Search/Catalog.--The first task is to collect as 
much information as possible on the available literature, videos, 
programs and other related materials and collect that into a training 
best practices guide, which will be sent to the Work Zone clearinghouse 
and appropriate State and local agencies.
    (2) Training Video.--The video will concentrate on the dangers that 
work zone patterns present to new, inattentive, aggressive or speeding 
drivers.
    (3) Other Materials.--A teachers/classroom manual, CD-ROM, posters 
and stickers are just a few of the additional products expected to be 
developed and distributed.
    (4) Outreach and Marketing.--All products above are to be completed 
by the end of March 2001. Outreach (distribution of video, CD-ROM, 
manual, etc.) and marketing are to be completed before June 30, 2001.
    (5) After one year the program is to be evaluated. A written report 
and oral presentation will be provided by September 30, 2002.

                        HUMAN-CENTERED RESEARCH

    Question. Please break out and describe in detail your proposal to 
spend $1.730 million on human-centered research, paying particular 
attention to research aimed at helping the elderly.
    Answer. The following table shows a breakout of our proposed 
spending on human-centered safety-related research:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Elderly-
                   Project                       Request       Related
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver Perception of Curves and Run-Off-Road      $350,000            X
 Accidents (Resident Study)..................
Prototype Driver Models for Highway Design...      300,000            X
Older Driver Handbook........................  ...........            X
Driver Selection of Speed (Resident Study)...      250,000            X
Driver Identification of Highway Hazards.....  ...........            X
Support Services for HYSIM Simulator               330,000            X
 Laboratory (Resident Study).................
Identification and Evaluation of Driver        ...........            X
 Errors......................................
Effects of Roadway Design on Traffic Speeds        200,000            X
 and Crashes.................................
Traffic Control in Construction and            ...........            X
 Maintenance Zones...........................
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Roadway Integration        300,000            X
 (Resident)..................................
                                              -------------
      Total..................................    1,730,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the above projects are directed at making highways safer by 
incorporating the human element into the design of the infrastructure. 
Understanding the capabilities and limitations of drivers, pedestrians, 
bicyclists, etc. can have an important impact on roadway safety. All of 
the above projects involve the use of human research participants in 
investigations of human/roadway interactions, and each project includes 
the study of elderly participants to assess their special needs. The 
products of this research are used by state and local agencies, highway 
and traffic engineers and ultimately by the roadway-using public.
    For example, the ``Pedestrian-Bicycle-Roadway Integration'' study 
investigates older and younger pedestrian recognition and comprehension 
of pedestrian crossing signals. Results of this study will lead to 
recommendations on crossing signals that are readily understood by 
older and younger road users. In the ``Perception of Curves'' project, 
driver age is a key component so that safety benefits can be extended 
to older and younger drivers. The ``Speed Selection'' project evaluates 
acceptable and unacceptable operating speeds and traffic volumes from 
the pedestrian's perspective, and will study pedestrians of all ages. 
The ``Traffic Speeds and Crashes'' project uses an Operating-Speed 
Estimation Method that will consider the most important design, 
operational, and environmental factors influencing drivers' perceptions 
of safe operating speeds. Driver characteristics, including age, will 
be studied in the development and calibration of the method. The 
``Older Driver Handbook'' is an extremely popular product of our 
research effort. This Handbook gives guidance to highway and traffic 
engineers on improving roads and highways to accommodate the unique 
needs of the older driving population. Guidance is offered for 
improving the design of intersections, interchanges, roadway curvature, 
passing zones and construction and work zones, all from the perspective 
of the elderly roadway user.

                            SAFETY CAMPAIGNS

    Question. What new safety campaigns are planned for fiscal year 
2000 and fiscal year 2001? Please indicate funding amounts for each 
project.
    Answer.
Pedestrian Engineering Outreach/Awareness (2000 start)
    Goal.--To reduce the number pedestrian fatalities 5,220 (1998) that 
occur on our roadway each year. This program is intended for safety 
practitioners, the highway public, and other groups. Materials will be 
developed and disseminated (hard copy and electronic) focusing on 
pedestrian safety issues (e.g. Safety countermeasures--enhancing 
pedestrian nighttime visibility, geometric design issues, specific user 
groups, technologies--infra-red detection, and other processes).
    Status.--Campaign started in fiscal year 2000.
    Funds.--Fiscal year 2000--$200,000; fiscal year 2001--$330,000.
Run-off-Road Campaign
    Goal.--To reduce the number of run-off-road crashes that account 
for almost \1/3\ of all highway fatalities. This program will focus on 
three areas; keep the vehicle in lane, alert drivers when leaving their 
lane and minimize the impact of the vehicle in the event of running off 
the road. Materials will be developed and disseminated focusing on 
these issues, e.g. rumble strips, share-the-road, specific user groups, 
techniques to improve roadside safety, skid resistant pavement, 
improved geometric designs, traffic control devices, better and 
improved methods for measuring the retro-reflectivity of signs and 
markings.
    Status.--Campaign started in fiscal year 2000.
    Funds.--Fiscal year 2000--$200,000; fiscal year 2001--$300,000.
Speed Management Campaign
    Goal.--To reduce speed related highway crashes (more than one-third 
of all fatal crashes). This program will focus on restoring the 
credibility of speed limits in the United States. This will include 
promoting Variable Speed Limits and Reasonable and Safe Posted Speed 
limits.
    Status.--Campaign started in fiscal year 2000.
    Funds.--Fiscal year 2000--$315,000; fiscal year 2001--$250,000.
Intersection Safety Campaign (fiscal year 2001 start)
    Goal.--To reduce intersection related crashes (more than 22 percent 
of all fatal crashes). This program will focus on intersections 
(controlled and uncontrolled) and intersection related crashes. Focus 
will include traffic control devices, sight distances, geometric, etc.
    Status.--2001 start.
    Funds.--Fiscal year 2001--$200,000.

                   HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE FACILITIES

    Question. High occupancy vehicle facilities have drawn much 
attention around the country. How is FHWA helping state and local 
governments operate and maintain these facilities and how much of the 
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 budgets will be allocated for 
this activity.
    Answer. In May 1999, FHWA issued program guidance to reiterate and 
clarify its support of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities as part 
of a regional or corridor approach to manage congested conditions. The 
guidance emphasized the need to evaluate the performance of HOV 
facilities over time, as one of the many strategies in the region to 
manage congestion.
    In response to questions that were received from State and local 
agencies, the guidance also indicated when a Federal review of changes 
to the operations of HOV facilities is needed, and what should be 
included as part of that review.
    Initiatives and associated funding for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal 
year 2001 include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal years--
                                                 -----------------------
                                                     2000        2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop HOV System training course for state and     ( \1\ )     ( \2\ )
 local agencies.................................
Develop case-study on New Jersey I-80 & I-287HOV     $25,000  ..........
 lane conversions...............................
Co-sponsor HOV System Conference................      15,000  ..........
Value pricing Ban alternative operating strategy  \3\ 440,00  \3\ 675,00
 available to optimize performance of HOV                  0           0
 facilities.....................................
Technical guidance for state and local agencies      ( \1\ )  ..........
 on combining pricing and HOV strategies........
Guidance on use of HOV lanes by inherently low       ( \4\ )  ..........
 emission vehicles..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded from prior year carry over funds.
\2\ NHI course offering.
\3\ Funded under the Value Pricing program.
\4\ Internal staff effort.

                    MULTI-AGENCY INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

    Question. How much is FHWA planning to allocate in fiscal year 2000 
to support the development and maintenance of regional multi-agency 
incident management programs? Please describe those efforts and specify 
how the effectiveness of your efforts is evaluated. What new 
initiatives will be added in fiscal year 2001 and at what proposed 
costs?
    Answer. The revision of the Incident Management Handbook will be 
delivered in Spring 2000. This handbook is a revision of the 1991 
Freeway Incident Management Handbook and updates that handbook as well 
as adding a section on systematic program development for a regional 
multi-agency program. An ``Implementation Guide for Regional Traffic 
Incident Management Programs'' is being developed and will be completed 
mid-year 2000. This implementation guide discusses the steps needed to 
develop and sustain a regional multi-agency program from a strategic 
planning viewpoint. This document is intended to provide assistance in 
developing a multi-agency approach to strategic planning for incident 
management so that state and local agency goals are coordinated and 
budget development for resources needed from both state and local 
agencies is planned and coordinated. This strategic approach to 
incident management programs is missing in most regional programs. 
These efforts were funded under previous years' budgets.
    FHWA will continue to provide technical support to the National 
Highway Institute's Incident Management Workshop in fiscal year 2000. 
The Workshop has been presented 42 times in 20 states from November 
1998 through February 2000. The workshops are presented to mid-
management level persons in various response agencies consisting 
primarily of police, fire, emergency medical, emergency management, 
transportation, emergency communications and planning as well as 
private sector partners in towing and recovery, hazardous materials and 
traffic information media. The workshops have been followed up by high 
level executive sessions involving state transportation and public 
safety directors in four states with two others scheduled in 2000. The 
Workshops include evaluation forms for participants to complete that 
are used to evaluate effectiveness of presentation and indicate which 
materials need updating. In fiscal year 2000, FHWA is providing $50,000 
to allow the Workshop presenters to capture the incident management 
experiences of the participants to provide information toward the 
state-of-the-practice benchmarking activities.
    A training course on Incident Management is being developed for 
FHWA field personnel. The purpose of this training course is to 
acquaint Resource Center and Division office personnel with both 
technical and institutional issues related to incident management and 
emergency services response. This training will better enable field 
personnel to assist State and local agencies in the development, 
refinement, and maintenance of regional multi-agency incident 
management programs. This effort is split-funded between fiscal year 
2000 ($45,000) and fiscal year 2001 ($50,000), and will be delivered in 
fiscal year 2002.
    The development of the IEEE P1512 Base Standard ``Common Incident 
Management Message Sets for Use By Emergency Management Centers'' has 
been completed. This standard will help provide a common communications 
framework for all regional incident management agencies. The standard 
was successfully balloted in November 1999. Comments received in the 
ballot process are now being resolved. It is anticipated that this 
standard will receive final approval by IEEE in early spring of 2000. 
These initial efforts were funded under previous years' budgets.
    A new effort is underway within the US DOT to develop a strategy 
and program to facilitate the integration of transportation and public 
safety systems at both the technical and institutional levels. This 
effort is envisioned to also involve the Department of Justice, the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Communications 
Commission as well as police, fire, emergency medical and 
transportation professional associations. The goal of this effort is to 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public safety and 
transportation systems through improved communications and data 
transfer. While public safety communication systems have existed for 
many years, they are undergoing rapid technological advancement. At the 
same time new ITS systems and standards are being developed. The 
benefits of integrating the systems are numerous. The challenges are 
more institutional than technical. The development of ITS standards 
which affect existing public safety communications systems have made 
this effort essential.
    Work will begin on a number of outreach and awareness initiatives 
in a multi-year program to provide information (technical issue 
documents, successful practices documents, etc.) which will facilitate 
good incident management practices. Initial efforts started in fiscal 
year 2001 at an estimated cost of $200,000, will address Incident 
Command (ICS) Procedures and Practices for Transportation Agencies and 
Liability Issues in Incident Clearance. ICS is an on-scene command and 
control protocol used by public safety agencies and not widely 
understood by transportation agency responders. Liability issues raised 
at incident scenes may result in lengthy delays in reopening roadways 
to travel. The liability issues are changing now and agencies may find 
themselves at greater risk for not taking aggressive clearance actions.

                      VALUE PRICING PILOT PROGRAM

    Question. What are the status, accomplishments, and remaining 
challenges associated with the Value Pricing Pilot Program? What 
impacts on operations to transportation systems have resulted from this 
program?
    Answer. STATUS.--As of February 29, 2000, approximately $2 million 
of the TEA-21 Pilot Program funds had been obligated to support local 
and Statewide value pricing planning and pre-implementation activities. 
Because authorizations to support the TEA-21 Pilot Program did not 
become available until fiscal year 1999 and authorizations had not been 
available to support the ISTEA Pilot Program in fiscal year 1996 and 
fiscal year 1997, new program initiatives were delayed until applicants 
had time to move from initial project concepts to development of 
detailed project proposals that could support Pilot Program cooperative 
agreements.
    Value pricing is likely to have far-reaching impacts on multiple 
parties and activities and localities have been extremely careful and 
deliberate in developing their proposals in order to include 
comprehensive assessments and outreach activities before a commitment 
to implement a project would be made. For this reason, even though FHWA 
has received many inquiries about the Pilot Program, and several areas 
are interested in applying to the program, only 4 cooperative 
agreements have been signed since funding became available to the 
program in fiscal year 1999. Two of those agreements are supporting 
projects in the State of California, a third agreement is supporting a 
pre-implementation study in the State of Maryland, and the fourth 
agreement is with the State of Minnesota. We anticipate that additional 
project agreements will be signed during the remainder of fiscal year 
2000, with the States of Texas, California, Florida, New Jersey, New 
York and Connecticut being likely candidates for program participation. 
It is our expectation that at total of about $8 million to $10 million 
of program funds will be obligated through the end of fiscal year 2000, 
depending on the success of moving ahead with implementation at the 
local level.
    The initial cooperative agreement was signed in February 1999, to 
continue the State of California effort to monitor the effects of the 
private sector road pricing project on State Route 91 (SR91) in Orange 
County. In September 1999, agreements were signed to support pre-
implementation studies in the States of California, Maryland, and 
Minnesota. In addition, some of the projects funded with ISTEA funds 
are continuing with use of previous year funding, or are continuing as 
operating projects without Federal support. These operating projects 
are of particular importance because they are beginning to provide 
information about the impacts of value pricing on transportation 
systems.
    ACCOMPLISHMENTS.--The FHWA and its state and local project partners 
have now had 9 years of experience with the Value Pricing Pilot Program 
and its predecessor, the Congestion Pricing Pilot Program. Over this 
time, the U. S. has become a world leader in investigating the 
potential of this innovative approach to ease traffic congestion. 
Fourteen project agreements have been funded over these years, and over 
$32 million in Federal funds have been provided to support these 
projects. Cities in all parts of the United States are showing interest 
in value pricing, and the experience being gained through the Pilot 
projects, as well as a private sector value pricing project in Orange 
County, California, is providing valuable information to transportation 
leaders in the U.S. and around the world.
    Beyond the support being providing to state and local project 
initiatives, one of the key functions of the Federal program has been 
to establish a forum for discussion and exchange of information about 
value pricing. Regional workshops sponsored by FHWA and its project 
partners have fostered a high level of interest in value pricing in all 
parts of the United States. The most recent workshop, held in New York 
City, was highlighted by an announcement by the Executive Director of 
the New Jersey Turnpike Authority that value pricing would be 
established on the New Jersey Turnpike in the near future. This is just 
one example where value pricing is moving beyond the pilot program 
stage and is more widely being viewed as a way of managing demand on 
congested facilities and increasing the efficiency of the 
transportation system.
    The ultimate test of the Pilot Program's accomplishments is, of 
course, the extent to which the projects supported with program funds 
move into the operational phase. In this regard we have had some 
exciting accomplishments. Operational projects are being supported in 
San Diego, California; Houston, Texas; and Lee County, Florida. In 
addition, program funds are being used to support a monitoring and 
evaluation study of priced express lanes on State Route 91 in Orange 
County, California. These projects are now providing some early 
results, which are summarized in the following section.
    IMPACTS.--Perhaps the two most important findings resulting from 
the operation of the early pilot projects are that drivers do alter 
their behavior in response to variable pricing, and that highway users 
are receptive to value pricing if it can be shown to provide them with 
improved transportation services. In San Diego, where tolls on the I-15 
Express Lanes vary dynamically with the level of congestion, value 
pricing has led to improved use of available HOV lane capacity, and has 
generated revenues to support express bus service in the corridor. The 
vast majority of highway users in the corridor view this project as a 
success, and the San Diego Association of Governments is studying the 
feasibility of expanding the express lanes operation to cover more 
miles of the I-15 facility.
    In Lee County, Florida, the value pricing strategy has caused 
drivers to shift trips out of the peak-congestion period into the 
shoulders of the peak, leading to more efficient use of available 
bridge capacity and improved service for bridge users. This project has 
been well received by bridge patrons, and the County is currently 
examining other value pricing options to improve local transportation 
service. Value pricing is also being offered in Houston, Texas, on the 
Katy Freeway's (I-10) HOV lane. This project has led to improved use of 
existing HOV lane capacity, allowing more people to be moved through 
the corridor. The project, after an initial infusion of start-up funds 
from the Pilot Program, has become financially self-sufficient, and 
users of the lanes report satisfaction with the service being provided.
    The value pricing project with the longest history in the U.S. is 
the Express Lanes project on SR91 in Orange County, California. This is 
a privately owned and operated project, but the Pilot Program is 
supporting the State of California's monitoring and evaluation of the 
traffic and travel behavior impacts of the project. This project 
consists of variably-priced express lanes that were constructed in the 
median of SR91. The project has shown that value pricing can be used to 
maintain free-flow traffic conditions, and that motorists value having 
the option of paying to receive improved transportation service in this 
highly-congested corridor.
    In sum, the early results from pricing projects in the U.S. are 
showing that travelers are willing to pay for improvements in 
transportation service, and that pricing can lead to more efficient use 
of existing highway capacity. People do respond to price signals when 
making transportation decisions, just as they do in other parts of 
their economic lives, and those responses can serve as important 
investment guides for transportation planners and policy makers.
    REMAINING CHALLENGES.--The major challenges surrounding value 
pricing and the Value Pricing Pilot Program continue to be the 
challenges of project design and public acceptance. The pilot tests 
that have been initiated to date are pathbreaking projects that show 
great promise for the future of value pricing in transportation. Yet, 
these projects have been limited in both geographic scope and variety 
of pricing innovations. Operational projects have been launched in 
California, Texas and Florida. Even though interest exists in other 
parts of the country, resistance to exploring new ways of charging for 
road use has not yet been overcome. Peak-period value pricing charges 
have been tested on a newly-constructed express lane facility and on 
existing HOV lanes with excess capacity, and off-peak toll discounts 
have been tested in Florida. Efforts to move beyond these initial 
concepts have yet to be undertaken.
    The challenge of the Pilot Program is to continue to test the 
successful concepts in new areas, and to move beyond the initial 
pricing concepts to new applications of value pricing, including 
variable pricing on existing toll facilities, pricing of newly 
constructed highway facilities, parking pricing, and other innovative 
concepts. Continued information sharing and public outreach through the 
Pilot Program approach has an important role to play in expanding the 
number and variety of pilot tests. These tests show how greater use of 
pricing principles in highway transportation can help bring more 
rationality to transportation investment decisions, and can lead to 
significant reductions in the billions of dollars of economic waste 
associated with traffic congestion.

                 WEATHER IMPACTS ON HIGHWAY OPERATIONS

    Question. How much are you spending in fiscal year 2000 and in 
fiscal year 2001 to help state and local highway agencies mitigate the 
impact of changes in weather on highway operations? How will this 
information be used by road users and operators? Please specify 
projects and their associated funding levels.
    Answer. Proposed spending on research efforts in ITS and Operations 
research funds, including field tests, to mitigate the impact of 
changes in weather on highway operations is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        ITS         Operations         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
    2000........................................................      $2,100,000        $100,000      $2,200,000
    2001........................................................       1,900,000         100,000       2,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The heart of the weather and winter mobility program aims to 
improve surface transportation outcomes under adverse weather through 
the development of better (accurate, reliable, appropriate, and readily 
available) road weather information. This vision recognizes that the 
wealth of weather information available today is not tailored for road 
users and operators, and hence leads to system inefficiencies. 
Therefore, efforts under this program aim to develop improved decision 
aids for the host of road users and operators. Work to date consists of 
documenting the specific information needs of all users and operators, 
and translating these needs into system requirements. Such an effort 
serves two purposes: (1) it provides us with the material needed to 
work with the federal weather community (e.g., the National Weather 
Service) to see that their weather products and services satisfy these 
requirements, and (2) it provides us with the foundation for further 
research and field testing. The bulk of this research and field testing 
is on these decision support systems that fuse and filter the seemingly 
unending weather information and present it to road users and operators 
in a manner that is easily interpretable. This will ultimately lead to 
improved decision making because the users and operators will be 
presented with road weather information that fits their specific 
requirements, rather than having to make decisions based on generic 
weather information.
    To that end, the following research projects and field tests are 
proposed for fiscal years 2000 and 2001:

Fiscal year 2000:
    Refinement of Surface Transportation Weather Requirements.  $300,000
    Develop Decision Support System for Winter Maintenance....   600,000
    Environmental Sensor Station Siting and Road Condition 
      Forecasting Evaluation..................................   750,000
    Assimilation of Road Condition Observations...............   450,000
    Outreach and Training (e.g., support AASHTO Snow & Ice 
      Cooperative Program, PIARC, regional maintenance 
      conferences, etc.)......................................   120,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

        Total................................................. 2,220,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 2001:
    Refinement of Surface Transportation Weather Requirements 
      (continuation of fiscal year 2000 project)..............   250,000
    Field Test of the Winter Maintenance Decision Support 
      System..................................................   750,000
    Develop Decision Support System for Travelers.............   800,000
    Evaluation of Automated Anti-icing Spraying Systems.......   100,000
    Outreach and Training.....................................   100,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

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

    Of the above totals, $2,100,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $1,900,000 
in fiscal year 2001 are derived from the ITS program budget.

                     TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CHALLENGES

    Question. What are the basic R&D and technology transfer challenges 
facing the operations CBU?
    Answer. We are currently in the process of identifying those issues 
in order to form a 5-year operations research and technology agenda. 
The first national discussion of those issues was held April 3rd thru 
5th at the Institute of Transportation Engineers Conference in Irvine 
California. The results will be incorporated in the report from 
Transportation Research Board's National Transportation Research 
Partnership.
    Initial hypotheses and anecdotal evidence suggest that some of the 
primary challenges in improving operations of the surface 
transportation system are:
    1. Institutional and cultural: Existing institutions are 
extraordinarily fragmented and often have no institutionalized 
processes or lines of communication for sharing information or 
responses in systems operations. Most of the institutions are organized 
to carry out capital projects. The existing planning process is 
oriented toward capital planning. It generally does not include the 
operations stakeholders nor are there processes in place for discussing 
and systematically dealing with planning for operational improvements.
    2. Tools: There are few planning tools that will help assess the 
value of operations improvements. Most models have a 5, 10, or 20 year 
horizon and are geared to a one time capital decision. Operations tools 
need horizons of minutes.
    3. Skill and priority: In part because federal policy has been 
skewed toward capital investment, operations have been forced to 
compete in the local budget arena. Evidence suggests it is becoming 
``deprofessionalized'' rather that increasingly professionalized. Funds 
and skill are apparently not available for even maintaining and 
updating timing of traffic signals. Awareness of the consequences of 
this neglect in terms of congestion and safety will be a major hurdle 
to overcome.
    4. Adequate ITS infrastructure: Although we are making progress, 
installation of sufficient ITS infrastructure for surveillance and 
management purposes continues to be a challenge. Even in areas with 
substantial existing and planned infrastructure, integration of 
infrastructure and information across jurisdictional, modal, and 
functional boundaries remains an issue.

                            WORK ZONE DELAYS

    Question. Work zone delays are a continuing issue with the 
traveling public. How much are you spending in fiscal year 2000 and in 
fiscal year 2001 to help state and local highway agencies address this 
area? Please describe the scope and nature of your activities and their 
associated funding levels on a project-by-project basis.
    Answer. The Operations CBU's efforts cut across other offices 
within FHWA. In addition to the $660,000 which is dedicated from 
Operations, an additional sum of $500,000 is being provided by the 
Safety CBU as part of FHWA's overall Work Zone initiative. The 
additional funds are incorporated into the cost figures below.
    The work zone budget for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 is 
as follows. Details of these efforts follow.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal years--
                                         -------------------------------
                                               2000            2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best Practices Guide Book...............         150,000          75,000
Work Zone Awareness Week................          50,000          50,000
Technology Scan.........................          35,000         250,000
Delay Measure, Decision Tool & Guidance          865,000         825,000
 to reduce delay........................
Training................................          60,000         250,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total Work Zone Operations........       1,160,000       1,450,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best Practices Guide Book
    Development of a Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook is being 
carried out in partnership with the American Association of State 
Highway Officials (AASHTO). The guidebook presents a collection of 
highway community best practices, which focus on minimizing driver and 
worker exposure in construction and maintenance work zones. With this 
guidebook a process is established to update and maintain an initial 
set of best practices, allowing the continued sharing of highway agency 
success stories with practitioners across the Nation. Regional 
seminars, which present the information in the guidebook and encourage 
additional sharing of best practices are now being planned. To 
supplement this guidebook, a checklist is under development that will 
facilitate identification and correlation of practices, appropriate for 
each stage of the project planning, design, and implementation 
processes.
Work Zone Awareness Week
    FHWA is partnering with AASHTO and the American Traffic Safety 
Services Association to sponsor National Work Zone Safety Awareness 
Week. The event is intended to heighten motorist and worker awareness 
of the dangers encountered when driving through highway construction 
and maintenance work zones. Through a network of government and 
industry partners, media events and community outreach will focus on 
education and awareness.
Delay Measure, Decision Tool, and Guidance to Reduce Delay
    There is a need to develop user-friendly computer software tools 
which accurately analyze and reliably predict work zone impacts. FHWA 
has initiated development of decision making tools which will allow 
practitioners involved in the project preplanning, planning, 
development, and construction phases to weigh alternate strategies to 
mitigate the mobility and safety impacts resulting from work zones. 
Development of the first spreadsheet tool, which we are calling 
``Quickzone,'' is underway with field beta testing to be accomplished 
this summer, and full release planned for April 2001. In parallel with 
development of the decision making tool, FHWA will investigate work 
zone delay measurement practices and techniques, and work to quantify 
current national impacts, and develop guidelines for quantifying 
delays.
Technology Scan
    In fiscal year 2000, FHWA will initiate a ``Technology Scan'' to 
showcase state-of-the-art technologies. With this activity, new and 
emerging work zone technologies, focused on improving mobility and 
safety, will be identified, demonstrated and shared with the highway 
community through field testing, evaluation and several multi-State 
workshops. Improving mobility and safety on the Federal-aid highway 
system, in light of construction and maintenance operations, is the 
goal of this activity, and technologies scanned will range from 
traveler information techniques, traffic management practices, means of 
contracting, and improved materials/methods of construction.
Training
    In fiscal year 2001, FHWA will develop a Work Zone Traffic 
Management Training program. This training will facilitate an 
organizational understanding of work zone traffic management 
principles, shifting attention from the traditional site specific 
traffic control. The training will focus on integrating work zone 
traffic management principles into the early phase of project planning.

                      MULTI-MODAL FREIGHT ANALYSIS

    Question. What is the purpose of the research effort on Multi-Modal 
Freight Analysis Framework?
    Answer. A new era in freight transportation is emerging. It is 
driven by competitive global trade, new business and logistical 
practices, and increasing reliance upon information technology. The 
purpose of the multi-modal freight analysis is to:
  --Marshal and/or develop freight analytical models, data sources, 
        communication channels, and professional expertise (taken as a 
        whole, these will provide freight intelligence support for the 
        FHWA, the Department, State and local jurisdictions, and other 
        public and private sector partners and investors who are 
        seeking to improve freight service);
  --Define the essential functions of the U.S. and North American 
        freight corridors, connectors, and intermodal terminals; the 
        varied challenges to these freight system components' continued 
        performance, as defined by their current condition, extent, 
        probable evolution, and investment needs;
  --Enhance the ability of the FHWA and state and local governments to 
        evaluate alternative infrastructure investment strategies vis-
        a-vis alternative private sector investment strategies. For 
        example, major highway capacity investment for the purposes of 
        intermodal goods movement improvement needs to match port 
        capacity investment which in turn needs to match shipper and 
        carrier business strategies.
    Question. What end-products do you anticipate from this investment? 
How much will be allocated?
    Answer. End products will include national databases on freight 
flows and models capable of analyzing alternative infrastructure 
investments relative to alternative futures and business practices. 
Spending will be extensive: $900,000 was set-aside in fiscal year 2000; 
$750,000 is requested in fiscal year 2001.
    Question. How will this research help state and local governments? 
What do you anticipate as achievements from your research on freight 
performance measurement? How does the initiative support, or mesh with, 
other freight initiatives being conducted by the Operations CBU? How 
much are you planning to spend in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 
on this research?
    Answer. State and local governments will be better able to evaluate 
and justify intermodal infrastructure investments. Performance 
measurement is required as part of the FHWA and DOT strategic plans, 
consistent with the GPRA. Measurement offers us the opportunity to more 
quantitatively assess system performance and efficiency relative to a 
critical user B shippers, carriers and ultimately the American public. 
Literally millions have been spent on measures and models for 
estimating system performance and investment benefits relative to the 
commuter. Very little has been spent to measure similar performance for 
goods movement. The advent of e-commerce makes such measures 
increasingly critical.
    Our efforts include a search for one or two validated national 
measures to diagnose problem areas in freight transportation, and to 
help us evaluate significant system investments. This research also 
seeks to define specific measurements to use in assessing freight 
corridor and border crossing movements. Research to date has pinpointed 
some potential measurements that we may be able to use to diagnose 
problem areas and generate solutions. Our next step is to present these 
measurements to our partners and together seek consensus on an adequate 
measure or set of measures. This initiative involves more than simply 
establishing designated measurements' relevance to highway freight 
transportation. It also seeks to address more pragmatic concerns, such 
as the potential availability of reliable data and databases to support 
measurement, and the accessibility of privately held industry data for 
public use.
    Ultimately, the application of performance measurements will 
support agency strategic planning and become an important component of 
our multi-year initiative to produce a freight analysis ``framework,'' 
a major effort to evaluate the current condition of U.S. and North 
American freight transportation, generate future scenarios of need and 
opportunity, evaluate potentially advantageous public policies, and 
knowledgeably design strategic public sector investments to improve 
freight performance and mobility. $250,000 was provided in fiscal year 
2000 and a similar amount is proposed for fiscal year 2001 for this 
research.

                   NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

    Question. Why is FHWA's Freight Management Office conducting 
research and conducting projects that deal with our national economic 
competitiveness and economic growth? How much money is being allocated 
for research and projects in fiscal year 2000, and proposed for fiscal 
year 2001? How will this help state and local governments? Please break 
out specific projects and associated funding levels.
    Answer. A primary justification of federal involvement in and 
investment in transportation is to aid interstate and international 
commerce. Several studies have recently shown (notably one completed by 
Booz Hamilton, another by GAO, and the FHWA draft NHS Connector Study) 
that freight related infrastructure investments tend to fare poorly in 
the local planning process unless they can be justified based on 
benefits to passenger travel. One reason is the lack of analysis tools 
to demonstrate quantitatively the benefits of a freight related 
investment and how those benefits are likely to be distributed.
    During 2001 and 2002, we are seeking to develop a national 
perspective on needed investments in, and improvements to, our national 
competitiveness and economic growth. Subsequently, in 2003 and beyond, 
we are proposing to expand our focus to include more local needs by 
developing investment ``tools'' for our state and Metropolitan Planning 
Organization (MPO) partners that can be used to assess the costs and 
benefits of freight projects.
    These tools will help local officials to understand both the 
importance and the effects of freight investment on their region's 
economic productivity. Equally important they will assist in evaluating 
the distribution of benefits relative to the distribution of costs 
(both monetary and environmental).
    The FHWA has allocated $500,000 for investment work in fiscal year 
2000. We have proposed $750,000 in fiscal year 2001.

                        TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

    Question. What new tools, research, and skills are you working on 
to help state DOTs operate and maintain their highway systems more 
effectively?
    Answer. The Operations Core Business Unit will be releasing the 
updated edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices in mid 
fiscal year. This Manual contains the standards for signs, traffic 
signals, and pavement markings, and incorporates the latest 
technologies and research, especially of the needs of older drivers, 
relating to the use of these traffic control devices to improve the 
flow and safety of all roads opened to public travel. Once the Manual 
is released, the text and figures will be available on our web site, 
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov, and available on CD-ROMs. We will be working 
with the professional and contractor organizations to provide training 
for their staffs.
    Snow, ice, fog, rain and other inclement weather reduce the 
capacity and safety of road systems. The surface transportation weather 
forecasting requirements will be developed and ready to serve as a 
basis for FHWA to engage the weather forecasting community in preparing 
weather forecasts for the surface transportation operations managers 
and the traveling public, just as they do for the aviation users. Using 
weather forecasts focused on the surface transportation system, as 
opposed to the use of general, area wide forecasts, operations managers 
will be better prepared to respond to snow removal, roads restricted by 
high water or trees, and roads with reduced visibility. Additionally, 
the FHWA will be completing the development and beginning the testing 
of a winter maintenance weather decision support system for managers 
and traveler information for travelers.
    In the area of improved work zone operations, FHWA will be 
developing decision-making tools which will allow practitioners to 
evaluate alternate strategies to mitigate the mobility and safety 
impacts resulting from work zones. Other products that will be 
developed include work zone traffic management training, and guidelines 
on reducing construction times, on higher quality pavement, innovative 
contracting and innovative construction practices.
    The Operations CBU will provide guidance to agencies on how to 
consider transportation systems operations during transportation 
planning processes. Also, guidance will be provided to operating 
agencies on how to better plan for improved system operations and 
maintenance from a performance-based perspective.
    We will also continue to develop and deliver technical guidance and 
training in a number of operational areas, such as traveler 
information, traffic management, incident management, arterial 
management, HOV facilities, and travel demand management.
    The ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) will be released through 
McTrans this spring. IDAS is a cost benefit software tool that helps 
communities determine the costs and benefits of implementing specific 
ITS improvements. In addition to its upcoming release, a training 
course is under development that will show our state and local partners 
how to use IDAS most effectively. The training course will be ready in 
early next fiscal year and the Operations CBU will work through our 
field staff and resource centers to ensure its wide distribution.
    Research on Adaptive signal Control Systems (ACS) is continuing. 
ACS will allow traffic signal control systems to respond to current 
traffic conditions in real time. Currently, three alternative 
algorithms have been developed for various conditions, and are being 
field tested. The field tests will be completed next year, and, 
ultimately, the algorithms will be made commercially available shortly 
thereafter.
    The Operations CBU is continuing to advance the widespread 
deployment of Incident Management programs around the country. We are 
continuing to work with NHI to deliver approximately two incident 
management workshops per month. These multi-agency workshops cater to 
DOTs, police, fire, emergency medical personnel, and emergency 
communications operators. Also, a new Incident Management Handbook will 
be released this spring, updating the 1991 manual which documents best 
practices and procedures and key issues in incident management. An 
Incident Management Implementation Guide will also be released this 
spring which is geared toward helping communities develop an 
institutional framework for sustained incident management programs in 
the long term.
    Turbo Architecture is also being released this spring. Turbo 
Architecture is a tool which was developed in response to our partners' 
needs in developing regional ITS architectures. It walks the users 
through the National ITS Architecture by a question and answer process, 
and helps to develop regional and local ITS architectures which will be 
consistent with the National ITS Architecture. It will be rolled out 
this spring at the ITS America Annual Meeting and then made available 
for distribution through McTrans. Training courses are also underway 
which will be provided through NHI when completed early next fiscal 
year.
    TSIS version 5.0, which is one of the most comprehensive traffic 
simulation models in the world, is currently under development. This 
new user-friendly version will provide for an easy user data inputting 
interface. Once complete, TSIS 5.0 will enable our state and local 
partners to simulate freeways and large street networks for 
alternatives analyses and planning. When complete, it will be made 
available to our partners through McTrans.
    In the area of ITS training, we have trained almost 9,000 people in 
various travel management topics geared toward the operation and 
management of the transportation system. We have also trained over 
3,000 people in CVO courses, and over 12,000 people have seen the CVO 
technology truck. The ITS training program has been so successful that 
we are now seeing several states tailoring our courses to meet specific 
their needs, including California, Virginia, Florida, and Utah. FHWA 
Divisions and Resource Centers continue to reach many people in the 
profession. Associations such as ITE and ITS America are now developing 
and delivering coursed under their own banners. ITE standards courses 
have reached over 2,000 people. The thrust of the ITS training program 
development now focuses on distance learning. In other words, providing 
the key technical training courses to the people who need them, when 
and where they can obtain the training. We are currently piloting three 
web-based training courses through which we plan to reach many people 
in the profession.

                     OPERATIONS CORE BUSINESS UNIT

    Question. Please discuss the scope and nature of your fiscal year 
2000 highway operations program and indicate the amount and purpose of 
each relevant contract funded under that sub-account.
    Answer. The objective of the Operations Core Business Unit is to 
optimize the performance of the transportation system through unifying 
all aspects of the surface transportation system. Within the 5 offices 
of the CBU, there are 73 FTP, including the JPO, dedicated to this 
task. The Transportation Operations Office handles safety and mobility 
in construction/maintenance operations, Weather initiatives, MUTCD, and 
Emergency Preparedness. The Office of Travel Management is responsible 
for ITS Deployment, HOV Systems, Operations Planning Guidelines, 
Congestion Management, Value Pricing, and Highway Capacity Analysis. 
The Office of Freight Management and Operations handles Size and Weight 
Enforcement, border crossings, National Freight Partnership, Multi-
state freight corridor development, National Highway System connectors, 
and the Intermodal investment framework. The Office of Technology 
Services is responsible for strategic planning, communications and 
outreach, legislative coordination, research development and technology 
coordination, policy coordination, and training support/university 
programs. The ITS Joint Program Office is responsible for DOT-wide ITS 
coordination, the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative, Standards, 
Architecture, and Evaluation and coordinates with many of the 
initiatives throughout the other offices of the CBU.
    The JPO maintains its role as a separate unit that serves all of 
the Department for ITS development and benefits from the organizational 
support as an office within FHWA. The Director of the JPO is also the 
Director of the Operations CBU. In its Department-wide functions, the 
JPO continues its extensive coordination and close working 
relationships with program managers and senior officials in FHWA, FRA, 
NHTSA, and FTA on the research, development and deployment of ITS 
technologies. As an office within FHWA, the JPO benefits from the 
program and administrative support of the agency and also relies on the 
FHWA field organization to support its initiatives. With the creation 
of the Operations CBU, FHWA better positioned itself to carry out the 
strategic direction set by the JPO and to take a leadership role in 
using the ITS infrastructure that is being put in place across the 
nation.
    In fiscal year 2000, the Operations Core Business Unit is pursuing 
four strategies to advance more efficient operations as outlined in the 
Mobility goal of the strategic plan:
    1. Complete key ongoing initiative and invest in a limited number 
of high impact ``low hanging fruit'' including: a. Completing the 
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices; b. Launching a major Work 
Zone research and tech transfer initiative; c. Continuing the FHWA 
weather response initiative.
    2. Invest in supporting the deployment of the ITS infrastructure 
including: a. Architecture consistency guidance and training; b. 
Completing two-thirds of the proposed ITS standards and launching 
testing and training; c. Implementing service plans in 55 of 78 largest 
metro areas; d. Completing the ITS Deployment Analysis System, a tool 
for planning ITS deployment; e. Developing and testing low cost 
adaptive control for small communities.
    3. Invest in laying an information, measurement and institutional 
foundation for operations, including: a. Benchmarking; b. Developing 
options for national and local performance measures; c. Conducting 
national conferences and regional workshops to begin developing 
planning guidelines, developing a research agenda, and establishing 
local operations institutions.
    The Operations Core Business Unit will pursue four strategies to 
improve the efficiency and productivity of freight movement. 1. Conduct 
analyses necessary to develop a cohesive set of long term freight 
improvement strategies; 2. Invest in corridor and border improvements 
thru the sec. 5118 and 5119 Borders and Corridor Program; 3. Continue 
to nurture multi-state freight/trade institutional partnerships to 
leverage public and private investments in freight related 
infrastructure and intermodal operations improvements; 4. Develop and 
test key elements of ITS technology.
    The following chart shows the funding for the major programs for 
the offices in the Operations CBU in fiscal year 2000:

        Projects by Office                              Fiscal year 2000
Freight Management:
    Decision-making Framework...........................      $1,600,000
    Institutional Partnerships..........................         150,000
    Performance Measures................................         250,000
Transportation Operations:
    Work Zone Operations (includes $500,000 from Safety 
      CBU)..............................................   \1\ 1,160,000
    Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices...........         375,000
    Improved Weather Response...........................         100,000
    Emergency Preparedness..............................         135,000
Travel Management:
    Freeway & Incident Management & Operations..........         195,000
    Arterial Operations and Traffic Control.............         230,000
    Travel Demand Management............................          50,000
    Performance Analysis & Tools........................         325,000
Operations Technology Services:
    Measures of Success.................................         500,000
    Operations Outreach/Awareness and Institution 
      Building..........................................         861,000
    AASHTO/FHWA International Scan......................          40,000
Congressionally Mandated Studies........................       3,932,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      TOTAL.............................................       9,903,000

\1\ Includes $500,000 from the Safety CBU for Work Zone initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

    Question. Document how the fiscal year 2001 request ensures program 
continuity with the fiscal year 2000 spending plan.
    Answer. The 2001 budget request proposes to continue the strategies 
outlined in the answer to the previous question. For example:
  --The budget request will support nationwide dissemination of the 
        final MUTCD rule that will completed by fiscal year 2001.
  --It will provide extensive training and outreach to state and local 
        agencies on proven ways to improve the safety of work zones and 
        to efficiently manage work zones. This will include development 
        and training on analytical tools to reduce construction times 
        and the costs of work zone delays.
  --FHWA will continue programs to benchmark and share best practices 
        in travel management systems to help state and local 
        governments to use their current traffic systems most 
        effectively and to deploy ITS technologies and advanced 
        techniques to improve the performance of their system.
  --We will continue development of the Freight Analytical Framework 
        launched in 2000.
  --We will develop freight cost benefit analysis tools based on data 
        collected in the year 2000.
  --We will gain consensus on and test performance measures developed 
        in 2000.
  --We will continue regional workshops started in 2000 and add the 
        self-assessment ``operations audit'' tool to the discussion.

                           PAVEMENT RESEARCH

    Question. Why are you proposing to decrease the amount for pavement 
research funded out of the surface transportation R&D account?
    Answer. The surface transportation research provisions of TEA-21 
provide a fixed amount of authorized funds each year, which do not rise 
in conjunction with the growing demands from emerging or expanding 
areas such as transportation operations, freight, the environment and 
policy issues. This has forced FHWA to make difficult decisions on 
relative program priorities and some areas do show funding reductions, 
as reflected in the request for surface transportation research funds 
for pavement research being reduced in fiscal year 2001 over the fiscal 
year 2000 level. We certainly recognize the value of continuing to 
advance innovation through pavement-related R&T efforts and we have 
been reluctant to cut financial resources provided by current TEA-21 
authorizations, but we feel this has been unavoidable given the current 
R&T funding environment. As outlined in response to the next question, 
we have proposed that additional funds be authorized beyond current 
TEA-21 levels to address this critical need.
    Question. Your table comparing pavement research for fiscal year 
2001 to that for fiscal year 2000 funded from the surface 
transportation research account shows a substantial reduction in funds 
for this research category. Please explain the strategic thinking 
behind this request.
    Answer. Strategically, we do believe that there is a critical need 
to continue essential pavement-related R&T activities within the 
highway community, as this is a very high-priority area among our 
partners and customers. To achieve continuing advancement while FHWA 
funding is reduced (as noted in the answer to the previous question), 
we have worked very closely with key partners on collaborative 
approaches; and our State DOT partners, in particular, have been very 
responsive to this effort. The pavements area is a good example of 
where such partnerships have been successful, as funds from State DOTs 
have supported critical pavements-related work. However, our state 
partners have made their belief clear that additional Federal resources 
are needed for these efforts, and FHWA has taken the initiative to 
request that additional R&T funds be authorized beyond current TEA-21 
levels. This FHWA request for a total of $50 million in additional 
funds ($40 million in surface transportation research, $6 million in 
technology deployment, and $4 million for training and education) 
includes a significant portion for pavement R&T to address the current 
shortfall in R&T.

                             RESEARCH AREAS

    Question. What has been done in response to the fiscal year 1999 
conference committee's encouragement to support research into 
geosynthetic materials, the use of polymer additives for pavements, 
lithium-based technologies, and composite bridge systems with funds 
provided for pavements? How much will be allocated for these research 
areas in fiscal year 1999 and in fiscal year 2000?
    Answer.
Geosynthetic Materials
    The FHWA technical representatives met with Montana DOT and the 
Montana State University. A Work Order contract was established in 
fiscal year 1999, to conduct the above effort. Since directed 
activities exceeded funds provided under the legislation, only $600,000 
was available for this effort in 1999. The Montana DOT, the FHWA, and 
the University representatives have formed a technical advisory group 
for this project. On January 25, 2000, the Montana State University 
produced its 1st interim report on this effort. This report contains 
the results of their work to model pavement performance and 
applicability for pavement design.
Polymer Additives for Pavements
    In fiscal year 1999, the FHWA was encouraged by the conferees to 
investigate polymers produced by Martin Color-fi Incorporated of 
Edgefield, South Carolina. In December of 1998, FHWA hosted a meeting 
with Martin Color-fi, a producer of polyester fibers, to discuss the 
FHWA polymer research program and to learn about the polymers produced 
by this company.
    The fiscal year 1999 appropriation provided funding of $1,500,000 
for this effort. However, the pavements' program stipulated by the 
original legislation and fiscal year 1999 appropriations totaled more 
than the allotted budget. Subsequently, activities called for under the 
fiscal year 1999 appropriations were only funded at 60 percent. 
Therefore the actual funding provided for this effort was $900,000. In 
fiscal year 1999, this funding was used by FHWA to support the 
development of the chemically-modified product and to provide detailed 
laboratory analysis. Planned expenditures in this area for fiscal year 
2000 are $625,000.
Lithium-based technologies
    Regarding research on lithium-based technologies (to mitigate 
alkali-silica reaction in concrete), there were no funds specifically 
designated for lithium work in fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 2000, 
$500,000 was allocated specifically for lithium work. In November 1999 
and January 2000, FHWA met with lithium industry representatives to 
discuss research and implementation needs, and several potential 
projects were identified. An expert panel has been formed to assist 
FHWA in planning and selecting projects, and the panel will be meeting 
in early May to define the projects to be funded with fiscal year 2000 
monies.
Composite Bridge Systems
    On September 2, 1999, a cooperative agreement was signed with West 
Virginia University. Funding for fiscal year 1999 was $600,000 in 
federal funds, with $150,400 in matching funds from the university. The 
project is investigating the applicability of composite materials for 
dowel bars and reinforcement normally made of steel for use in concrete 
pavements.

            SECOND GENERATION COMPOSITE BRIDGE DECK SYSTEMS

    Question. What was accomplished in response to the fiscal year 1999 
conference committee's encouragement to develop second generation 
composite bridge deck systems and technologies that may lead to better 
constructed and longer lasting pavements? How much will be allocated 
for these research areas in fiscal year 1999 and in fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. On September 2, 1999, a cooperative agreement was signed 
with West Virginia University. Funding for fiscal year 1999 was 
$600,000 in federal funds, with $150,400 in matching funds from the 
university. The project is investigating the applicability of composite 
materials for dowel bars and reinforcement normally made of steel for 
use in concrete pavements. In fiscal year 2000, it is anticipated that 
no additional funds will be allocated for this effort.

                 LONG-TERM PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE (LTPP)

    Question. Please bring us up to date on the progress, 
accomplishments, challenges, and outlook for the LTPP, as well as the 
integration of this effort with the pavement R&D program proposed for 
this fiscal year.
    Answer. The progress, accomplishments and challenges for the LTPP 
are described in the LTPP: 1999 YEAR IN REVIEW, FHWA-RD-00-020. 
Highlights of the progress and accomplishments include the release of 
the DataPave 2.0 software. DataPave is a CD-ROM version of the LTPP 
database that provides the LTPP data in an easy to understand and use 
format. DataPave 2.0 is a two CD-ROM set that includes triple the 
amount of data in DataPave 1.0. FHWA and the American Society of Civil 
Engineers sponsored a contest in the analysis of the LTPP data. The 
contest winner in 1999 presented a new method of analyzing and 
understanding the profile of concrete pavements that has the potential 
to greatly improve the performance of future concrete pavements. 
Another product that was improved and released is the LTPPBind 2.1. The 
improved LTPPBind has more information and significant improvements in 
functionality. This software enables highway agencies and industry in 
the selection of the most cost effective Superpave binders. Lastly, the 
LTPP is cooperating with the National Cooperative Highway Research 
Program efforts in the development of the 2002 Pavement Design Guide. 
The LTPP plays a critical role in the development of the new guide as 
the source of pavement data for the validation and calibration of the 
new Guide and in several instances as a source of information and 
procedures in the use of the new Guide.
    The principal challenge facing the LTPP is adequate funding. 
Although TEA-21 provides $10 million per year for the LTPP, this is 
insufficient to operate the program. This shortfall in funding has been 
addressed by the State highway agencies. Through the National 
Cooperative Highway Research Program the states have provided $4.7 
million in 1999 and $5.025 million in 2000 for the LTPP. These funds 
are used for data collection, analysis and product development.
    The outlook for the LTPP is very positive. The program is producing 
the quality data, analysis results and products that the State highway 
agencies want. KEY FINDINGS from the LTPP Analysis, 1990-1999, FHWA-RD-
00-085 provides an overview of the significant findings and results 
from the analysis of the LTPP data.
    The LTPP data, analysis findings and products are being integrated 
into FHWA's pavement technology program. An example is the National 
Highway Institute course entitled Concrete Pavement Design Details and 
Construction Practices which includes a concrete pavement design 
procedure validated and calibrated with the LTPP data and analysis. The 
course will be updated to include a number of the LTPP findings on 
better performing pavements.

                  WOOD DEPOSITS AND LITHIUM TECHNOLOGY

    Question. In House report 106-180, Congress encouraged FHWA to 
support research into wood deposits and lithium technology to mitigate 
the damage from alkali silica reactions. How much money was allocated 
for this project in fiscal year 2000, and how much is requested for 
fiscal year 2001? What progress has been made since last year?
    Answer.
Wood deposits (s/b composites)
    The Federal Highway Administration has entered into a cost sharing 
contract with the University of Maine to develop advanced wood 
composites for bridge construction. The government has obligated a 
total of $900,000 ($600,000 in fiscal year 1999 and $300,000 in fiscal 
year 2000) to this contract. The objective of the contract is to obtain 
the services of the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood 
Composites Center, its researchers, and engineers to conduct research 
on fiber-reinforced glulam technology for the next generation of 
vehicular wood bridges. The exact nature and extent of the Contractor's 
work will be based on task orders issued by the FHWA.
Lithium technology
    $500,000 was allocated in fiscal year 2000 specifically for lithium 
work. Additional funding has not been requested for fiscal year 2001. 
In November 1999 and January 2000, FHWA met with lithium industry 
representatives to discuss research and implementation needs, and 
several potential projects were identified including field trials, 
information booklets and guidelines, and research. An expert panel has 
been formed to assist FHWA in planning and selecting projects, and the 
panel will be meeting in early May to define the projects to be funded 
with fiscal year 2000 monies. In the months following this meeting, 
projects will be advertised and selected.

                     GEOSYNTHETIC MATERIAL RESEARCH

    Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the conferees 
encouraged the FHWA to provide up to $400,000 for geosynthetic material 
research, and up to $1,500,000 to study the potential benefits to 
federally funded highway projects and asphalt surfaces of early 
application of emulsified sealer/binder and research related to 
development of low cost pavement with flexibility to tolerate heaves in 
extreme climates. What has FHWA done to implement this request? How 
much will be allocated during fiscal year 2000 on those activities?
    Answer.
Geosynthetic Materials
    For fiscal year 2000, the Senate Committee on Appropriations has 
directed that an additional $400,000 be allocated to this effort. Since 
Congressional directed activities for fiscal year 2000 exceed funds 
provided under the legislation, only $200,000 is available for this 
effort in fiscal year 2000. On May 1, 1999, the representatives from 
the Montana DOT, the FHWA Montana Division, and the Montana State 
University will meet as part of a conference on geosynthetic materials. 
Work plans for utilizing these new funds will be finalized. The Montana 
State University has submitted a draft proposal for these additional 
funds and efforts are underway to modify the existing agreement to 
accommodate this additional research.
Asphalt surfaces
    In the area of asphalt surfaces, early application of emulsified 
sealer/binder and research related to development of low-cost pavements 
with flexibility to tolerate heaves in extreme climates, the following 
is planned for fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2000, FHWA will provide 
up to $375,000 to study the potential benefits to federally funded 
highway projects and asphalt surfaces of early application of 
emulsified sealer/binder. It is intended to conduct the workshop(s) 
through FHWA's cooperative agreement with the Asphalt Institute to 
identify a course of action based on user needs in this area. Based on 
the proceedings, develop a work plan for test sections, identify sites 
for test sections, develop a work plan for monitoring the test 
sections, award contracts of the placement and monitoring of the test 
sections and conduct a ``Lessons Learned'' workshop at the close of the 
project(s) to implement the results.
    FHWA will provide up to $375,000 to research related to development 
of low-cost pavements with flexibility to tolerate heaves in extreme 
climates. To this end, the following will be conducted, establish 
points of contact at the FHWA Alaskan Division Office and Alaskan 
Department of Transportation, initiate a meeting between FHWA, Alaskan 
DOT, Industry, and Academia to discuss possible research activities, 
develop a statement of work and initiate a contract and requests for 
proposal and award and conduct the research.

                           POLYMER ADDITIVES

    Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the conferees 
encouraged FHWA to provide up to $1,250,000 for research costs 
associated with constructing a segment of highway utilizing a binder 
composed of polymer additives and to work with the South Carolina State 
University and Clemson University to further research in this area. 
What has FHWA done to implement those studies? How much will be 
allocated during fiscal year 2000 on those activities?
    Answer. In December of 1999, at the request of FHWA, the South 
Carolina Department of Transportation (SC DOT) hosted a meeting which 
included representatives from South Carolina State University (SC 
State), Clemson University, SC Asphalt Pavement Association, Martin 
Color-fi (SC polymer producer), and industry. SC DOT will be 
constructing a segment of highway utilizing binders composed of polymer 
additives in the Spring of 2000. SC State and Clemson are currently 
developing a work plan to provide the project with on site testing and 
continued monitoring.
    The fiscal year 2000 appropriation provided funding up to 
$1,250,000 for this effort. However, the pavements' program stipulated 
by the original legislation and fiscal year 2000 appropriations totaled 
more than the allotted budget. Subsequently, activities called for 
under the fiscal year 2000 appropriations are only funded at 50 
percent. Therefore the actual funding provided for this effort is 
$625,000.
    In fiscal year 2000, FHWA has provided technical and laboratory 
efforts in support of this project at an approximate cost of $200,000. 
Additional efforts by FHWA this fiscal year will cost approximately 
$200,000. It is FHWA's intent to establish a cooperative agreement with 
Clemson and SC State in support of the work plan being developed. It is 
estimated that this effort will cost between $175,000 to $225,000 in 
fiscal year 2000.

                          STRUCTURES RESEARCH

    Question. For just the surface transportation R&D funds, please 
break down in extensive detail the funds requested for structures R, D 
and T and compare to fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 
expenditures.
    Answer. The information follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal years--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       2001            2000            1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridge Inspection...............................................      $2,200,000      $2,101,000      $2,606,000
    Bridge Management...........................................         400,000         401,000         665,000
    Nondestructive Evaluation...................................       1,800,000       1,700,000       1,941,000
High Performance Materials......................................       5,000,000       5,380,000       4,820,000
    Concrete....................................................         500,000         500,000         700,000
    Steel.......................................................         700,000  ..............       1,920,000
    Fiber Reinforced Polymers...................................       3,800,000       4,880,000       2,200,000
Engineering Applications........................................       7,060,000       6,204,000       8,166,000
    Design Technology...........................................       2,060,000       1,630,000       3,050,000
    Natural Hazard Reduction....................................       3,000,000       2,613,000       3,474,000
    Geotechnical/Foundations....................................       1,000,000         870,000         900,000
    Corrosion Protection........................................       1,000,000       1,091,000         742,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         RESEARCH AREA FUNDING

    Question. Please break out in extensive detail the projects or 
research areas and associated amounts requested under bridge 
inspection, high performance materials, and engineering applications.
    Answer. The funding, research areas, and projects requested for 
fiscal year 2001 are as follows:
                                                        Fiscal year 2001
Research Area:
    Bridge Inspection...................................      $2,200,000
        Bridge Management Projects......................         400,000
        Nondestructive Evaluation Projects..............       1,800,000
    High Performance Materials..........................       5,000,000
        Concrete Projects...............................         500,000
        Steel Projects..................................         700,000
        Fiber Reinforced Polymer Projects...............       3,800,000
    Engineering Applications............................       7,060,000
        Design Technology Projects......................       2,060,000
        Natural Hazard Reduction Projects...............       3,000,000
        Geotechnical/Foundation Projects................       1,000,000
        Corrosion Protection Projects...................       1,000,000

    Question. Compare the fiscal year 2001 request with the fiscal year 
2000 spending plan and demonstrate program continuity in each of these 
areas.
    Answer. Requested fiscal year 2001 research areas and projects 
within each research area are the same as for fiscal year 2000, as 
indicated in the table below. In addition to comparing research area 
and project titles between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2000, 
program continuity is demonstrated by the fact that the fiscal year 
2001 budget request and actual fiscal year 2000 expenditures are based 
solely on the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Structures 
Strategic Plan for Research, Development and Technology (RD&T). 
Currently the FHWA Structures Strategic RD&T Plan is being coordinated 
with the joint Transportation Research Board/American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials (TRB/AASHTO) Strategic Plan 
for Bridge Engineering Research. These plans will be merged into the 
broader National R&T Partnership Initiative, which is being facilitated 
by the TRB.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal years--
                                         -------------------------------
                                               2001            2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridge Inspection.......................     $2,2000,000      $2,101,000
    Bridge Management...................         400,000         401,000
    Nondestructive Evaluation...........       1,800,000       1,700,000
High Performance Materials..............       5,000,000       5,380,000
    Concrete............................         500,000         500,000
    Steel...............................         700,000  ..............
    Fiber Reinforced Polymers...........       3,800,000       4,880,000
Engineering Applications................       7,060,000       6,204,000
    Design Technology...................       2,060,000       1,630,000
    Natural Hazards Reduction...........       3,000,000       2,613,000
    Geotechnical/Foundations............       1,000,000         870,000
    Corrosion Protection................       1,000,000       1,091,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES

    Question. What has been done in response to the fiscal year 1999 
conference committee's encouragement to make use of unique research 
opportunities while major interstate reconstruction is underway? How 
much will be allocated for this activity in fiscal year 2000 and 2001.
    Answer. In cooperation with the Utah Transportation Center, the 
Utah Department of Transportation, Utah State University, the 
University of Utah, and Brigham Young University, the Federal Highway 
Administration provided $883,000 in fiscal year 1999 to fund 10 studies 
related to: Fiber reinforced polymers; Earthquake resistant design and 
retrofit; Curved bridge design; Foundation design; Nondestructive 
evaluation technology; and Corrosion protection.
    The Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the same 
group identified above is providing $750,000 in fiscal year 2000 
funding to fund a half dozen studies in similar areas. The Federal 
Highway Administration is not planning on fiscal year 2001 funding to 
the group because the inventory of original structures on the I-15 
project will have been removed and replaced with new construction.

                      ADVANCED COMPOSITE MATERIALS

    Question. What has been done in response to the fiscal year 1999 
conference committee's encouragement to explore new technologies in 
advanced composite materials and to support research into high 
performance materials, bridge systems, coatings, and non-destructive 
evaluations? How much will be allocated for those activities in fiscal 
year 2000 and 2001?
    Answer. At the encouragement of the conference committee, fiscal 
year 1999 funds were used to advance technology in: Fiber reinforced 
polymer (FRP) bonded repair methods at the University of Missouri; Use 
of carbon ribbon rods to rehabilitate steel bridges at San Diego State 
University; Advanced wood composites at the University of Maine; 
Acceptance test specifications for FRP used in highway bridge 
applications at West Virginia University; FRP bridge deck development 
at the Georgia Institute of Technology; Accelerated test methods for 
FRP evaluation at the University of Wisconsin at Madison; High 
performance bridge systems at Lehigh University; nondestructive 
evaluations with Wiss Janey Elstner Associates; and Cost of bridge 
corrosion with the National Association of Corrosion Engineers. Fiscal 
year 2000 expenditures in the areas identified above total $8.1 
million. Planned fiscal year 2001 expenditure in the areas will total 
$7.8 million.

                   MINIMUM PAVEMENT MARKING LUMINANCE

    Question. Is it correct that there are no consensus standards for 
minimum pavement marking luminance? If so, what is FHWA doing about 
this issue?
    Answer. To date there are no standards on minimum retroflectivity 
values. Guidelines are being developed by the FHWA with input from 
state and local highway agencies and the general public through the 
Federal Register rulemaking process. When the FHWA completes the 
rulemaking process the guidelines (minimum retroflectivity values) will 
be included in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 
The MUTCD is applicable to all roads, streets and highways in the 
United States.

                       HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION TIMES

    Question. How does your fiscal year 2001 request respond to the 
recommendations and conclusions of the TRB report entitled 
``Dramatically Reducing Highway Construction Project Times: Suggestions 
for Research?'' What has FHWA done to implement the recommendations of 
this TRB report? What work is being conducted in fiscal year 2000? What 
could be done in fiscal year 2001 with contract funds authorized in 
TEA-21?
    Answer. To implement the recommendations of this report, the 
following activities have been initiated:
    In fiscal year 2000, FHWA developed a Work Zone Best Practices 
Guidebook in partnership with the American Association of State Highway 
Officials (AASHTO). The guidebook presents a collection of highway 
community best practices, as submitted from across the Nation, which 
focus on minimizing driver and worker exposure in construction and 
maintenance work zones. With this guidebook a process is established to 
update and maintain an initial set of best practices, allowing the 
continued sharing of highway agency success stories with practitioners 
across the Nation. Regional seminars, which present the information in 
the guidebook and encourage additional sharing of best practices are 
now being planned. To supplement this guidebook, a checklist is under 
development that will facilitate identification and correlation of 
practices, appropriate for each stage of the project planning, design, 
and implementation processes. This activity speaks directly to the 
recommendations in the TRB report. In fiscal year 2001, advancement and 
exposure of this activity will directly influence highway operations 
and improved mobility and safety through work zones. Budget: fiscal 
year 2000--$150,000; fiscal year 2001--$75,000
    In fiscal year 2000, FHWA initiated development of user-friendly 
computer software tools which accurately analyze and reliably predict 
work zone impacts. The decision making tools which are now under 
development will allow practitioners involved in the project 
preplanning, planning, development, and construction phases to weigh 
alternate strategies to mitigate the mobility and safety impacts 
resulting from work zones. Development of the first spreadsheet tool, 
which we are calling ``Quickzone,'' is underway with field beta testing 
to be accomplished this summer, and full release planned for April 
2001. In parallel with development of the decision making tool, FHWA 
will investigate work zone delay measurement practices and techniques, 
and attempt to quantify current national impacts, and develop 
guidelines for quantifying delays. In addition, FHWA will initiate a 
research project aimed at defining and describing highway construction 
processes, and identifying potential changes which could lead to 
significant reductions in highway construction project durations. 
Improvements to existing methods and procedures will be identified, 
providing a basis for future research into innovative technologies, 
materials, and methods to achieve revolutionary changes in the highway 
construction industry. In fiscal year 2001, the development of traffic 
impact analysis, support decision-making, tools will be accelerated and 
broadened. Budget: fiscal year 2000--$865,000; fiscal year 2001--
$825,000

                TRANSMIS CONTRACT AND PLANNING RESEARCH

    Question. Please break out in extensive detail how the TRANSIMS 
contract funds and the planning research funds were or will be used 
during fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
    Answer. The following activities have been funded or will be funded 
with fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 contract funds. No funds 
other than contract funds have been allocated to TRANSIMS in fiscal 
year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
  --Completion of the TRANSIMS technical specifications, completion of 
        computer code and field testing of TRANSIMS in Portland. 
        TRANSIMS technical specifications have been completed and 
        computer code developed.
  --Development of a commercial, user-friendly version of TRANSIMS. A 
        Request for Proposals (RFP) has been issued for the development 
        of a commercial version of TRANSIMS. Proposals have been 
        received and we are now in the contract negotiation process. An 
        award is expected in May of 2000 and funding for the commercial 
        version will commence after the award.
  --Support Metropolitan Planning Organizations which are first to 
        implement TRANSIMS. Financial and technical support will be 
        provided to the first Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) 
        to implement TRANSIMS. MPOs will be selected so as to include a 
        diversity of sizes, demographic characteristics and issues to 
        be addressed. The objective of this support is to demonstrate 
        TRANSIMS' applicability in a wide variety of areas and 
        situations.
  --TRANSIMS Outreach. This includes development of training materials, 
        publications and disseminating technical information on 
        TRANSIMS capabilities. Three types of training materials will 
        be developed; an introductory overview on TRANSIMS for managers 
        and MPO officials, an introduction to TRANSIMS technical 
        methodology for MPO technical staff, and a University level 
        course on TRANSIMS theory. The University course is essential 
        to providing training to students who will eventually become 
        MPO staff. Publications will include descriptions of TRANSIMS 
        suitable for distribution to a wide variety of audiences 
        including MPO staff, elected officials, technical experts and 
        Universities. Information dissemination will include 
        conferences, presentations, technical support and use of a 
        Website.

                        BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURES
                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal years--
                                                     -------------------
                                                        2000      2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completion and Testing..............................    $2,400    $1,300
Commercialization...................................     3,000     2,000
Support to Metropolitan.............................  ........       500
Planning Organizations Outreach.....................       275       633

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The amount stated for commercialization is an estimate. The
  specific amount will be determined during the contract negotiation
  process.

    Question. How much money was allocated to TRANSIMS during fiscal 
year 1998, fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000 and how much is 
planned for fiscal year 2001? Furthermore, indicate by year the amounts 
of cost sharing received from other federal agencies for this project. 
Please break out in detail the specific activities funded with those 
monies.
    Answer.

         TRANSIMS FUNDING--FISCAL YEAR 1998 TO FISCAL YEAR 2001
                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal years--
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                    1998      1999      2000      2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completion of Technical             $6,411    $2,700    $2,400    $1,300
 Specifications.................
Commercialization...............  ........  ........     3,000     2,000
Support for MPOs................  ........  ........  ........       500
Outreach........................  ........       300       275       633
                                 ---------------------------------------
      Total.....................     6,411     3,000     5,675     4,433
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These activities are described in the previous question.
    The table below describes TRANSIMS funding from sources other than 
FHWA for fiscal years 1995 through the present:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal years--
                                         -------------------------------
                                           1995    1996    1997    1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA.....................................    $500    $500  ......  ......
EPA.....................................     250     525    $275    $128
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA funds in the past have supported general TRANSIMS development 
and ensured that transit issues are adequately addressed.
    EPA funds have provided support for the development of the 
emissions module and supported the coordination of TRANSIMS with other 
emissions research. For the emissions module, these funds have provided 
data from the University of California on the relationship of the 
vehicle operating mode (speed, acceleration, temperature) and modal 
emissions, and data from the University of West Virginia on medium and 
heavy duty truck operating characteristics. Along with data gathering, 
the funds have been directed to examining the interface between the 
traffic micro- simulation module and the emissions module and technical 
support on the emissions module. EPA has supported the development of 
TRANSIMS capability to simulate the emissions reduction from the use of 
modes other than the single occupant vehicle, including transit, ride 
sharing, bicycle and pedestrian modes. EPA has funded the coordination 
of TRANSIMS with other EPA research efforts and have the LANL staff 
participation in EPA conferences on emissions research.

                        SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH

    Question. Were any funds provided from any surface transportation 
subaccount for research into sustainability.
    Answer. No.

                          REAL ESTATE SERVICES

    Question. The real estate services section of the FHWA 
justification states: ``Video tapes and CDROMs will be produced on the 
critical topics of business relocation, and residential dwelling 
comparability.'' How is this a research and development activity? Why 
isn't this request funded under LGOE?
    Answer. This is largely a research and development activity because 
the substance for these products must be thoroughly researched and 
developed into usable best practices. Costs are almost entirely for the 
research itself and in small part for the tapes and CDs to provide the 
results to state and local officials.
                  input for planning research program
    Question. Please discuss the scope and nature of input from MPOs 
and various states and local governments that FHWA receives in shaping 
the planning research program.
    Answer. FHWA gets customer input, including input from MPOs, states 
and local governments, on planning research needs through a series of 
formal and informal methods. Informal input at the program and project 
level is received through staff's active participation in conferences, 
committees, workshops and other professional activities. In addition, 
FHWA sponsors a regular conference through TRB ``Transportation 
Planning Needs and Requirements of Small and Medium Sized 
Communities.''
    Formal input is received through four mechanisms. First, FHWA holds 
an open forum on planning research immediately preceding the annual 
Transportation Research Board meeting to review the current program and 
discuss future needs. Secondly, FHWA works annually with the National 
Cooperative Highway Research Program to refine and implement the 
recommendations from the TRB conference on, ``Refocusing Planning for 
the 21st Century: Transportation Technical Planning Research''. In 
addition, FHWA sponsors scanning activities in several of the Priority 
Areas that provide significant input to the research program. Finally , 
FHWA is also receiving additional input on planning research from the 
STECRP.

               EFFECTIVENESS OF PLANNING RESEARCH PROGRAM

    Question. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of your planning 
research program? What does your most recent assessment tell you?
    Answer. Feedback from intended users, typically through case 
studies, provides the primary means of evaluation for projects and 
priority areas. Scanning activities in priority areas is another 
evaluation mechanism that is increasingly used within the Planning 
Research Program.
    An implicit measure of effectiveness of the overall program is 
partnership opportunities, both within DOT and externally. FHWA 
recognizes the value in partnerships and has worked to build consensus 
on the planning research agenda by sponsoring conferences and workshops 
to define critical areas and refine research issues. One example is in 
the area of incorporation of safety issues into the planning process. 
Safety has been defined by MPO's, states, local government as an area 
needing research. In addition, safety is the highest priority for FHWA. 
We have allocated funds to define the issues and develop an action plan 
in cooperation with TRB, NHTSA, FMCSA and others in fiscal year 2000. 
The Travel Model Improvement Program is another example of how FHWA is 
using partnerships to advance the Planning Research Agenda.
    Feedback FHWA has received to date indicates a continuing need for 
training and technology transfer activities particularly addressing new 
planning issues and educating new planning staff. Areas of customer 
concern include equity analysis, planning for and implementing ITS.

                       PLANNING RESEARCH PROGRAM

    Question. Please break out on a project-by-project basis how the 
$3.924 million proposed for planning research would be used.
    Answer. For fiscal year 2001, the Planning Research Program used 
the following priority areas:

Fiscal Year 2001 Priority Areas

Intermodal Transportation Planning......................        $500,000
System Management & Operations..........................         500,000
Transportation & Land Use...............................         840,000
Planning Processes & Decision-Making....................         840,000
Forecasting Transport Demand & System Change............         840,000
Safety Integration......................................         400,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................       3,920,000

                     FISCAL YEAR 2000 SPENDING PLAN

    Question. Compare those expenditures to your fiscal year 2000 
spending plan and discuss how program continuity is maintained.
    Answer. For fiscal year 2000, the planning research program used 
the same priority areas as in fiscal year 2001 with the addition of a 
new category of Safety Integration in fiscal year 2001. The funds for 
Safety Integration will focus on the implementation of the 
recommendation of the action plan developed as part of the TRB workshop 
on, ``Integration of Safety into the Planning Process''.
    Program continuity in fiscal year 2000 continues to be an issue due 
to earmarked projects and studies. For fiscal year 2000, priority areas 
to date are funded based on customer and stakeholder needs as well as 
amounts available after considering earmarks.

                         ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

    Question. Please break out on a project-by-project basis the 
expected use of the $6.196 million requested for environmental research 
and compare those allocations to the fiscal year 2000 spending plan to 
demonstrate program continuity.
    Answer. Major issues in Air Quality and Climate include particulate 
matter (PM2.5) emissions rates from transportation sources; development 
of model to assess NOX impacts of heavy-duty engines; and 
development and evaluation of transportation control measures. It is 
expected that they will be continued in fiscal year 2001. Approximately 
$1.0 million have been allocated or planned for these studies for 
fiscal year 2000. For fiscal year 2001, $1.702 million have been 
requested for research in Air Quality and Climate.
    Under Wetlands, Water Quality and Ecosystems, fiscal year 2000 
funds have been allocated to support research in changes in constituent 
loads of highway runoff created by changes in fuel composition and 
vehicle components; emissions impacts on water quality from atmospheric 
deposition; watershed and ecosystem-based management schemes; and 
vegetation management. For fiscal year 2001, $567,000 has been 
requested for Wetlands, Water Quality and Ecosystems.
    Noise research focuses on reducing and managing the impacts of 
traffic noise on communities. Continued research is needed to validate 
and disseminate the latest Traffic Noise Model (TNM), and to 
incorporate technological advances in highway traffic noise analysis 
and abatement techniques. For fiscal year 2000, $290,000 have been 
allocated for Noise research. For fiscal year 2001, $474,000 has been 
requested for Noise research.
    Global Climate Change research includes development and evaluation 
of strategies to reduce greenhouse gases, and the development of 
improved analytic techniques for tracking and quantifying them. 
Research in fiscal year 2001 will continue in these areas in addition 
to assessments of transportation sources of greenhouse gas emissions. 
For fiscal year 2001, $475,000 has been requested for Global Climate 
Change research.
    Research in the Communities, Neighborhoods, and People area will 
develop tools, techniques and methodologies to identify and collect 
accurate data; and to analyze and reduce the direct, indirect and 
cumulative impacts of highways on communities, including social, 
economic, and quality of life effects. Research includes: performance 
indicators, context sensitive design, transportation enhancements. In 
fiscal year 2000, approximately $335,000 is budgeted for this research. 
For fiscal year 2001, approximately $560,000 has been requested.
    The Environmental Justice focus area develops tools and techniques 
and disseminates information to assess, prevent, and address these 
potential discriminatory effects. In fiscal year 2000, approximately 
$600,000 is budgeted for this research. For fiscal year 2001, 
approximately $600,000 has been requested.
    The objective of the Pedestrian/Bicyclist research effort is to 
provide planning methodologies for localities to use to decide whether 
investments in non-motorized projects will meet their community's 
needs. In fiscal year 2000, $80,000 in surface transportation research 
funds were budgeted for this effort. For fiscal year 2001, 
approximately $210,000 has been requested.
    Research in Cultural and Historic resources develops data 
management techniques and predictive tools to assess the direct, 
indirect, and cumulative impacts of highway development, 
reconstruction, and maintenance on historic and cultural resources. In 
fiscal year 2000, $75,000 in surface transportation research funds were 
budgeted for this effort. For fiscal year 2001, approximately $167,000 
has been requested.
    The livability research initiative will conduct research, develop 
performance measures for livability, develop tools and methods and 
provide educational materials to inform the public of livability 
issues. It will also serve as a forum for research coordination among 
federal agencies. The livability research will build on the results and 
enhance FHWA's programs that support livable strategies including 
traffic calming, CMAQ, Transportation Enhancements, flexible design, 
and others. In fiscal year 2000, $80,000 in surface transportation 
research funds were budgeted for this effort. For fiscal year 2001, 
approximately $167,000 has been requested.
    A number of research efforts related to environmental streamlining 
are being funded in fiscal year 2000 including: $250,000 to address the 
alternative dispute resolution provision in Section 1309 of TEA-21: 
$100,000 to develop a new Technical Advisory to provide guidance for 
the proposed joint FHWA-FTA regulations on NEPA and Transportation 
Decision-making; $100,000 for conducting informational interviews with 
Federal agencies, and non-federal entities, to explore the perspectives 
and attitudes of those directly involved in the project delivery and 
environmental review of transportation projects as they relate to 
environmental streamlining; $300,000 for the development of an 
environmental streamlining information clearinghouse web site and 
related electronic communication to support successful implementation 
of streamlining. For fiscal year 2001, approximately $1.27 million in 
STR funds has been requested to support environmental streamlining 
activities.

                 GUIDANCE UNDER SECTION 5107 OF TEA-21

    Question. What advice and guidance has FHWA received from the 
advisory board that was set up pursuant to section 5107 of TEA-21? In 
your answer please specify for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 how much has 
been and will be spent on the advisory committee and associated 
outreach activities.
    Answer. Pursuant to section 5107 of TEA-21, FHWA entered into a 
cooperative agreement with the National Academy of Science, 
Transportation Research Board (TRB) to establish the Surface 
Transportation-Environmental Cooperative Research Program (STECRP) 
Advisory Board.
    The Advisory Board, a 17-member panel of experts from academia, the 
States, metropolitan planning organizations, industry and environmental 
organizations has been tasked to review, comment and recommend 
strategies for collaboration in research and technology transfer 
activities within the USDOT, and with other federal agencies and non-
federal organizations. Periodic reports to the USDOT and to the 
Congress on their progress in developing a national agenda of surface 
transportation-environmental and planning research priorities, and the 
strategic direction of research conducted by the transportation 
community will be submitted by the Advisory Board in Fall 2000 and 
2001.
    The Advisory Board, in its initial phase of formulation, met in 
January and April of this year. As such, the Advisory Board has focused 
on conducting extensive outreach to gather information from the USDOT 
and its partners and stakeholders for meeting their goals, and is not 
yet prepared to provide advice and guidance to the FHWA on surface 
transportation research issues at this time.
    The Advisory Board has required $300,000 for their activities 
through fiscal year 2000. The FHWA estimates needs of between $150,000 
to $200,000 for the remaining activities envisioned by the Advisory 
Board for fiscal year 2001.

                      PARTICULATE MATTER RESEARCH

    Question. Now that particulate matter research is underway by EPA, 
FHWA, and other organizations, how much time and effort is anticipated 
to obtain an understanding of PM-2.5 impacts on transportation 
regulation, and to develop effective analytical tools and mitigation 
strategies? How much is requested for this research in fiscal year 
2001? How much is being allocated in fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. FHWA anticipates that at least 3-4 years will be required 
to gain an adequate understanding of the PM-2.5 issues. PM is a complex 
pollutant that is both generated directly from engines and kicked up by 
road dust, but also is formed in the atmosphere from smaller particles.
    The draft work plan for PM views the overall effort in stages. 
First, sources and the generation of PM pollution must be identified 
with particular emphasis on transportation sources. This is critical 
since the relationships between travel activity, emissions and 
concentrations must be understood in detail before they can be 
adequately modeled for conformity, NEPA and other purposes. This could 
take at least 1-2 years, and possibly more. Second, the long and 
painstaking process of model development must be accomplished, taking 
perhaps another 1-2 years. Finally, initial research into cost-
effective mitigation strategies should occur which will likely be an 
ongoing process.

                         NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    Question. Did the NRC advisory committee review the scope and 
nature of this research?
    Answer. The Advisory board established under TEA-21 met in January 
2000 for the first time, and again in April 2000. At the first meeting, 
Board members were given some information relating to FHWA's PM 
research effort but have not yet had an opportunity to provide input 
into it. FHWA will soon be providing the Board with a draft of a 
Strategic Workplan for Particulate Matter Research. This Workplan, 
which is still underdevelopment, draws on the results of an extensive 
literature review and a one-day symposium with transportation and air 
quality experts from around the Country in January 2000.

               TOOLS/MODELS TO EVALUATE BENEFITS/BURDENS

    Question. What research are you pursuing to advance analytical 
tools or models to evaluate the distribution of benefits and burdens in 
transportation decision-making and investments and environmental 
justice-related cases? How much is requested for this research in 
fiscal year 2001? How much is being allocated in fiscal year 2000? Did 
the NRC advisory committee review the scope and nature of this 
research?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the FHWA allocated $600,000 towards 
the evaluation of environmental justice and Title VI; however, the 
fiscal year 2000 research allocations focused primarily on the 
technical transfer of existing tools and methods to identify benefits 
and burdens. The fiscal year 2000 the research effort will develop a 
brochure to provide basic background information, a set of case studies 
and effective practices on state of the practice for applying 
environmental justice in the planning, project development, and right-
of-way decision making processes, and a website where a wide array of 
resources, including the current fiscal year 2000 research will be 
available. The final product of the fiscal year 2000 research will be a 
workshop that will include case studies and effective practices of 
using benefits and burdens analysis in transportation decision-making.
    To evaluate the distribution of benefits and burdens FHWA is also 
pursuing the application of existing tools such as Community Impact 
Assessment for evaluating the distribution of transportation benefit 
and burdens. FHWA is also developing a One-Day Workshop which will be 
composed of different modules including data sources and methods, 
community impact techniques, and effective public involvement.
    In fiscal year 2001, the FHWA requested $600,000 for research in 
the environmental justice and Title VI focus area. Anticipated products 
would include improving existing analytic tools and models as well as 
investigating new methodologies for assessing transportation impacts on 
low-income and minority populations. The NRC advisory committee did not 
review the scope and nature of our research.

                        UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES

    Question. What would improve the effectiveness of state and local 
transportation agencies in involving and engaging traditionally 
underserved communities? What would be the associated monetary costs?
    Answer. State and local transportation agencies should develop 
public involvement strategies that specifically target traditionally 
underserved communities. These strategies should be developed using 
members of the community to provide input and suggestions for to help 
gauge the effectiveness. State and local transportation agencies are 
encouraged to improve research and data collection methods relating to 
transportation needs of the traditionally underserved. Utilizing, as 
appropriate, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), 
Minority Institutions (MI), Hispanic Serving Colleges and Universities 
(HSCU), and Indian Centers to network and form community links is yet 
another method to involve and engage under-served communities.
    If a state or local transportation agency is unsure about how to 
improve the effectiveness of engaging traditionally underserved 
communities, there are several resources that are available from FHWA. 
``Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-making'' 
offers several specific techniques to engage the traditionally under-
served. FHWA also provides methods and tools to enable State and local 
transportation agencies to more effectively involve and engage 
traditionally under-served communities through Title VI training for 
State and local transportation agencies and through public involvement 
training. FHWA also provides public involvement methods and tools which 
are a fundamental component of all program operations, planning 
activities, and transportation decision-making. Through research and 
technical transfer, FHWA can provide state of the art techniques for 
meaningful public involvement using non-traditional techniques.
    The community impact assessment is a method to effectively involve 
and engage traditionally under-served communities. The community impact 
assessment is a process to evaluate the effects of transportation 
action on a community and its quality of life. State and local 
transportation agencies can also participate in transportation 
enhancements (TE) activities to help foster the quality of life in 
communities. TE benefits the communities by preserving the natural and 
human environment and strengthening the public role in local and state 
transportation planning.
    It is difficult to develop monetary costs because the need to 
improve the effectiveness will vary from location to location.

                            POLICY RESEARCH

    Question. Please update your answer from last year regarding the 
major components in the road map for policy research developed by FHWA 
by indicating progress made in each areas since last year. How does the 
fiscal year 2001 budget request help implement that road map?
    Answer. Consistent with the restructuring of the FHWA, our research 
is now targeted toward achieving the goals of our strategic plan. The 
major components in the policy research agenda retain travel 
monitoring, highway investment/performance analysis, personal travel 
surveys, innovative financing and pricing strategies, highway cost 
allocation/truck size and weight studies, and improving economic 
productivity. Each of these areas is being advanced this year and the 
fiscal year 2001 budget is aimed at making further progress in our 
capabilities in these areas. Examples include:
    Work is moving forward on the periodic National Personal Travel 
Survey (NPTS). During fiscal year 2000, the planning phase continues 
and the NPTS/ATS pretest is being fielded during February-May 2000. 
Development of the full survey is focusing on the need to provide 
travel data that will support both traditional travel demand 
forecasting and TRANSIMS. Further, the inclusion of an enriched long-
trip data set will significantly enhance the ability to support 
statewide planning. Conducting the full survey is the primary activity 
planned for fiscal year 2001. The full 14-month coordinated NPTS/ATS 
will begin during October 2000 and will be completed in December 2001.
    Enhanced capabilities are being incorporated into the highway 
investment/performance models used to predict capital investment 
requirements. These enhancements include an improved pavement 
deterioration model, improved emissions model to be consistent with the 
latest EPA product, increased accuracy in the benefit/cost analysis 
procedures, and development of a bridge investment/performance model 
that incorporates economic as well as engineering criteria. We are 
working toward use of the HERS model by States.
    Research is underway to update data on travel characteristics by 
different vehicle configurations and to improve analytical tools used 
to assess pavement and bridge costs associated with operations of 
different vehicle classes based on recent research by others. Work is 
underway to complete tools for State highway cost allocation studies 
and technical assistance to a number of States in the use of those 
tools. New data on truck commodity flows have become available that 
will significantly improve our ability to estimate changes in truck 
configuration and usage that may be expected. Improved analytical tools 
will provide FHWA and the States a much more complete picture of 
current truck utilization patterns and how those patterns would change 
under different policy options.
    Research for the Value Pricing Pilot Program will provide improved 
technical support which in turn will aid outreach to increase interest 
and participation in the program. Research is underway to find better 
ways of developing pricing strategies, carrying out feasibility 
studies, and evaluation of pilot projects. Assessment includes the 
ability of the Pilot Program to achieve program goals relating to 
congestion relief, transit ridership, and air quality, as well as the 
financial effects on low-income drivers.
    Work is under way to add to the picture of economic benefits of 
highway investment to the consumer sector and the business and industry 
sectors of the economy. A consolidation and integration of these 
aspects of highway transportation will lead to a better understanding 
of the extent to which highways contribute to the national economy.
    Preparation of a new Travel Monitoring Guide is underway to aid the 
States in tracking travel trends. The guide is now undergoing a review 
process and is expected to be published in 2001.

                     CHALLENGES IN POLICY RESEARCH

    Question. What is the most pressing challenge in research that 
needs additional attention during fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. The most pressing challenge in research is to provide 
timely answers to decision makers and to anticipate their needs for 
resolution to research questions. Information on economics, 
demographics, highway travel and spending trends is combined to provide 
an understanding of the interrelationships between highway programs, 
systems, and services. This understanding forms the basis of the 
ability to assess the highway systems as a component of the overall 
transportation system. This knowledge is further used to identify 
issues, evaluate the effectiveness of current programs and policies, 
and to evaluate alternative programs and policies. Research contributes 
to these abilities through:
  --systematic activities to anticipate future analytical needs.
  --management of data systems, i.e., design, collection, assessment, 
        presentation, and distribution of data and information.
  --development of sophisticated tools for distilling underlying trends 
        and relationships.
  --design and testing of techniques to quantify relationships as a 
        means to balance competing or complimentary goals.
  --incorporation of analytical capabilities into programs to measure 
        impacts and inform future program decisions.

                    STUDIES ON TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT

    Question. How much of the policy research budget request will be 
allocated towards studies regarding truck size and weight?
    Answer. Approximately $450,000 from the policy research budget will 
be allocated for studies relating to truck size and weight issues. 
While essential for truck size and weight policy analysis, the data and 
analytical tools developed in this research will also be used for other 
freight-related studies conducted in cooperation with the Office of 
Freight Management and Operations. It is anticipated that data and 
analytical tools developed for Federal program and policy analysis will 
also be made available to the states for their own analyses. Data and 
analytical tools also are applicable to studies that estimate 
relationships between highway investment and overall business logistics 
costs.

                   STUDIES ON HIGHWAY COST ALLOCATION

    Question. How much of the policy research budget request will be 
allocated towards studies regarding highway cost allocations?
    Answer. Approximately $475,000 from the policy research budget will 
be allocated for studies related to highway cost allocation. This 
research will feed directly into an update of the Federal highway cost 
allocation study that will be completed before surface transportation 
reauthorization. As with the truck size and weight research, data and 
tools that are essential for analyzing the extent to which user fees 
paid by various types of vehicles correspond to the pavement, bridge, 
and other infrastructure costs those vehicles create are also used for 
other program and policy studies. For instance, data and analytical 
tools developed to estimate user fees paid by different vehicle classes 
are also used to estimate future revenues to the Highway Trust Fund 
impacts of various potential strategies to meet energy and 
environmental objectives, and potential alternatives to the fuel tax 
that are beginning to be discussed in the transportation community. 
Work to estimate costs of highway-related air pollution, motor-vehicle 
crashes, and other costs of motor vehicle use is conducted in 
coordination with other offices within and outside FHWA.

                NATIONAL PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION SURVEY

    Question. If none of the funds requested for the NPTS are approved 
under LGOE, how will work on this project proceed?
    Answer. Unless funding can be obtained from other governmental 
sources, it will not proceed. This includes the completion of the 
actual survey and may impact the ``add-on'' samples requested by 
various States, local governments and Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations (MPOs). At this time, approximately 20 states and MPOs 
have indicated that they are considering the purchase of ``add-on'' 
samples for their jurisdictions. This increased interest in ``add-on'' 
samples reflects an increased awareness of the utility of the data set 
as a tool for Statewide and metropolitan planning.
    Question. What is to be the minimum amount needed to conduct 
National Personal Transportation Survey activities during fiscal year 
2001?
    Answer. The $4,750,000 requested for fiscal year 2001 is for 
conducting the data collection (not planning) for the coordinated 2000 
NPTS/ATS. This is the minimum amount needed to continue work in fiscal 
year 2001, largely because we are making up for the lack of funds 
allocated to NPTS is fiscal year 2000. To assure that a complete 
picture of household travel is developed, the collection of daily 
travel through the NPTS is being closely coordinated with the 
contemporaneous data gathering of long trip data as part of the 2000 
American Travel Survey (ATS) conducted by the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics.
    Question. How much is to be spent on this work in fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. There were no funds specifically identified for NPTS in the 
fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act. However, the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics (BTS), our partner in the coordinated NPTS/
ATS effort, provided a very significant share of the fiscal year 2000 
funding for the pretest activity. In addition, FHWA was able to carve 
out some funding for NPTS from our general research funds.
    Question. Is it likely that BTS or FTA will contribute funds 
towards this project?
    Answer. The NPTS has historically been sponsored by several DOT 
agencies. In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, BTS provided 
approximately $1.5 million and NHTSA has provided $200,000. FTA did not 
provide any funding in fiscal year 2000, but currently has a request 
for NPTS funding before the Committee at a minimum of $500,000 for 
fiscal year 2001.

                 INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND RESEARCH

    Question. Please specify the number of planned and completed 
international scanning trips taken during each of the last three years. 
Please specify the total cost of those trips for each year and the 
benefits derived from each trip. How do you assess the benefits of each 
trip?
    Answer. The FHWA completed four reviews in fiscal year 1998 at a 
cost of approximately $450,000. The FHWA's cost for five fiscal year 
1999 reviews was $520,000. Fiscal year 2000 was the formal start of the 
Joint AASHTO/FHWA International Scanning Program. This program is 
jointly managed and funded by AASHTO and the FHWA, and will thus reduce 
the overall cost of this program for FHWA. AASHTO participation ensures 
that scans serve the priority needs of the State DOT's for improved 
technology and practices. There are 6 reviews planned for fiscal year 
2000. The FHWA's share will be an estimated cost of $370,000.
    Scanning benefits are assessed by scan team members and their U.S. 
colleagues. Benefits appear in many forms and typically are realized 
incrementally over the years after a scan takes place. Listed below are 
some major results and emerging benefits of scans taken in fiscal year 
1998 and 1999. Similar information for fiscal year 2000 scans is not 
yet available.
    Fiscal Year 1998 Scans:
Innovative and Emerging Traffic Controls for Congestion and Safety
    The following devices and practices have been recommended for 
further study with a view to possible adoption in the U.S.: (1) 
variable speed limits with photo enforcement for freeway management; 
(2) all-white pavement marking systems; (3) freeway queue detection and 
back-of-queue warning to prevent rear-end collisions; (4) freeway lane 
control signals to indicate downstream lane status; (5) special 
markings to ease merging and diverging conflicts at multi-lane freeway 
ramps; (6) detection and control logic to reduce rear-end collisions at 
high-speed signalized intersections; (7) area display of real-time 
parking availability and travel information to reduce travel and 
improve customer service; (8) pictograms and symbols for dynamic 
message signs; (9) use of symbols to indicate travel on freeway 
diversion routes; (10) a strategic goal to eliminate fatalities on 
highways; and (11) a stronger emphasis on the safety impacts of 
operational improvements.
    Projects/studies being undertaken as a result of the scan include: 
(1) National Cooperative Highway Research Project (NCHRP) Project 4-28, 
Feasibility Study for an All-White Pavement Marking System and (2) 
NCHRP Project 3-59 Variable Speed Limit Implementation.
Motor Carrier Safety Technologies
    Based on key findings, scan team recommendations include: (1) 
create a greater safety focus for third-party organizations; (2) 
collect crash data to establish crash causes; (3) consider standards in 
the development of passive safety systems (cab crash worthiness) and 
active safety systems (electronic interface); (4) use truck-only lanes; 
(5) develop a comprehensive, standardized driver education curriculum; 
(6) establish performance-based driver assessment; (7) encourage public 
and private organizations for advancing driver and motor carrier 
coordination; (8) develop a more systematic and scientific approach to 
manage commercial vehicle driver performance; and (9) promote an 
expanded focus on in-company inspections.
Geotechnology--Canada and Europe
    Results of the scan have been directly integrated into: (1) NCHRP 
Synthesis 276 Geotechnical-Related Development and Implementation of 
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Methods; (2) two NCHRP 
research studies related to updating and modifying the current AASHTO 
LRFD code for retaining walls and structural foundations; and (3) the 
National Highway Institute Course on Load and Resistance Factor Design 
for Highway Bridge Substructures--a course that has been presented at 
over 30 locations since July 1998.
    As a result of the scan, the FHWA now represents the United States 
on an international committee to implement LRFD methods in geotechnical 
practice worldwide.
Winter Road Maintenance Practices II
    Several states are experimenting with advanced European snow plows 
that efficiently clear snow and ice while doing less damage to road 
surfaces. The U.S. is embarking on wider use of road weather 
information systems, similar to those used in Europe, that are highly 
integrated into traffic management centers and intelligent 
transportation systems.
    The scan verified that the U.S. has made good progress in recent 
years in acquiring and applying international advanced snow and ice 
control technologies.
Fiscal Year 1999 Scans
    Bridge Scour Countermeasures.--A major scan team finding is that 
European practice uses riprap as a permanent solution for scour while 
in the U.S., riprap is generally considered a temporary measure. As a 
result of the scan, the design and installation techniques for riprap 
and scour prediction manuals are being re-evaluated.
    Also, a National Highway Institute stream stability and scour 
course was developed in conjunction with the Wallingford Laboratory in 
the UK and with participation from Switzerland, Germany, and the 
Netherlands.
    Steel Bridge Fabrication and Erection Technology.--Findings from 
the scan are being considered by the steel bridge fabrication 
community. Improvements in six areas are being considered for future 
implementation: integrated computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-
aided manufacturing (CAM) software; automated recording; high 
performance steels and coatings; cutting and joining; certification and 
contracting; and design innovation.
    A U.S. steel producer has begun testing weathering steel materials 
in cooperation with a Japanese fabricator.
    Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delay in Construction 
Zones.--The scan identified several methods for potential applicability 
in the U.S. The scan team recommendations include the following: (1) 
shorten the contract time by using lane-rental concepts more 
frequently; (2) improve communications with motorists by using advanced 
and real-time information ITS technologies; (3) adopt a coordinated 
policy, planning, and programming approach to work zone planning and 
operations; (4) reduce lane widths; (5) design for future maintenance; 
(6) evaluate the use of yellow markings in work zones; (7) use highly 
visible traffic control devices and equipment to warn motorist of, and 
guide them through, work zones; and (8) implement quality control/
quality assurance programs for traffic and worker safety.
    Recycled/Secondary Materials.--Much was learned about the use in 
Europe of recycled materials in highway projects and how materials 
reuse contributes to the sustainability of transportation systems. As 
follow-up to the scan, a national workshop on ``Applying Sustainability 
Principles to Materials Use in the Highway Environment'' will be held 
this year. The workshop will highlight recycling practices reviewed on 
the scan, bring together key leaders from public agencies involved in 
devising recycling solutions, and demonstrate recycling projects.
    European Practices for Sustainable Development.--The scan 
identified several broad measures to consider for possible 
implementation in the U.S. These include: (1) an emphasis on policy 
consistency and cooperative problem solving as a way to resolve 
transportation-environmental conflicts and speed attainment of 
environmental goals; (2) matching operating responsibility for transit 
and highway systems with control over funding for those systems; (3) 
strategic planning for both the long term and mid-term; and (4) use of 
performance standards along with monitoring and reporting on progress. 
More specific measures for potential applicability to the United States 
include: car sharing and other eco-driving projects, and joint 
development to help pay for expensive but socially and environmentally 
attractive project designs.
    Durability of Concrete Segmental Bridges.--The scan found that 
segmental and cable-stayed bridge technology and developments in Europe 
and the U.S. are converging. One major difference, however, is that 
Europe relies heavily on waterproofing membranes and overlays to 
protect bridge decks from corrosion caused by de-icing salts. Improved 
grouting procedures to avoid corrosion were also found in Europe. The 
scan has set the stage for further exchanges of knowledge between the 
U.S. and Europe in these areas.
Fiscal Year 2000 Scans
    Right-of-Way and Utilities Best Practices.--This scan has just been 
complete; benefit assessment is not yet available.
    New Road Lighting Technologies and Practices.--This scan has just 
been completed; benefit assessment is not yet available.

             TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO VARIOUS AFRICAN STATES

    Question. Please assess the costs and benefits of the FHWA 
investment in providing technical assistance to various African states, 
and the Pan American Institute of Highways. Please estimate fiscal year 
1999, fiscal year 2000, and requested fiscal year 2001 funds allocated 
or planned for that activity and provide the funding source of those 
monies.
    Answer. Funding for the FHWA's sub-Saharan African countries:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Fiscal year                    Amount                              Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999....................................         $65,000  International Outreach Program Funds.
2000....................................     \1\ 200,000  International Outreach Program Funds.
2001....................................     \1\ 275,000  International Outreach Program Funds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned.

    The target countries in Africa receive information concerning U.S. 
transportation technology and practices which enables them to more 
effectively construct and manage their transportation systems, thus 
supporting the U.S. foreign policy of encouraging economic development 
and democratization of developing countries and countries in 
transition.
    Our focus on establishing technology transfer centers in target 
countries aims at fostering a long-term commitment to technology 
transfer though institutionalization of the process. 
Institutionalization supports on-going improvement processes in the 
road sector. We also aim to encourage synergies among the centers by 
linking centers in the different world regions into a global network. 
The technology transfers we support indirectly promote the exports of 
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.
    Funding for the FHWA's Pan American Institute of Highways:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Fiscal year                 Amount             Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999..............................        $220,000  GOE funds for PIH
                                                     contract staff.
                                                     Program funding
                                                     from International
                                                     Programs.
2000..............................     \1\ 220,000  GOE funds for PIH
                                                     contract staff.
                                                     Program funding
                                                     from International
                                                     Programs.
2001..............................         220,000  GOE funds for PIH
                                                     contract staff.
                                                     Program funding
                                                     from International
                                                     Programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned.

    The FHWA's investment in the PIH directly supports the U.S. foreign 
policy of encouraging economic development and democratization in Latin 
America. By participating in the PIH Network, Latin American countries 
and their technology transfer centers receive information about U.S. 
transportation technology and practices which enable them to more 
effectively construct, manage, and maintain their transportation 
systems. The PIH Technology Transfer Centers are a cost-effective 
mechanism for providing technical assistance to a country through its 
own local organizations. The FHWA also leverages the annual dues paid 
by the centers by providing consolidated services through the PIH 
Headquarters to the overall network.
    The FHWA's investment benefits the U.S. private sector by providing 
a ready conduit for introducing U.S. highway-related products and 
services to markets in the Americas. The PIH Centers are able to 
provide information on possible solutions to selected transportation 
problems as well as suitable U.S. products and services. In 1997, a 
Latin American PIH Center workshop on winter de-icing technologies 
resulted in the sale of U.S. de-icing technology. The PIH also allows 
FHWA to stay abreast of investment opportunities made possible by the 
numerous privatization and concession programs being successfully 
implemented in the Americas. Other benefits include:
  --Increased exposure to U.S. highway related products and services 
        through increased participation in U.S. Trade Shows and 
        exhibitions.
  --Increased exposure to U.S. state-of-the-art and-practice 
        engineering techniques through training and distribution of 
        technical material.
  --Increased exposure of U.S. companies to Latin American markets 
        through participation in PIH seminars and conferences.
  --Increased partnership with the World Bank, Inter-American 
        Development Bank, and other developmental organizations.
  --Increased exposure to U.S. technical materials, such as SUPERPAVE, 
        Long Term Pavement Performance Studies.
  --Training provided through over 40 highway maintenance seminars 
        during the past 8 years in 17 countries for more than 7,000 
        participants.
  --Preparation for, and limited assistance with, natural disasters.
     technical assistance to the pan american institute of highways
    Question. Please assess the costs and benefits of the FHWA 
investment in providing technical assistance to the Pan American 
Institute of Highway. Please estimate fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 
2000, and requested fiscal year 2001 funds allocated or planned for 
that activity and provide the funding source of those monies.
    Answer. Funding for the FHWA's sub-Saharan African countries:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Fiscal year                    Amount                              Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999....................................         $65,000  International Outreach Program Funds.
2000....................................     \1\ 200,000  International Outreach Program Funds.
2001....................................     \1\ 275,000  International Outreach Program Funds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned.

    The target countries in Africa receive information concerning U.S. 
transportation technology and practices which enables them to more 
effectively construct and manage their transportation systems, thus 
supporting the U.S. foreign policy of encouraging economic development 
and democratization of developing countries and countries in 
transition.
    Our focus on establishing technology transfer centers in target 
countries aims at fostering a long-term commitment to technology 
transfer though institutionalization of the process. 
Institutionalization supports on-going improvement processes in the 
road sector. We also aim to encourage synergies among the centers by 
linking centers in the different world regions into a global network. 
The technology transfers we support indirectly promote the exports of 
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.
    Funding for the FHWA's Pan American Institute of Highways:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Fiscal year                 Amount             Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999..............................        $220,000  GOE funds for PIH
                                                     contract staff.
                                                     Program funding
                                                     from International
                                                     Programs.
2000..............................     \1\ 220,000  GOE funds for PIH
                                                     contract staff.
                                                     Program funding
                                                     from International
                                                     Programs.
2001..............................     \1\ 220,000  GOE funds for PIH
                                                     contract staff.
                                                     Program funding
                                                     from International
                                                     Programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned.

    The FHWA's investment in the PIH directly supports the U.S. foreign 
policy of encouraging economic development and democratization in Latin 
America. By participating in the PIH Network, Latin American countries 
and their technology transfer centers receive information about U.S. 
transportation technology and practices which enable them to more 
effectively construct, manage, and maintain their transportation 
systems. The PIH Technology Transfer Centers are a cost-effective 
mechanism for providing technical assistance to a country through its 
own local organizations. The FHWA also leverages the annual dues paid 
by the centers by providing consolidated services through the PIH 
Headquarters to the overall network.
    The FHWA's investment benefits the U.S. private sector by providing 
a ready conduit for introducing U.S. highway-related products and 
services to markets in the Americas. The PIH Centers are able to 
provide information on possible solutions to selected transportation 
problems as well as suitable U.S. products and services. In 1997, a 
Latin American PIH Center workshop on winter de-icing technologies 
resulted in the sale of U.S. de-icing technology. The PIH also allows 
FHWA to stay abreast of investment opportunities made possible by the 
numerous privatization and concession programs being successfully 
implemented in the Americas. Other benefits include:
  --Increased exposure to U.S. highway related products and services 
        through increased participation in US Trade Shows and 
        exhibitions.
  --Increased exposure to U.S. state-of-the-art and-practice 
        engineering techniques through training and distribution of 
        technical material.
  --Increased exposure of U.S. companies to Latin American markets 
        through participation in PIH seminars and conferences.
  --Increased partnership with the World Bank, Inter-American 
        Development Bank, and other developmental organizations.
  --Increased exposure to U.S. technical materials, such as SUPERPAVE, 
        Long Term Pavement Performance Studies.
  --Training provided through over 40 highway maintenance seminars 
        during the past 8 years in 17 countries for more than 7,000 
        participants.
  --Preparation for, and limited assistance with, natural disasters.

                        INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

    Question. Please discuss how FHWA is leveraging its funds for 
international activities with those of other countries. Are you 
promoting networks of technology transfer centers?
    Answer. The FHWA is actively working to leverage its investment by 
cost-sharing with other U.S. Government agencies and international 
organizations. At the FHWA's urging, the World Road Association (PIARC) 
reviewed the concept of technology transfer centers and recognized 
their value in exchanging and transferring technology. Through its C-3 
Technological Exchanges and Development Committee, PIARC is now 
annually providing four to five developing countries with $10,000 each 
to establish technology transfer centers. The FHWA is working to obtain 
funding through USAID for two highway technology transfer projects in 
the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) region of Africa. 
Additionally, the FHWA provided extensive training in the U.S. for 56 
officials from the Turkish Directorate of Highways which was funded by 
a World Bank loan. This project has been expanded to include assistance 
in the development of a highway information system in Turkey which will 
also be funded through the World Bank. The FHWA will continue to 
develop relationships and partnerships with these agencies and 
organizations as well as work to find the most efficient and cost-
effective method for providing technical assistance to developing 
countries. The FHWA will also continue to leverage in-kind 
contributions of staff time and technical information provided by 
AASHTO, State DOTs, and LTAP Centers in conducting technical assistance 
activities.
    The FHWA is supporting regional networks of technology transfer 
centers and encouraging regional networks to link globally. A global 
technology transfer network will be an efficient mechanism for sharing 
information on new technologies, innovations, and best practices among 
transportation professionals throughout the world. Although the focus 
is generally developing countries, the network needs to include 
developing and developed countries in order to be effective. The 
primary challenge in establishing such a network is how to share 
information effectively and ensure that it reaches those who need it 
most in a format that is likely to be used. The global technology 
transfer network will serve as a conduit to promote U.S. expertise and 
technology internationally. In addition, the network will serve as a 
means to easily learn of new technology and best practices from the 
FHWA's counterparts abroad.

      MARKETING BY U.S. COMPANIES OF HIGHWAY RELATED TECHNOLOGIES

    Question. Please provide estimates for fiscal year 1999, fiscal 
year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 of the amounts of funds used or planned 
to be used to promote marketing by U.S. companies of highway-related 
technologies abroad.
    Answer. The FHWA's activities in this area focus on helping U.S. 
firms become export-ready in collaboration with the Department of 
Commerce. The FHWA spent no funds in fiscal year 1999. The FHWA plans 
to spend $10,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $10,000 in fiscal year 2001.

              INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

    Question. What benefits do FHWA's international technical 
assistance programs provide for the U.S. highway community? Is any cost 
sharing received? If so, please specify the nature and amount. If not, 
what might be done to further leverage the federal investment?
    Answer. The FHWA's technical assistance programs are developed in 
response to the international mission the Congress set out in Title 23, 
U.S.C., section 506. The International Outreach Program charges FHWA 
with developing programs that: (1) inform the U.S. of technological 
innovations in foreign countries; (2) promote U.S. highway 
transportation expertise, goods, and services abroad; and (3) increase 
transfers of U.S. highway transportation technology to foreign 
countries.
    Additionally, FHWA's technical assistance programs directly support 
U.S. foreign policy by encouraging economic development and 
democratization in developing countries. The countries that FHWA 
cooperates with receive information about U.S. transportation 
technology and practices which enable them to more effectively 
construct, manage, and maintain their transportation systems.
    This investment in technical assistance indirectly promotes the 
exports of U.S. highway-related firms since the countries involved in 
technical exchange and assistance activities tend to acquire a 
preference for U.S. products and equipment. As these countries develop, 
they are able to purchase more U.S. goods and services. Examples of 
benefits include winter maintenance equipment sales to Chile, 
construction equipment to Russia, and consulting services in South 
Africa.
    In addition, with the focus of our program being technology 
transfer and exchange, the U.S. highway community also learns from less 
developed countries. While some countries may be less developed 
economically, they can be innovative technically and institutionally.
    The FHWA is working to secure cost-sharing partners or outside 
sources for its technical assistance project. For the FHWA's Russian 
Technical Assistance Project, the FWHA provided approximately $5 
million of in-kind assistance for a $300 million World Bank-funded 
institutional building project from 1993 through 1998. For the FHWA's 
Baltic Technical Assistance Program, the FHWA has provided 
approximately $122,000 in technical assistance and its partner, the 
Finnish National Road Administration has provided an similar amount of 
in-kind support. The FHWA obtained approximately $527,000 in funding 
from the World Bank to implement its Turkish Technical Training 
Program. The FHWA is working to obtain funding through USAID for two 
highway technology transfer projects in the Southern Africa Development 
Community (SADC) region of Africa. The FHWA also leverages in-kind 
contributions of staff time and technical information provided by 
AASHTO, State DOTs, the private sector and Local Technical Assistance 
Program (LTAP) Centers in conducting technical assistance activities. 
The FHWA will continue to develop relationships and partnerships with 
these agencies and organizations as well as work to find the most cost-
effective methods for providing technical assistance to developing 
countries.

                        INTRA-REGIONAL TRANSPORT

    Question. What efforts are underway in sub-Saharan Africa to 
improve intra-regional transport? How much was and will be allocated 
for this effort? Why is this an appropriate activity for FHWA to fund? 
What are the benefits and costs of FHWA's technical exchange program 
with other developed countries?
    Answer. The funding for the FHWA's sub-Saharan activities is 
summarized below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal years--
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1998         1999         2000         2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Saharan Africa..........................................     $250,300      $65,000  \1\ $200,00  \1\ $275,00
                                                                                                  0            0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned.

    Under Section 506 of Title 23 U.S.C., the Congress charged the FHWA 
with increasing the transfer of U.S. highway transportation technology 
to foreign countries through training, demonstrations, research, and 
other methods of technology transfer and exchange. The FHWA's 
initiative in sub-Sahara Africa is designed to help improve sub-Sahara 
Africa's access to road technology, including institutional and 
program-building techniques. These will, in turn, facilitate 
sustainable development, foreign direct investment and the flow of 
international trade with and within sub-Sahara Africa. The FHWA's 
initiatives directly support the Congress's charge in Section 506 as 
well as the Administration's overall foreign policy objectives for 
Africa.
    FHWA is assisting in the establishment of a network of technology 
transfer centers in sub-Sahara Africa with links to U.S. technology 
centers and other technology transfer centers elsewhere in the world. 
The geographic focus of this program is the Southern Africa Development 
Community region which includes: Angola, Botswana, The Republic of the 
Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, 
Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. To date, FHWA has cooperated 
most closely with South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. As this program 
is implemented, we are urging the SADC region countries to examine the 
role of AASHTO in the U.S. and whether a similar organization, 
comprised of national road agencies, would facilitate the improvement 
of intra--regional transport. FHWA, AASHTO, USAID and SATCC have had 
discussions regarding cooperation in this area. FHWA with AASHTO and 
USAID have further recommended that the countries of this region 
cooperate in the following activities:
  --Development of a regional (SADC) networking model to bring about 
        more consistent transport policies, programs, and standards 
        across the member countries.
  --Furthering institutional restructuring, including the possibility 
        for a dedicated road funds.
  --Advancing safety advocacy and results to reduce the injuries and 
        fatalities in transportation.
  --Advancing additional technology transfer points in the SADC region.
  --Furthering development of strategic roadway management approaches--
        systems, data, training, etc.
    The overall cost of the FHWA's exchange program with developed 
countries, including the scanning program, is approximately $650,000. 
The Joint AASHTO/FHWA International Scanning Program is managed 
cooperatively with, and co-funded by AASHTO.
    The FHWA's technical exchange programs are the bridge between the 
U.S. and the other major producers of highway-transportation-related 
innovations, mainly in Western Europe and selected countries on the 
other side of the Pacific. Developed countries face similar 
transportation opportunities and constraints. Our partners across the 
Atlantic and Pacific are prolific sources of policy and technical 
innovation in transportation and have a wealth of experience to share. 
International exchanges have often served as catalysts for reviewing 
and changing U.S. practices.
    Our exchanges have resulted in improvements in the way we do 
business in U.S. highway agencies, our approach to problems, and the 
solutions we adopt:
  --Some U.S. transportation agencies have been spurred to act more 
        like firms, inspired in part by the examples of Australia, New 
        Zealand, Sweden and the U.K., with a focus on accountability 
        and efficiency.
  --The use of design-build, performance-specifications, and 
        performance warranties in contracts are drawing on and tempered 
        by experience gained abroad.
  --Stronger concrete pavements designs, more durable asphalt 
        pavements, and accelerated pavement testing equipment are in 
        use here because of our international technical assessments.
  --Over 25 research and demonstration projects concerning bridge 
        composite material have been influenced by foreign 
        observations.
  --Steel bridge fabrication techniques based on computer-aided design 
        and manufacturing are advancing because of practices learned 
        abroad.
  --High performance concrete use is spreading, inspired by successes 
        from Canada and other countries.
  --New techniques for predicting bridge scour and for controlling it 
        are under study, stimulated by the European approach.
  --Improved U.S. techniques and equipment for winter maintenance--
        including anti-icing measures, road-weather information systems 
        and a large AASHTO Snow and Ice Cooperative Pooled Fund Program 
        that is transforming U.S. practice--owe their origin to 
        exchanges with Nordic and other countries.
  --A cost-saving slope-stabilization technique is common practice in 
        the U.S. thanks to cooperation with France and nearby 
        countries. This technique is estimated to have saved $40 
        million to date.
  --Safety audits are in frequent U.S. use based on successful 
        experience observed in Australia and New Zealand.
  --Overseas experience has encouraged use of speed management 
        techniques such as variable speed limits, aggressive driving 
        surveillance equipment, red light running cameras, and 
        roundabouts and other traffic calming measures in residential 
        neighborhoods.
  --Foreign practices have illustrated the benefits of all white 
        pavement markings and many innovative traffic control devices 
        to save costs and lives. These are under evaluation for 
        possible adoption in the U.S.
  --Longitudinal tunnel ventilation introduced from abroad has saved an 
        estimated $40 million to date.
  --Guidelines for implementing ITS, improved methods for measuring 
        pavement condition, and less road-damaging heavy vehicle 
        suspension designs have resulted from our international 
        cooperation.

                  ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

    Question. What is the status, strategic vision, and timetable for 
this program? Answer. The AVP is entering its second year and 
represents a successful transition and shift in emphasis of the 
Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle (EV/HEV) program managed by the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) from fiscal year 1993 
through fiscal year 1998. Building on the momentum achieved from 
investment by DARPA and private-public partners (a total of over $250 
million from 1993-1998) for advancing medium and heavy electric and 
hybrid-electric vehicle and infrastructure technologies.
     Since assuming management in fiscal year 1999, DOT has announced 
program directions for fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000 and fiscal 
year 2001-2003. In response to the fiscal year 1999 solicitation, DOT 
awarded 26 projects to consortia in fiscal year 1999 for a total 
federal contribution of $12 million--$5 million from DOT and $7 million 
from DARPA. These important projects are underway and well ahead of 
schedule in great part due to the AVP's fast-tracked public and private 
partnership and the use of ``other transactions'' agreements. Project 
selection for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 is nearing 
completion. DOT will award funding for fiscal year 2001 projects upon 
allocation of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations. Neither the 
Department of Defense nor the Department of Energy contributed any 
funds to this partnership in fiscal year 2000. The President's budget 
for the Department for fiscal year 2001 is $20 million and is based on 
a consensus of Departmental leadership of the program's importance to 
addressing the nation's energy efficiency, environmental and national 
security concerns.
    The Department's strategic vision for the AVP is to have U.S. 
commercially available and affordable, fuel-efficient, low-emission, 
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The AVP seeks annually a balanced 
portfolio of projects across various technologies and degrees of risk 
and potential benefit. This approach provides significant opportunity 
to capitalize on emerging developments that may not lend themselves to 
a ``top-down'' planning approach with narrow objectives and schedules. 
Instead, the technologies being pursued under the AVP support a broad 
set of objectives: (1) reductions in vehicle emissions beyond the 2004 
standards; (2) a 50 percent improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency; (3) 
a globally competitive U.S. advanced vehicle industry; and (4) 
increased public acceptance of advanced transportation technology. The 
Department is starting to show early returns on its investment in the 
AVP. Projects funded in fiscal year 1999 are beginning to deliver 
products and demonstrate technologies, such as battery cyclers and 
hybrid electric drive trains, that show promise in meeting the program 
objectives.
    Question. Please list the amount, nature, and participants in each 
of the contracts awarded to date that use funds from the DOT 
appropriations.
    Answer. The amount, nature and participants in each of the projects 
awarded to date under the AVP are contained in the attachment, ``Fiscal 
Year 1999 Project Summaries.''
    Question. How will fiscal year 2000 monies be used? On which 
technologies?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2000 program direction to the seven 
regional consortia was announced late last Fall. In response to this 
solicitation, DOT received 26 proposals from eligible consortia. To 
ensure continuity from fiscal year 1999 projects and to accelerate 
project awards, the Department did not request concept papers and, 
instead, asked the consortia to submit full proposals on high-priority 
projects from fiscal year 1999. These projects either did not receive 
funding in fiscal year 1999 or, given additional funding in fiscal year 
2000, would accelerate technology deployment. The proposals have been 
evaluated by a team comprised of reviewers from DOT operating 
administrations, DARPA, and DOE with support from technical experts for 
award selection. The team has made an initial selection of projects for 
fiscal year 2000 funding, and negotiations are proceeding with the 
consortia for project award in May. We will forward a summary of those 
projects once awarded.
    Question. What is the empirical basis for the amount requested? How 
will those funds be allocated?
    Answer. The Electric Vehicle and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Program 
under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was funded 
at an annual level of $15 million for the past several years. 
Recognizing the need to continue the momentum of this partnership, the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century authorized the AVP at an 
annual level of $50 million.
    Additionally, the transportation sector accounts for about 65 
percent of the national petroleum consumption. The U.S. transportation 
sector itself is 97 percent dependent on petroleum. This means that the 
transportation sector accounts for nearly one-third of the 
CO2 emissions in the U.S., 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 while reducing their emissions. The program, if successful, 
could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving fuel 
efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and by using alternative 
fuel and hybrid technologies. Several of the projects are now 
graduating from a concept testing phase to a product implementation 
stage, requiring two to three times larger project investment. The $20 
million requested for fiscal year 2001 will enable DOT and the 
consortia to sustain products emerging from the program to meet the 
program objectives.
    The fiscal year 2001 funds will be allocated using the current 
competitive process developed under the DARPA Program. The exact 
allocation in fiscal year 2001 is pending completion of the selection 
process.

                   ADVANCED VEHICLE CONSORTIA PROGRAM

    Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the conferees 
directed that FHWA include with the fiscal year 2001 budget request a 
report that delineates a detailed strategic spending plan for the 
advanced vehicle consortia program. Please explain why the report is 
not in the budget justification.
    Answer. The Department recently completed a document, Medium- and 
Heavy-duty Vehicle R&D: Strategic Plan. The Plan not only responds to a 
Congressional mandate, but also provides a framework for the multitude 
of research activities focused on advanced medium- and heavy-duty 
vehicle technologies that are supported by DOT. The Secretary of 
Transportation submitted the Plan to both the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations.
    Question. When will this requirement be implemented?
     Answer. The Department recently completed a document, Medium- and 
Heavy-duty Vehicle R&D: Strategic Plan. The Plan not only responds to a 
Congressional mandate, but also provides a framework for the multitude 
of research activities focused on advanced medium- and heavy-duty 
vehicle technologies that are supported by DOT. The Secretary of 
Transportation submitted the Plan to both the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations.
    Question. Please summarize your initial thinking regarding a 
strategic spending plan.
     Answer. The DOT Medium- and Heavy-duty Vehicle R&D: Strategic Plan 
builds on strategic planning efforts of the Department and the National 
Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology's Transportation 
R&D Subcommittee, as documented in the DOT Strategic Plan and National 
Transportation Science and Technology Strategy, respectively. The Plan 
addresses DOT research and development activities, including the 
Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program (AVP), that support improvements 
in environmental characteristics and energy efficiency of medium- and 
heavy-duty vehicles. The Plan not only responds to the Congressional 
mandate but documents the early stages of what will be an ongoing 
strategic planning process specific to medium- and heavy-duty vehicle 
R&D. In addition, it will be used as an input for a broader Federal R&D 
Plan under the aegis of the National Science and Technology Council 
Committee on Technology.

                    FIFTY PERCENT NON-FEDERAL MATCH

    Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the conferees 
directed that ``all development, demonstration, and deployment projects 
to be funded within the advanced vehicle consortia program require at 
least a fifty percent non-federal match and that none of the funds 
provided for this program shall be used to advance magnetic levitation 
technology.'' How is this requirement being implemented?
    Answer. As with the DARPA Electric Vehicle and Hybrid Electric 
Vehicle Program, the AVP has maintained the requirement for the 
consortia to at least match the Federal funding levels. The ratio of 
private to public investment will be at least 1:1.
    The Department of Transportation has mechanisms in place to ensure 
that the funds provided for the AVP will not be used to advance 
magnetic levitation technology. An executive team, made up of DOT and 
other agency representatives, define and approve the technology focus 
areas of the program that offer the most promise in meeting the 
objectives of the program. A multimodal team of technical experts 
evaluate and select project proposals that meet these technology focus 
areas.

                              COST SHARING

    Question. For each project funded, please specify the amount of any 
cost sharing.
     Answer. The fiscal year 1999 AVP projects and corresponding 
consortia cost share are listed in the following table.

WestStart--CALSTART:                                          Cost Share
    Fuel Cell Auxiliary Power Unit for Over-the-Road Trucks...$1,055,000
    Electric Propulsion System for Medium- and Heavy-Duty 
      Vehicles................................................   200,000
    Hybrid Electric Transit Bus with Flywheel Power Management   629,975
    All-Purpose Electric Airport Tow Tractor..................   217,596
    Electrochemical Capacitors Using Carbon Lead-Oxide 
      Electrodes..............................................    87,000
ELECTRICORE:
    The AV-900 Cycler: A 600-900 Volt Test System for Heavy 
      Duty Hybrid Electric Vehicles........................... 2,032,000
    Installation of Capstone Microturbines into Cape Cod 
      Passenger Trams.........................................    37,500
    Advanced Silicon Carbide Power Electronics................   675,104
Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project:
    Electric Vehicle Ready State..............................   817,395
    Zero-Emission 100 Passenger Electric Tram for Airports.... 1,938,000
    Battery Cycle Life Prediction.............................   225,263
Mid-Atlantic Regional Consortium for Advanced Vehicles:
    Unmanned Hybrid Electric High Mobility Multi-Purpose 
      Wheeled Vehicle.........................................   ( \1\ )
    20kWh Nickel Hydrogen Segmented Battery for Hybrid 
      Electric Military Vehicles, Commercial Trucks, and Buses   165,778
    Optimization of a Compression Ignition Engine Generator 
      System for Heavy-Duty Hybrid Electric Vehicles..........   308,000
    Integrated Simulation and Testing System for Electric 
      Vehicle Batteries.......................................   532,224
    Smaller, Better Inverters with Polymer Multi-Layer 
      Capacitors..............................................   227,536
    Hybrid Electric Bradley Fighting Vehicle Demonstrator 
      Testing and Model Refinement............................   ( \1\ )
Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium:
    Model Park for the 21st Century...........................   570,000
    Heavy-Duty Hybrid Electric Vehicle Emission Test 
      Certification Protocol..................................   300,000
    Battery Electric Dominant Heavy-Duty Hybrid Electric 
      School Bus..............................................   312,000
    Jet Vapor Deposition for Catalyzing Fuel Cell Membranes...   350,000
Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation:
    Utility Industry Trouble Truck and Mobile Power Source....   545,029
    Hybrid Electric High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled 
      Vehicle Improvements....................................   ( \1\ )
    Demonstration of Advanced Components on the Advanced 
      Technology Transit Bus..................................   ( \1\ )
Sacramento Electric Transportation Consortium:
    Nickel Metal Hydride Battery System for an Electric Bus...   650,000
    Plastic Lithium Ion Hybrid Electric Vehicle Battery.......   821,000

\1\Match not required. These projects did not require a consortia match 
because they are continuations of projects under the DARPA EV/HEV 
Program, and the products/vehicles resulting from these projects will be 
solely for military use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               EVALUATION OF THE ADVANCE VEHICLE PROGRAM

    Question. What measures have you developed to evaluate the success 
or progress of this program? What are your initial indications of the 
value of this investment?
    Answer. One of the major goals of AVP is to assist in the 
commercialization of electric and hybrid electric vehicles, and to help 
develop the supporting industrial and technological base and 
infrastructure. To evaluate the success or progress of this program, 
DOT has started to establish the current electric and hybrid electric 
vehicle commercial and technology ``baselines'', from which future 
progress can be measured. This is similar in approach to what DARPA did 
at the start of its program in 1993-1994. ``Success and progress'' for 
this program will include all aspects--growth and health of the U.S. 
industrial base in this market area; technological advancements such as 
improved range, energy efficiency, and reduced emissions; the 
introduction of enabling technologies such as improved auxiliary 
components and cheaper manufacturing capabilities; and deployment of 
the advanced vehicles and supporting infrastructure. The vehicles 
already in use are being quantified and will establish a baseline for 
future comparisons. The same can be said for key technology 
specifications of key components such as batteries, fuel cells, and 
more efficient engines and drive trains.
    Initial indications show good return on the Federal investment in 
the AVP. The success of this program builds on that already realized 
under DARPA's EV/HEV Program. Both New York City and Tempe have 
recently procured or announced the intent to purchase hybrid electric 
transit buses in quantity. The company (AVS, Chattanooga, TN) that is 
filling the Tempe bus order has been a direct beneficiary of the AVP, 
and the DARPA program before it, and would likely not be in this 
position today without the Federal investment. Allison Transmission has 
recently teamed with AeroVironment to develop through the AVP a 600-900 
V battery cycler--essential new hardware for testing batteries and 
drive system integration for higher voltage systems--the direction that 
the industry is starting to move toward. The Army has announced an 
intent to purchase a prototype high power, compact inverter that will 
be completed under the AVP. Initial tests of using a small fuel cell in 
a class 8 truck designed to take the auxiliary load (thus eliminating 
the need for costly, inefficient, and environmentally unfriendly 
overnight engine idling) have looked promising. If successful, the 
opportunity for including a fuel cell as part of the propulsion system 
for a hybrid electric truck may be closer to reality. Also, some early 
results for high power switching devices based on Silicon Carbide 
materials (being conducted at Rutgers University) look very promising 
and could eventually result in some dramatic reductions in size and 
weight of systems for electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles, 
and revolutionize other markets as well.

               NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT INITIATIVE

    Question. Please specify how the fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 
2000, and fiscal year 2001 funds were or will be used.
    Answer. Technology deployment is made up of two primary parts: the 
Technology Deployment Initiatives and Partnerships Program (TDIPP) and 
the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program (IBRCP). These 
programs also allow discretionary funding to foster alliances and 
support efforts to stimulate advances in transportation technology 
including testing and evaluation of Strategic Highway Research Program 
(SHRP) products, further development and implementation of technology 
in areas such as the SHRP Superpave system, support for SHRP's long-
term pavement performance product implementation and technology access, 
and other activities in support of the five national goals of the TDIPP 
program. For presentation purposes in response to this question, this 
discretionary funding will be referred to as ``other.''
    In fiscal year 1999--$30,905,000 available (Note: All funds reflect 
a reduction of 11.7 percent for the obligation limitation ceiling):
  --86.2 percent of the $4,989,000 in TDIPP funds were obligated for 
        designated recipients (5 of 6) under 5116. The remaining 13.8 
        percent (1 of 6--The principal investigator passed away and the 
        university is reconsidering their proposal) may be awarded 
        before the end of fiscal year 2000.
  --100 percent of the $5,092,000 in TDIPP funds were obligated for the 
        five designated recipients under Sec. 5117.
  --100.0 percent of the $4,415,000 in TDIPP funds were obligated for 
        the designated recipient under Sec. 3015(c)
  --50.0 percent of the $1,060,000 in TDIPP funds were obligated for 
        the designated recipient under Senate Bill S.2307 [CAST/Auburn 
        University].
  --89.0 percent of the $14,128,000 in IBRCP funds were obligated under 
        Sec. 5103.
  --90.0 percent of the $1,221,000 in ``other'' funds were obligated.
    In fiscal year 2000--$34,840,000 available (Note: All funds reflect 
a reduction of 12.9 percent for the obligation limitation ceiling):
  --100.0 percent of the $5,021,150 in TDIPP funds will be obligated 
        for designated recipients (6) under Sec. 5116
  --100.0 percent of the $4,823,157 in TDIPP funds will be obligated 
        for designated recipients (5) under Sec. 5117
  --100.0 percent of the $4,355,000 in TDIPP funds will be obligated 
        for the designated recipient under Sec. 3015(c)
  --100.0 percent of the $14,807,000 in IBRCP funds will be obligated 
        under Sec. 5103. The remainder will be obligated before the end 
        of fiscal year 2000.
  --100.0 percent of the $5,833,693 in ``other'' funds will be 
        obligated.
    In fiscal year 2001--$36,217,000 available (Note: All amounts 
following are projected. No obligation limitation ceiling estimated):
  --100.0 percent of the $5,151,000 in TDIPP funds will be obligated 
        for designated recipients (6) under Sec. 5116
  --100.0 percent of the $4,367,000 in TDIPP funds will be obligated 
        for designated recipients (5) under Sec. 5117
  --100.0 percent of the $5,000,000 in TDIPP funds will be obligated 
        for the designated recipient under Sec. 3015(c)
  --100.0 percent of the $21,000,000 in IBRCP funds will be obligated 
        under Sec. 5103
  --100.0 percent of the $699,000 in ``other'' funds will be obligated.
    All of the projects designated under Sections 3015(c), 4021, 5103, 
5116, 5117, and Senate B. S2307 will be funded as part of the 
Technology Deployment Program.
    In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $36.9 million of Innovative Bridge 
Research and Construction (IBRC) Program funds were allocated to 40 
State Departments of Transportation (State DOT) in order to pay the 
Federal share of 116 projects to repair, rehabilitate, or replace 
bridges or structures using an application of an innovative material. 
In fiscal year 2001, $20.0 million of IBRC funds will be allocated to 
the State DOTs for similar bridge projects which also demonstrate the 
application of innovative materials. Approximately 60 new projects will 
be funded in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $2.5 
million of IBRC funds were/will be allocated to research, development, 
and technology transfer (R, D & T) activities which include: 
documentation and evaluation of performance of innovative material 
bridge applications; dissemination of performance results to the U.S. 
bridge engineering community; development of material specifications 
and design codes to support successful innovative material 
applications; and research into issues critical to further development 
of innovative materials. In fiscal year 2001, $1.0 million will be 
allocated to similar efforts.

                         TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT

    Question. Which projects will be funded and how will those benefit 
the states? Please provide specific examples of the tangible benefits 
and expected costs that are expected to result from that initiative.
    Answer. Designated projects will benefit states by using advanced 
materials and innovative technologies to extend infrastructure 
durability and reduce life-cycle costs. Also, of benefit to States are 
``quality of life issues'' where these innovative technologies can 
reduce the human costs of run-off-the-road crashes and trauma-related 
injuries; reduce user delays and improve safety during constructing and 
maintaining surface transportation facilities; reduce the impact of 
severe weather events on users of surface transportation systems; and 
improve community-oriented transportation and sustainable development 
and support and enhance the environment.
    Four of the designated grant recipient institutions under the 
Technology Deployment Initiatives and Partnership Program (TDIPP) are 
doing research into trauma and crash related injury mitigation. 
Physicians define the ``Golden Hour'' as the time immediately following 
a crash where access to appropriate medical care is critical to patient 
survival. After considering the research to be performed by these 
institutions, in a ``holistic'' sense, they all can be synergistically 
tied to giving those injured in vehicular crashes a better chance of 
survival. These technologies relate to improved monitoring and 
coordination in emergency response; improved drugs to stabilize and 
prevent deterioration of crash victims' injuries while at the crash 
scene; improved vehicle occupant protective system operation and 
deployment; and improved vehicle sensors to identify crash severity and 
potential occupant injury.
    Three of the designated grant recipient institutions under the 
TDIPP are doing research related to developing and advancing prototype 
deployment of operational intelligent transportation infrastructure 
systems for measuring various transportation system activities to aid 
in transportation planning and analysis in two major metropolitan 
areas. Once these prototypes are operational and proof-of-concept 
questions have been resolved; deployment of similar systems are planned 
for deployment in 40 more major metropolitan areas.
    Under the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction (IBRC) 
Program many States are involved in developing new, cost-effective 
innovative material highway bridge applications; reducing maintenance 
costs and life-cycle costs of bridges, including the costs of new 
construction, replacement, or rehabilitation of deficient bridges; 
developing construction techniques to increase safety and reduce 
construction time and traffic congestion; developing engineering design 
criteria for innovative products and materials for use in highway 
bridges and structures; developing cost-effective and innovative 
techniques to separate vehicle and pedestrian traffic from railroad 
traffic; developing highway bridges and structures that will withstand 
natural disasters, including alternative processes for the seismic 
retrofit of bridges; and developing new nondestructive bridge 
evaluation technologies and techniques.
    This program is intended to demonstrate the application of 
innovative material technology in the construction of bridges and other 
structures--grants are made to the states to pay the Federal share of 
the cost of repair, rehabilitation, replacement, and new construction 
of bridges or structures that demonstrate the application of innovative 
materials. Also grants, cooperative agreements and contracts are 
entered into with states, other Federal agencies, universities and 
colleges, private sector entities, and nonprofit organizations to pay 
the Federal share of the cost of research, development, and technology 
transfer (R, D & T) activities related to bridge applications of 
innovative materials.
    The following information pertains to continuing initiatives being 
funded in fiscal year 2001:
    Center for Advanced Vehicle Technology.--The objective is to form a 
well-equipped interdisciplinary capability at the University of Alabama 
at Tuscaloosa to address a range of issues related to advanced vehicle 
development and operation. During the first year of operation, progress 
has been made to develop the administrative structure for the Center. 
Equipment has been purchased to improve the measurement of key engine 
properties including emissions. Five grants were awarded on various 
vehicle issues and a lecture series was introduced which brings experts 
from other parts of the country to share insights. Several 
presentations have been made throughout the country to introduce the 
Center to others and to begin build partnerships. Expected cost for 
fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is $400,000.
    Smart Bridge Research Project.--The principle purpose of this grant 
is to research, design, and demonstrate technically feasible, 
economically acceptable and environmentally compatible Smart Bridge 
systems to enhance the nation's highway system safety ad reduce its 
life cycle cost. A medium-scale deck section has been constructed. They 
are currently working to develop and validate advance modeling 
software. The research team is refining their deck heating system 
design. Continuous investigations are underway into systems to measure 
and analyze weather data, including sensor testing and development of 
integrated control strategies. Work has also begun on corrosion 
assessment, life-cycle economic analysis, and an operational web site 
for technology transfer. Expected cost for fiscal year 2001 for this 
initiative is $1,000,000.
    Advanced Trauma Care.--The Alabama Trauma Registry (ATR) has been 
established. Hospitals in the state that see a sizeable number of 
trauma patients each year were identified and contacted to obtain their 
support in collecting data using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) 
trauma registry database (TRACS). A protocol and time line has been 
developed to transfer the data to the ATR. The transfer of data from 
the participating hospitals to the ATR is presently in the pilot phase. 
However, it is expected that all major trauma hospitals in the state 
will be providing trauma data to the ATR by July 2000. Data from this 
project and others will be used to make recommendations and establish 
protocol for the routine collection of data to provide better patient 
care. Expected cost for fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is 
$750,000.
    Transportation Injury.--The Center for Transportation Injury 
Research (CenTIR) projects are underway to provide real-world 
demonstrations and evaluations of advanced technologies, systems and 
programs. These projects are advancing crash detection and notification 
technologies with crash injury assessment. They are also improving the 
process of providing emergency triage, transport, and treatment of 
crash injured people. The CenTIR research has advanced technical and 
governmental understanding of technological opportunities for, and 
institutional hurdles to, improving the safety of U.S. motorists. The 
CenTIR research has helped define the safety potential for automatic 
crash notification technologies and the need for providing enhanced 
wireless 9-1-1 service nationwide. The CenTIR research is being used at 
the Federal, State and local levels. At the Federal level, the CenTIR 
communications on the safety potential of using wireless technologies 
to improve crash safety has been used in the NHTSA, FHWA, and JPO. In 
addition, the CenTIR research has been a part of the deliberations of 
the NTSB, the FCC, and the Congress. On October 26, 1999, the President 
signed into law the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 
1999 that found ``emerging technologies can be a critical component . . 
. to reduce emergency response times and provide appropriate care.''
    Grantees are in their second year of effort of interdisciplinary 
research on ways to reduce the occurrence, severity, and consequences 
of crash related injuries that now amount to nearly five million people 
each year in the U.S., including 42,000 deaths. Expected cost for 
fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is $2,000,000.
    Head and Spinal Cord injury.--The Neuroscience Center for 
Excellence and the Virginia Transportation Institute collectively are 
working on the development and implementation of a motor vehicle crash 
victim data registry, the investigation of mechanisms of neurotrauma, 
and the exploration and evaluation of novel neuroprotective drugs 
relative to this project.
    Work has commenced in collision avoidance research and crash 
analysis research. Under collision avoidance, the following tasks are 
underway: (a) literature review of collision avoidance methods and 
developments, (b) development of a driving simulator laboratory, and 
(c) review and comparison of specific adaptive or intelligent cruise 
control systems. In the category of crash analysis research, the 
following tasks are underway: (a) finite element modeling of vehicles, 
(b) development of a folded/vented airbag model, (c) mathematical 
simulation of crash test dummy certification procedures and comparison 
to equivalent laboratory data, and (d) airbag modeling code evaluation 
and validation.
    The motor vehicle crash data base now contains data on 400 victims 
with more than 2000 documented injuries. A Microsoft Access database is 
maintained on an Internet server, providing 24-hour update capability 
and access. An improved percussion apparatus has been developed to 
support experimental head trauma experiments utilizing a rat model. 
Preliminary studies have been conducted to identify up-regulation of 
the COX2 gene in the brain preceding irreversible injury. 
Experimental strategies for screening and evaluation of neuroprotective 
drugs have been devised.
    Preliminary collision avoidance literature review is completed. All 
components required to assemble the driver simulator are now available 
for assembly. Portions of vehicle model development have been 
completed. Air bag code evaluation has begun. Expected cost for fiscal 
year 2001 for this initiative is $500,000.
    Motor Carrier Advanced Sensor Control System.--The initial task of 
the study is underway. It includes a literature review and related 
analyses of accident databases. The detailed project scope is under 
development. The Truck Manufacturers Association is working with the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the contractor to 
implement this program. The first task under the contract, which is 
nearly complete, was an assessment of several potential safety and 
operationally-oriented categories of sensors and sensor systems. A 
meeting with interested original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and 
Commercial Motor Vehicle operators was held in late February, and the 
draft task report is currently under review. A statement of work is 
being prepared as a follow-on assessment for several of the sensor 
categories reviewed in Task 1, and adding some others in response to 
stakeholder input. The plan is to follow on with tasks to arrange 
hands-on work in the lab and test track, and possible work in the field 
environment. Expected cost for fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is 
$700,000.
    Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure System.--This project 
provides for the development and deployment of a system that collects 
and distributes real time traffic conditions data for operations 
purposes; and archives this data for planning, analysis, and 
maintenance purposes. The project design is well underway in Pittsburgh 
and will begin later this year in Philadelphia. Authorization to 
proceed in Philadelphia will be granted upon approval of the Pittsburgh 
design. Given current progress, system implementation is expected 
around July 2000 in Pittsburgh, and in November 2000 in Philadelphia. 
The local user needs have been identified and the overall system 
requirements have been defined in Pittsburgh. The sensor siting and 
design are near completion and software development is under way. The 
evaluation of the project will begin once the system is deployed. 
Expected cost for fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is $1,700,000.
    Advanced Traffic Monitoring and Emergency Response.--The first 
phase of the project has begun and involves a feasibility and needs 
study to identify appropriate Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 
user service requirements. Also, this phase involves defining the 
overall scope of the project. Interviews with individual stakeholders 
are being completed. To provide guidance for the feasibility study, an 
Oversight and Technical Advisory Committees has been established. The 
design phase will begin upon completion of the study, which is 
anticipated by July 2000. An assessment of needs, along with relevant 
technologies and best practice models, will be available upon 
completion of the feasibility study. A conceptual plan and the 
appropriate next steps will also be defined at that time. Expected cost 
for fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is $1,667,000.
    Technology of Transportation Economic and Land Use System 
(TELUS).--The New Jersey Institute of Technology is currently in the 
development and deployment phase of this program. The objective is to 
support State governments and Metropolitan Planning Agencies by 
developing an automated data base to report on the status of projects. 
A Beta test group, composed of 15 MPOs, has been formed and is 
currently testing an early release of TELUS. The Beta test group has 
reported very good results and is anxious to receive the final version. 
Expected cost for fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is $1,000,000.
    Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program.--Under this 
program repair, rehabilitation, and new construction projects involving 
several different innovative materials and a broad range of structural 
applications are being funded. Materials include fiber reinforced 
polymer (FRP) composites; high performance 70ksi weathering steel (HPS 
70W); FRP reinforced wood glulam members; high strength, durable 
concrete (HPC); stainless steel clad reinforcing bars; innovative 
bridge coatings; innovative anodes for cathodic protection, etc. 
Applications include durable, lightweight bridge decks; HPS 70W steel 
bridge beams; HPC concrete bridge decks; durable concrete bridge decks 
reinforced with FRP reinforcing bars or stainless steel clad bars; 
understrength and/or deteriorated bridge members reinforced externally 
with FRP sheets or FRP prestressing tendons; bridge columns, 
susceptible to seismic damage retrofitted with FRP ``wraps''; etc.
    One example of tangible benefits is installation of new lightweight 
bridge decks which allow for increased load limits on posted bridges--
an example is the Maryland State Route 24 bridge over Deer Creek; 
replacement of the concrete deck with a lightweight FRP deck will 
enable the DOT to maintain this 1934 historic truss in service at 
minimal cost and mitigate the need for more costly rehabilitation. Deck 
installation is expected to require one week versus 5 to 6 weeks with a 
reinforced concrete deck. Another example is new bridge decks 
reinforced with stainless steel clad reinforcing bars, such as the 
State Route 82 bridge over Red Creek in Delaware, where the deck is 
expected to be resistant to salt induced corrosion and deterioration of 
concrete decks reinforced with mild steel. On this project, the 
understrength steel beams will also be reinforced with carbon FRP 
sheets.
    Technology transfer efforts such as an International Symposium on 
High Performance Concrete for Bridges (co-sponsored with the 
Prestressed/Precast Concrete Institute--PCI) and a National Conference 
on High Performance Steel for Bridges (co-sponsored with the American 
Iron and Steel Institute--AISI) will keep the bridge engineering 
community abreast of developments in deploying innovative materials in 
bridges. Total expected cost for fiscal year 2001 for this program is 
$21,000,000.
    Advanced Technology Pilot Program.--To date, one project group has 
been selected. General Atomics Corporation (GA) will lead a team to 
develop Maglev technology for the purpose of providing a solution to 
urban and regional transportation problems. The GA team will develop 
low speed magnetic levitation technology in the following main task 
areas: (1) system studies, (2) base technology development (including 
technical risk identification and resolution), (3) route specific 
requirements, and (4) projection of overall system performance and a 
preliminary design for a full scale demonstration system concept. The 
team is comprised of federal, state, and local government 
representatives along with many industrial organizations. Expected cost 
for fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is $5,000,000.

               EVALUATION OF THE ADVANCED VEHICLE PROGRAM

    Question. What measures have you developed to evaluate the success 
or progress of this program?
    Answer. We have a Legislative Implementation Plan in effect whereby 
Core Business Units and Service Business Units within FHWA (and program 
offices in other modal administrations within U.S. DOT) have technical 
representatives identified to track achievements and monitor progress 
for each of these identified initiatives. Additionally, we develop 
summary reports on progress of these initiatives and submit the reports 
biennially to the Congress. Success of the IBRC program will be 
demonstrated in 4 ways: (1) selection and funding of projects which 
support the program goals established in TEA-21; (2) construction of 
each innovative material bridge application in the field; (3) 
monitoring and evaluation of the performance of each application during 
short and long term service; (4) dissemination to the bridge 
engineering community of ``lessons learned'' and material, design and 
construction specifications developed so successful applications can be 
deployed on a widespread basis.
    Project selection is based on a set of criteria which incorporate 
the TEA-21 IBRC program goals and which have undergone critical review 
by the State DOTs, by the industries which produce innovative materials 
and by the bridge engineering community at-large. The IBRC funded 
projects including the 116 different projects already funded are being 
conducted on varying schedules according to the individual States' 
construction programs. Some projects have already been let for 
construction. One example is the replacement of the deteriorated 
concrete deck on the Salem Avenue Bridge over the Great Miami River 
Bridge in Dayton, Ohio, which will be re-opened for traffic in May 
2000. Most other projects are underway or will be let for construction 
in the Spring of 2000. The FHWA division offices are closely monitoring 
the implementation of each project.
    The State DOTs are strongly encouraged to include instrumentation 
and post-construction monitoring of the innovative material 
applications in each project request. All of the 116 IBRC funded 
projects have such a phase incorporated in the project plan. Most of 
the evaluation efforts are being conducted by either State DOT research 
agency and/or by University staff with extensive experience in the 
innovative material being used. In addition, FHWA will initiate 
regional and/or national evaluation studies for applications where 
several projects are underway in different states and different 
operating conditions. Examples include a coordinated evaluation of the 
performance of at least 24 bridge decks constructed of fiber reinforced 
polymer (FRP) composites and a coordinated evaluation of stainless 
steel clad reinforcing steel used in concrete bridge decks.
    FHWA is developing a comprehensive database of all projects funded 
under the IBRC. A wide range of information (as appropriate) will be 
collected/measured on each project: type and size of bridge; traffic 
volumes and loadings; innovative material and material specifications; 
details of structural application; design loads and design codes used; 
costs of fabrication and installation; cost and construction time 
savings compared to ``traditional'' solutions to the projects being 
built; performance data; etc. Progress and success of the program and 
of individual project applications will be done on a continuing basis. 
Dissemination of results, ``lessons learned'', etc. will be done 
continually, via an IBRC web site and the IBRC database as well as 
through engineering conferences, papers and presentations and site 
specific technical assistance to State DOTs and local highway agencies 
pursuing similar innovative material bridge applications.

                     TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM

    Question. What are your initial indications of the value of this 
investment?
    Answer. Technology Deployment program funds are a significant part 
of FHWA's overall R&T program, as they help to create of an environment 
for innovation among our partners and customers through encouraging the 
application of new technologies and approaches.
    This is especially true for the IBRC program, where initial 
indications point to a high degree of success. Two solicitations for 
bridge projects resulted in 289 applications with over 88 percent of 
these eligible for IBRC funding. Total funds requested were in the 
order of $190 million (versus $37 million available for allocation). 
The degree of innovation is notable with many previously untried 
applications including FRP composites, stainless steel clad 
reinforcing, etc. being proposed. State DOTs and local agencies have 
seen the program as not only a source of funds for innovation, but also 
as helping to offset the risk of utilizing higher risk (in terms of 
cost and technical performance) applications. Projects such as the 
Salem Avenue bridge in Dayton are proving that the innovative 
applications are feasible to build and do produce tangible benefits. 
Projects such as the HPS 70W steel bridge on Tennessee State 58 over 
the Clinch River are documenting the technical case for HPS steel as 
well as the potential for lower capital construction costs. Other 
projects in other states are expected to produce similar findings.
    The TDIPP program also does contribute to innovation, as the 
initiatives strengthen current relationships and broaden the range of 
contacts which benefit FHWA in defining and executing R&T programs. The 
Department's overall strategy is to sharpen the focus on delivering 
innovation, and to work with all representatives of the transportation 
community to ensure an effective and efficient transportation system. 
The significant number of designated recipients of TDIPP funds has 
limited our ability to focus these program resources on high-priority 
areas, but we do actively work with program participants to advance 
innovation and to maximize support of US DOT goals and objectives.
    Question. For both fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, how much 
of the funds will be used for research purposes and how much for grants 
to states and local governmental entities?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2000, $700,000 was provided for TCSP 
research, evaluation and technical assistance. A total of $871,000 has 
been requested for research, evaluation and technical assistance in 
fiscal year 2001.
    Question. Please highlight some of the innovative strategies and 
projects selected for fiscal year 2000.
    Answer.
    Colorado.--Denver Union Station Work and Entertainment Connection--
Cost effective and community-friendly alternative transportation 
connections at a primary intermodal transportation center.
    Delaware.--Centerville Village Plan--Innovative strategies to 
preserve and revitalize historic community and protect surrounding open 
space.
    Florida.--Teenagers, Transportation Planners and Residents Team 
Together to Tackle the Treasure Coast Transportation Plan.
    Illinois.--A Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Plan for the 
Route 47 Kishwaukee River Corridor Developed with a Watershed-based 
Approach Through Community Consensus.
    New Mexico.--Santa Fe/Solana Neighborhood Center B: A Model for 
Growth Without Sprawl.
    Oregon.--Oregon Telecommunity Center Project: A Replicable Model 
for Sustainable Rural Communities.
  transportation and community and system preservation pilot program 
                                 (tcsp)
    Question. What is the need and demand for the additional $25 
million in LGOE funds requested for the TCSP?
    Answer. Requests for TCSP Program funding has consistently exceeded 
the available TCSP funds. In fiscal year 2000, applicants from 48 
states and the District of Columbia submitted 292 proposals totaling 
$151 million for funding consideration. TEA?21 authorizes $25 million 
for this program in fiscal year 2001. Applicants from 46 states, the 
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico submitted 298 proposals totaling 
more than $196 million for consideration in the fiscal year 2001 TCSP 
Program. This overwhelming response indicates a pressing need in 
communities to leverage resources to make their communities more 
livable. The increased funds would expand the number of communities 
that are able to participate in the program and the range of strategies 
that are implemented to improve linkages among transportation and 
community planning and system preservation practices.
    Question. What measures have you developed to evaluate the success 
or progress of this program?
    Answer. The evaluation of TCSP projects will focus on the following 
key areas: process evaluation, product evaluation and outcomes. 
However, appropriate goals and objective, performance measures and 
evaluation methods will differ for each project because of the broad 
range of initiatives as well as the diverse mix of geographic areas and 
project scopes. The lessons learned from project evaluations will be 
used in evaluating the overall TCSP Program. Lessons learned from this 
pilot program will be shared with other communities across the country.
    Question. What are your initial indications of the value of this 
investment?
    Answer. The TCSP Program allows States, Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations and local governments to compete for funds to develop and 
test new transportation approaches for addressing the relationship 
between transportation and community and system preservation. The TCSP 
program is meeting a critical need for funds to support community-based 
planning and implementation projects. These funds are often used by 
applicants to leverage other public and private moneys in order to 
maximize transportation and community development investments. Lessons 
learned from this pilot program will be shared with other communities 
across the country.
            surface transportation research fund categories
    Question. Please provide a table showing carryover funds for each 
of the last two years for each of the traditional surface 
transportation research fund categories.
    Answer. The carryover funds for each of the last three fiscal years 
are shown below by subaccount or research categories.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal years--
                                         -------------------------------
                 Program                                         1997
                                            1999      1998    Carryovers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Transportation Research:
    Safety..............................       594       100      1,235
    Pavements...........................     1,873     1,408  ..........
    Structures..........................     2,212     1,634         88
    Environment.........................       251       370         95
    Real Estate Services................         3  ........  ..........
    Policy..............................        60  ........         30
    Planning............................       172  ........  ..........
    Motor Carriers......................       454       858      2,327
    Basic Research......................       441        72         72
    Technology Assessment and Deployment       937        65        300
    Long-Term Pavement Performance......        16        11  ..........
    R&T Technical Support...............     1,419       345  ..........
Local Technical Assistance Program......       242       407  ..........
    National Highway Institute..........       718       130        669
    Eisenhower Fellowship...............       335       116          1
    Advanced Research...................        34  ........  ..........
    Highway Operations..................        41  ........  ..........
    Minority Business Enterprise........  ........  ........         14
    International Transportation........       101       191        168
    Russia Technical Assistance.........  ........  ........          2
    Federal Lands Contamination Clean-up  ........     1,774      1,774
    ITS Research and Development........    38,129     3,773        351
------------------------------------------------------------------------

          APPROVAL FOR FUNDING SHIFTS OF MORE THAN 10 PERCENT

    Question. In House Report 104-177, reprogramming guidelines state 
that congressional approval is required for funding shifts of ten 
percent or more among programs, projects and activities. Please show 
the amounts, nature, and source of any funding shifts that were 
implemented in fiscal year 1999 and thus far in fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. There were no funding shifts in fiscal year 1999 or thus 
far in fiscal year 2000 which fall within the reprogramming guidelines 
in House Report 104-177.

                   PURPOSE AND COSTS OF FOREIGN TRIPS

    Question. Please provide a table listing the purpose and costs 
incurred for each of the foreign trips taken by each of the Core 
Business Program Directors during fiscal year 1999 and thus far during 
fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. The information is summarized in the table below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal
      Core Business Unit         year         Destination                       Purpose                   Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure................    1999  Sweden, Denmark,         To participate in the Recycled        $4,934.50
                                         Germany, Netherlands,    Secondary Materials Scanning
                                         France.                  Mission.
Operations....................    1999  Sweden.................  Participation in the World Road        2,388.34
                                                                  Association (PIARC) bi-annual
                                                                  meeting of the Intelligent
                                                                  Transport Committee.
Environment and Planning......    2000  Mexico.................  To participate in the 12th Joint       1,326.03
                                                                  Working Committee meeting.
Infrastructure................    2000  Mexico.................  To make a technical presentation at    1,529.03
                                                                  the Asphalt Recycling and
                                                                  Reclaiming Association's 24th
                                                                  annual meeting.
Operations....................    2000  Malaysia...............  To participate in the PIARC XXIst      3,546.60
                                                                  World Road Congress.
Operations....................    2000  Canada.................  To participate in the annual ITS       1,878.34
                                                                  World Congress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND OVERSIGHT

    Question. Please list each of the completed 1998 and 1999 reports 
prepared by your Corporate Management Office. Also summarize the key 
recommendations of each report. Please indicate how FHWA responded to 
each of those recommendations.
    Answer.
    1. Review of the Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship 
Program, (Internal Draft Report), February 1998--Internal report 
concluded that both the Graduate Fellowship element and the minority 
serving institutions elements (HBCU, HSI, and Tribal Colleges) of the 
program are meeting the objective of ``attracting qualified students to 
the field of transportation.'' Activities are underway to respond to 
the recommendations to expand and improve advertisement of the program, 
assure timely and reliable stipends, improve mentoring by 
transportation professionals, improve and update the database of 
participants and enhance networking opportunities for participants.
    2. FTA/FHWA Metropolitan Office Status Review, March 1998--Internal 
report concluded that ``the LA Metro Office is a success and has 
markedly improved service to FTA and FHWA partners in the LA region.'' 
The report was used as a model for assessing the success of other 
Metropolitan Offices.
    3. The Role of the Federal-Aid Division in Highway Safety, April 
1998--Recommendations focused on how to integrate highway safety across 
all functions and through all organizational levels. A number of 
activities have resulted from these recommendations including a 
national conference for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and 
FHWA highway safety specialists, development of new training 
curriculum, planning a leadership seminar for FHWA management, greater 
involvement by field staffs with non-traditional partners, and improved 
information sharing among both FHWA field offices and FHWA field 
offices and headquarters. All of these activities have increased the 
emphasis within FHWA for integration of highway safety issues in other 
highway functions and advocacy activities by FHWA field highway safety 
specialists.
    4. Meeting the Customer's Needs for Mobility and Safety During 
Construction and Maintenance Operations, September 1998--The report 
recommended a variety of actions from development of improved 
technology to working with our partners and customers to employ work 
zone management principles to improve work zone operations. The report 
established an operational baseline for FHWA to measure existing 
conditions and future improvement. It also developed a ``Model Work 
Zone Traffic Management Program and Self Evaluation Guide'' for use by 
State and local units of Government. The report, and Executive Summary 
and Guide were distributed to cities, counties, States, and industry. A 
cross-functional team was created that has extensively used the report 
recommendations identify its work. Activities of the team include the 
following, all of which respond to recommendations of the report: (1) a 
best practices guidebook which presents a collection of highway 
community best practices, submitted from across the Nation has been 
created in partnership with AASHTO, (2) in partnership with AASHTO and 
the American Traffic Safety Services Association the FHWA sponsored 
National Work Zone Safety Awareness Week, April 3-7, 2000, (3) is 
developing user friendly computer software tools which accurately 
analyze and reliably predict work zone impacts, (4) encouraging FHWA 
field offices to engage states in assessment of their traffic 
management program using the Self Evaluation Guide developed in this 
review, and (5) developing a new driver work zone safety awareness 
education program.
    5. Evaluation of the Office of Motor Carrier's National Training 
Center, May 1999--This internal evaluation concluded that the processes 
and procedures in place at the NTC for the administration, management, 
development, delivery, and evaluation of the motor carrier training 
program met the Systematic Approach to Training (SAT) criteria and 
compared favorably to other Federal agency's safety inspectors/
investigators training programs.

        OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS POSITIONS

    Question. Please prepare a table listing the average number of 
positions for the immediate Office of the Administrator and Office of 
Public Affairs for each of the last three years.
    Answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal years--
                      Unit                       -----------------------
                                                   1998    1999    2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator:
    Office of the Administrator.................       5       7       7
    Office of the Deputy Administrator..........       3       3       4
    Office of the Executive Director............       8       8       7
                                                 -----------------------
      Total Staff...............................      16      18      18
                                                 =======================
Office of Public Affairs: Office Staff..........       7      10      10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

    Question. Please provide separate tables breaking down 
administrative expenses into PC&B, permanent change of station, travel, 
communication, information systems, training, ADP, non-mandatory 
awards, and other administrative categories for each of the last four 
years and the fiscal year 2001 budget request. Please present a table 
showing net administrative expenses for each of the last four years and 
the fiscal year 2001 budget request.
    Answer.

                                      LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal years--
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1997       1998       1999       2000       2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries & Benefits......................................   $167,977   $174,369   $169,245   $193,939   $201,890
Performance Awards.......................................        891        996      1,020      1,117      1,158
PCS Moves................................................      5,967      5,800      9,749      7,700      7,700
Travel...................................................      9,660      9,273      9,387      9,473      9,473
Transportation...........................................        548        556      1,506        663        465
Rental Payments to GSA...................................     17,408     17,480     18,475     20,275     16,537
Other Rent & Comm. & Util................................      8,512      9,369      9,676      9,955      9,857
Printing & Graphics......................................      3,072     \1\ 89      2,607      1,609      1,512
ADP Services.............................................     15,356     16,615     17,005     16,800     19,200
Other Services...........................................     11,649     16,629     26,908     35,798     39,074
Supplies.................................................      3,181      2,079      2,973      2,079      2,021
Equipment................................................      3,811      6,303      2,841      4,947      6,947
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Totals.............................................    248,032    259,558    271,392    304,355    315,834
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding for Printing and Graphics are also captured in TASC with Other Services.

                  EDUCATIONAL AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS

    Question. For each of the last three years, please specify the 
amount spent on the promotion of educational or technology transfer 
activities in Russia, the Republic of South Africa, the Garrett-Morgan 
initiative, technology transfer to Turkey, a summer jobs program 
related to transportation, the support of possible careers in the 
transportation field, and environmental cleanup at any FHWA-related 
sites. What is the planned fiscal year 2001 level of expenditure for 
each of these activities?
    Answer. FHWA funding for the Russia Program, South Africa Program, 
Turkish Program, and other programs are summarized in the chart below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal years--
                      Country or region                      ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1998         1999         2000         2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Africa................................................     $220,000     $160,000     $150,000     $125,000
Russia......................................................      300,000       55,000       50,000      100,000
Turkey......................................................  ...........  ...........       10,000       35,000
Environmental clean-up of lab \1\...........................      930,000    1,300,000    1,500,000    2,900,000
The Summer Transportation Internship Program for Diverse           85,780      415,000      700,000      850,000
 Groups (STIPDG)............................................
National Summer Transportation Institute  (NSTI)............      500,000    1,356,000    2,000,000    2,000,000
Transportation and Technology Academy (TRANSTECH)...........       75,000      100,000      200,000      200,000
On-the-Job Training Support Services........................    8,239,775    5,350,278    5,710,000    7,960,287
National Urban Sustainable Employment in Transportation            15,000  ...........  ...........  ...........
 (NUSET)....................................................
Garrett A. Morgan Technology Transportation Futures.........       44,688       24,050       24,050       20,000
Dwight David Eisenhower Fellowship..........................    1,782,000    1,766,000    1,742,000    1,742,000
University Programs.........................................    3,000,000   22,590,648   23,734,750   23,734,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes partial funding from the General Services Administration (GSA) through a Memorandum of
  Understanding.
\2\ Planned.
\3\ Includes costs associated with closing FHWA's Moscow Office.

    Question. Please indicate the exact source and amount of funding 
for each activity listed above and discuss how those expenditures 
affected the amount of funds available during fiscal year 1999 and 
fiscal year 2000 for research, development, or technology transfer 
programs that were justified in your budget requests.
    Answer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal years--
          Country or region           --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 1998                     1999                     2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Africa.........................  International Outreach   N/A....................  TEA-21 International
                                        Program funds.                                    Outreach Program
                                                                                          funds.
Russia...............................  International Outreach   TEA-21 International     TEA-21 International
                                        Program funds.           Outreach Program funds.  Outreach Program
                                                                                          funds.
Turkey...............................  N/A....................  N/A....................  TEA-21 International
                                                                                          Outreach Program
                                                                                          funds.
FHWA, CFLHD Groundwater & soil         G.O.E. Public Law 105-   G.O.E. Public Law 105-   G.O.E. Public Law 105-
 contamination clean-up.                205 & project overhead   205 & project overhead   205 & project overhead
                                        charges.                 charges.                 charges.
On-the-Job Training Support Services.  23.USC. 140............  23.USC. 140............  23.USC. 140.
Garrett A. Morgan Technology           Limit. On General        Limit. On General        Limit. On General
 Transportation Futures.                Operating Expense.       Operating Expense.       Operating Expense.
Dwight David Eisenhower Fellowship     TEA-21, 5001(c)(3)(C)..  TEA-21, 5001(c)(3)(C)..  TEA-21, 5001(c)(3)(C).
 Program.
University Programs..................  TEA-21, 5110...........  TEA-21, 5110...........  TEA-21, 5110.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These expenditures did not affect the amounts available for 
research, development, or technology transfer programs that were 
justified in the FHWA's budget request.
    Question. Please indicate the amount of fiscal year 2001 funds 
requested for any of those activities.
    Answer. FHWA funding for the Russia Program, South Africa Program 
and Turkish Program and other programs are summarized in the chart 
below.

        Country or Region                               Fiscal year 2001
South Africa..................................................  $125,000
Russia........................................................   100,000
Turkey........................................................    35,000
Environmental clean-up of lab \1\............................. 2,900,000
The Summer Transportation Internship Program for Diverse 
    Groups (STIPDG)...........................................   850,000
National Summer Transportation Institute (NSTI)............... 2,000,000
Transportation and Technology Academy (TRANSTECH).............   200,000
On-the-Job Training Support Services.......................... 7,960,287
National Urban Sustainable Employment in Transportation 
    (NUSET).............................................................
Garrett A. Morgan Technology Transportation Futures...........    20,000
Dwight David Eisenhower Fellowship Program.................... 1,742,000
University Programs...........................................23,734,750

\1\ Includes partial funding from the General Services Administration 
(GSA) through a Memorandum of Understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            NEW INITIATIVES

    Question. During fiscal year 1999 or fiscal year 2000 were any 
funds taken away from any RD&T activity to pay for any expenses related 
to new initiatives that were not presented in the budget justification?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2000, $331,000 R&T funds were used to 
support the new DOT Climate Change and Forecast Center which was not a 
part of the budget justification for that year.

                            CARRYOVER FUNDS

    Question. Did you use any carryover funds to pay for shortfalls in 
the management and coordination area during either fiscal year 1999 or 
fiscal year 2000? If so, how much was allocated each year?
    Answer. No carryover funds were used to pay for shortfalls in the 
management and coordination area during fiscal year 1999 or fiscal year 
2000.
          revenue aligned budget authority (raba) distribution
    Question. For each of the contract programs specified in TEA-21, 
please prepare a table showing the amount of increase that would be 
provided under current law resulting from the RABA of TEA-21 as 
specified in Section 1105 and contrast that to the amount actually 
specified in TEA-21's contract authority amounts.
    Answer.

                                             TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
                                               [Fiscal year 2001]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      TEA-21
                        Contract programs                          authorization       RABA            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Transportation Research.................................     $98,000,000      $9,044,350    $107,044,350
Technology Deployment Program...................................      45,000,000       4,153,018      49,153,018
Training and Education..........................................      18,000,000       1,661,207      19,661,207
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.............................      31,000,000       2,860,968      33,860,968
ITS Standards...................................................     100,000,000       9,228,928     109,228,928
ITS Deployment..................................................     118,000,000      10,890,135     128,890,135
University Transportation Research..............................      27,250,000       2,514,883      29,764,883
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES

    Question. Please break out in detail your request for an additional 
$2.4 million for information technology. What is the analytical basis 
of this request? How much is in the base for similar investments? Are 
not computer costs continuing to decline per unit of information or 
processing capability? Why is this amount of an increase requested at 
this time?
    Answer. The detail and basis for the expenditure is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Number of each                 Total             Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 PCs at $1,700...............      $1,700,000  Replaces \1/3\ of
                                                     agency PC's
                                                     annually.
24 servers at $7,500..............         180,000  Replaces \1/3\ of
                                                     agency file &
                                                     printer servers
                                                     annually.
150 printers at $1,500............         225,000  Replaces \1/4\ of
                                                     agency networked
                                                     printers annually.
12 networks at $25,000............         300,000  Replaces \1/5\
                                                     agency field
                                                     network hardware.
                                   ----------------
      Total.......................       2,405,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis: (Support for Baseline End-User Computing in FHWA).
Line 1 3000 FTE (post-FMCSA separation); replacement cycle is 3 years.
Line 2 60 field offices with file/print servers (52 Divisions, 4
  Resource Centers, 3 Federal Lands, LAST).
Line 3 one printer for 5 employees; replacement cycle 4 years.
Line 4 60 field office networks; replacement cycle 5 years.

    As FHWA re-writes its major information systems it is moving them 
from a mainframe-based programming environment, to server-based systems 
accessed with a personal computer over a local or wide-area network. 
FHWA has not previously had a planned technology refresh rate for its 
desktop computing environment. As the desktops become part of the 
mission-critical support environment, they must be supported in a 
planned rather than an ad-hoc fashion.
    FHWA has reduced its per-unit computer costs in-line with industry 
trends. Because FHWA bases its systems, which are used by States and 
other external partners as well as the agency's staff, as much as 
possible on commercial available off-the shelf software running on 
industry standard computers and operating systems, the selected refresh 
rate is necessary to maintain technology which is supported by the 
hardware and software vendors.

                           TRAINING INCREASE

    Question. What is the analytical basis for the $4.33 million 
increase requested for training? How much is in the base for training 
already? Why is this amount of an increase requested at this time?
    Answer. The budget includes an increase of $4,330,000 for training. 
The fiscal year 2000 budget base for the requested increase is $3 
million dollars. The requested increase (which is not a one-time 
increase) represents the resources needed agency-wide to expand 
training and development in critical areas supporting FHWA's program 
delivery and deployment of technology. We must not only maintain and 
replace our current level of expertise, but build more depth in skills 
and expertise to meet our charge as a leader in transportation 
technology and program expertise. Following is a description of the 
training requirements which currently exist and which will be met 
through fiscal year 2001 and future budgets. We anticipate that future 
fiscal year budgets will reflect a comparable level of investment, as 
we hire and develop staff to meet program needs.
    Using a variety of approaches, we aim to fully equip our employees 
with the skills and experiences needed to work effectively in new roles 
with the states and our other partners, to serve as a key resource for 
technical advice and expertise, and to effectively develop and deploy 
solutions to new and emerging transportation issues.
    Our focus will be on developing our employees' skills in several 
key areas and on investing in developmental programs for long-term 
results. Included will be investments in technology-based learning 
mechanisms as one way to expand access and availability of training.
    Technical expertise.--Covering a wide range of disciplines 
including safety, pavements, structures, planning, logistics, 
environment, and civil rights. Resources will go to such programs/
initiatives as academic study in technical disciplines; technical 
training and expansion of rotational and developmental assignments for 
the gain of applied knowledge and experience by employees.
    FHWA's business processes.--Providing training and development 
activities in agency systems and processes in areas such as strategic 
planning; budgeting and financial management, program performance 
management, continuous improvement and measurement; and information 
management.
    Professionalism and related personal/interpersonal skills.--
Addressing core employee skills needed by employees to effectively 
deliver program and technical expertise, including such areas as 
negotiation, mediation, communication, making effective presentations, 
and working collaboratively in our restructured organizational 
environment.
    Leadership and management.--Continuing to provide skills training 
and development for a changing cadre of managers, supervisors and team 
leaders. As our current generation of leaders moves toward retirement, 
we need expanded resources to prepare a new generation to replace them. 
We also anticipate participating in new Department of Transportation-
wide training initiatives as we seek to integrate a broader 
Departmental perspective into our leadership and management development 
programs.
    Succession planning/career development.--Addressing future staffing 
needs through implementing a redesigned career development/intern 
program (known as the Professional Development Program). Additional 
resources are needed to provide newly hired participants in this 
program with a strong foundation of FHWA program delivery and technical 
skills that will prepare them to quickly assume positions of 
responsibility in the FHWA organization.

                            DELTA INITIATIVE

    Question. Please provide additional justification to further 
explain the request for $1 million for the Delta Initiative on page 
III-27. How did this request originate? Why can't the LTAP centers 
conduct some of these activities?
    Answer. Some of the work to be supported by this funding is simply 
an increase in existing activities, e.g., developing training and 
technical assistance. Some of the work is new and directly 
transportation related, e.g., developing a regional transportation plan 
while some is less directly transportation related, e.g., developing a 
tourism marketing plan.
    The request to fund these activities under one program came about 
based on the comments of members of delta region organizations and the 
public in general at meetings sponsored by the U.S. DOT. The U.S. DOT, 
in turn, acted as the lead agency on behalf of all cabinet members who 
were part of the executive branch Delta Initiative task force. The 
comments were, in part, informed by the historic role transportation 
has had in tourism and other aspects of the region. For example, 
Congress established the Great River Road program in 1973 based on a 
Mississippi River Parkway program funded under the Federal Aid Highway 
Act of 1954. During the administrative life of the Great River Road 
program (1973-1991), over a billion dollars in Federal, state and local 
funds were used for the Great River Road and various scenic overlooks, 
bike trails, historic preservation, parks and recreation trails.
                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                         AMTRAK'S ROUTE SYSTEM

    Question. Please provide the most recent route-by-route performance 
statistics for all short and long distance routes, similar to that 
found on pages 217-218 of Senate Hearing 106-221, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee's fiscal year 2000 hearing record.
    Answer.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.001
    
                    FUNDING HISTORY AND AVAILABILITY

    Question. Please prepare a table outlining federal funding to 
Amtrak for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and requested in fiscal year 
2001. (Please include only the ``glidepath'' capital request for fiscal 
year 2001, and not the expanded intercity rail passenger service 
funding request from Revenue Aligned Budget Authority funds.) Please be 
sure to include funding made available by the Taxpayer Relief Act. 
Characterize the eligible uses for these funds, and display a column or 
row which shows how much of each year's funding is available for 
obligation in each fiscal year.
    Answer.

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fiscal years--
                                       ---------------------------------
                                          1998     1999    2000    2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal grants:
    Operating grant...................       202  ......  ......  ......
    Capital funding...................  ........     609     571     521
    NECIP/NHRIP funding...............       250  ......  ......  ......
    Taxpayer relief act...............     2,184  ......  ......  ......
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total Federal grants............     2,636     609     571     521
                                       =================================
Available for obligation:
    Operating grant...................       202  ......  ......  ......
    Capital funding...................  ........     243     594     551
    NECIP/NHRIP funding...............       250  ......  ......  ......
    Taxpayer relief act...............     2,184  ......  ......  ......
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total available.................     2,636     243     594     551
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     MARKET BASED NETWORK ANALYSIS

    Question. On February 28, 2000, Amtrak announced its comprehensive 
market based assessment of the railroad's route structure, which 
identifies opportunities for Amtrak to expand its national network and 
improve the use of its assets. Please outline what routing and service 
changes will be made by Amtrak during the next six months, before the 
end of fiscal year 2000. What are the major challenges to implementing 
each of these planned changes?
    Answer. A chart indicating routes, approximate starting dates, 
equipment needs, freight partners that would be necessary and 
infrastructure needs is attached.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.004

    Question. Please outline what MBNA-based routing and service 
changes will be made by Amtrak during fiscal year 2001. What are the 
major challenges to implementing each of these planned changes?
    Answer. Amtrak is in the process of analyzing additional routes and 
re-examining existing routes. The MBNA analytical process is a complex 
one requiring significant inputs from most every Amtrak business unit 
and department. Moreover, it is a dynamic process with continuous 
analysis of alternative network configurations and schedules. Later in 
this calendar year Amtrak anticipates announcing High Speed Rail 
Corridors for further discussion with appropriate governments, rail 
companies and other agencies. These routes will have been examined via 
the MBNA analytical process. Also later in the year Amtrak will 
announce additional traditional route additions and changes under the 
Network Growth Strategy initiatives. Thus, at this time there are no 
specific additional routing or service changes other than those 
indicated in the table provided for in the previous question.

                       HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS

    Question. Please update the Committee on all proposed regional 
high-speed rail corridors which Amtrak is supporting through Strategic 
Business Plan or Market Based Network Analysis actions. Please provide 
detailed information on each proposed corridor, including: (1) total 
projected cost for each corridor, as well as anticipated timeframe; (2) 
the amount of capital funding committed by Amtrak, the affected States, 
the freight railroads and other interested parties; (3) the level of 
current services and what service improvements the high-speed corridor 
will bring about; (4) each project's primary proponent, as well as 
other parties in the coalition of forces; and (5) current ridership 
figures, and estimated ridership growth.
    Answer. Attached is a summary prepared by Amtrak that describes the 
high-speed rail efforts current underway around the country. The 
following chart addresses costs that have been identified by state 
studies for these projects and funding commitments:

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Long-term    Amtrak       State
          Corridor program              cost     commitment  commitments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Empire Corridor....................       500           85           85
Keystone Corridor..................       500           75           75
Southeast HSR:
    WAS-Charlotte..................     \1\ 1.2         75          130
    Charlotte-Atlanta..............       TBD    ..........  ...........
Midwest Regional Rail..............     \1\ 5           25          140
California.........................     \1\ 5           25      \2\ 700
Cascades...........................     \1\ 1.8         35          60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In billions of dollars.
\2\ Proposed by Governor Gray Davis.

    The BNSF Railroad has invested some $15 million to improve 
infrastructure for the Cascades services. CSX has committed to some $35 
million for improvements between Washington and Richmond. Discussions 
with freight railroads are on going with respect to partnering to 
improve the high-speed rail corridors.
    Question. An option that has been discussed for Amtrak operations 
both ``on and off'' the Northeast Corridor is the use of dual-powered 
locomotives that can operate under electric catenary as well as with 
fossil fuel, thus avoiding the need for an engine change when moving 
from electrified to non-electrified right-of-way. On which Amtrak 
routes would the use of dual-powered locomotives be appropriate? Is 
this option being considered on all these routes? Is there currently a 
dual-powered locomotive in revenue service? If so, who is the 
manufacturer, and where is this type of power car in service?
    Answer. Amtrak did purchase several P-32 DM locomotives from 
General Electric. These are used exclusively in service along the 
Empire Corridor where electric power is transmitted through a third 
rail and not by overhead catenary.
    With completion of the New Haven-Boston electrification system, 
Amtrak no longer requires a change of engines in New Haven for its 
Northeast Corridor trains. However, the railroad is not electrified 
south of Washington to Richmond and Charlotte, north from New Haven to 
Springfield, or north of New York to Albany. As a result, passengers 
either must change trains at these locations or await time-consuming 
locomotive changes.
    Amtrak is considering options for avoiding the need for these 
delays, particularly for service between Charlotte/Richmond and 
Washington. Options include:
  --development of a dual-power locomotive that can operate under 
        electric catenary or fossil-fuel generated power;
  --operation of trains with both an electric and a fossil fuel 
        locomotive;
  --addition of an electric power unit to fossil-fuel trainsets 
        arriving in Washington from the south.
    Amtrak expects to develop a specification for a dual power 
locomotive this year for review by potential vendors. A decision on 
which approach to pursue for these trains would follow.
          northeast corridor operational and safety questions
    Question. Please provide historical data from fiscal years 1991 
through 1999 on trespasser and crossing fatalities on the Northeast 
Corridor.
    Answer. 
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.005
    
    Question. Please describe the efforts Amtrak is making to educate 
the public concerning the north end electrification project. Since 
Amtrak inaugurated electrical service on the North End of the corridor 
on January 31, 2000, have there been any accidents or fatalities 
related to electrification?
    Answer. Amtrak has two structured outreach programs, one for school 
children and one geared toward emergency responders such as fire, 
rescue and police. The following is a numerical summary of our efforts 
in public education concerning the electrification and high speed rail 
operations.

                NUMBER OF SCHOOLS/PRESENTATIONS--1998-99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Schools  Presentations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA.............................................        39           94
RI.............................................        94          246
CT.............................................        34           76
                                                ------------------------
      Total....................................       167          416
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These presentations are conducted primarily by Amtrak Police 
Officers, are on going, and closely follow the guidelines of the 
Operation Lifesaver training course.

SAFETY AND SECURITY TRAINING FOR FIRE, RESCUE AND POLICE--SINCE MARCH 2,
                                  1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Attendees
                                                      Classes  on record
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA..................................................       91       778
RI..................................................       58       874
CT..................................................      131     1,368
                                                     -------------------
      Total.........................................      280     3,020
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other than a few remaining classes to be conducted west of New 
Haven, training is now complete in these states. In fact, the program 
is continuing south, down the Northeast Corridor to Washington, D. C. 
To date, we have trained over 9,836 participants in 539 classes. This 
project is unprecedented in it's magnitude and scope. We will soon 
follow up on this work with a video that is being made to supplement 
our training classes.
    In addition to the four-hour classroom training, Amtrak purchased 
and sent copies of OREIS Emergency Responder Software, developed by 
Operation Respond, to one hundred and twenty ``911''-type dispatch 
centers in the Northeast Corridor effectively blanketing our railroad 
territory with this responder tool.
    Besides these two major outreach programs, Amtrak has also 
participated in Another forty-three Community Outreach Programs 
involving displays and public events.
    Finally, Amtrak developed and closely follow a detailed 
notification process to both internal and external parties prior to 
energizing any section of new catenary on the north end project. In 
addition to verifying full compliance with the National Electric Code, 
this final sign-off process ensures that notification to affected 
employees, contractors, sub-contractors, adjacent utilities, 
communities and emergency services occurs.
    There have been no accidents or fatalities related to the 
electrification project since the first section of catenary was 
energized.
    Question. Please describe the conversion to electrified service on 
the North End of the corridor. Provide a schedule of electrified 
locomotive integration, and milestones for the conversion process 
through full implementation. What are the associated time savings for 
electrified North End service (both for Acela Regional and Acela 
Express)? What are the top running speeds for both services on the 
South End and on the North End.
    Answer. The remaining North End trains will be converted to 
electric service as high horsepower locomotives are accepted. The 
Consortium's estimate for the delivery of trainsets is as follows:
    Trainset 1--July 2000; Trainset 20--March 2001; and Delivery rate 
is 2 to 3 trainsets per month.
    Locomotive schedule: Locomotive 1--May 2000; Locomotive 15--October 
2000; and Delivery rate is 2 or 4 locomotives per month.
    Acela Regional will save one to one and a half hours from the 
previous multiple stop diesel service. The Acela Express is planned to 
save approximately just under another hour. The top running speed for 
Acela Express will be 150 mph on the North End. The top speeds on the 
South End will be 135 mph. The top running speed for Regional Service 
is 125 mph.
    Question. Amtrak is the lead contractor for construction of the 
``third track'' freight rail line paralleling the Northeast Corridor 
between Quonset Point/Davisville and Central Falls, Rhode Island. In 
last year's hearing record, Amtrak testified that the completion date 
for the third track, as determined by the Rhode Island Department of 
Transportation, is the last quarter of fiscal year 2001; Amtrak was in 
the process of reviewing that schedule. Is this construction project on 
schedule to be completed sometime in July-September, 2001? Has a site 
been selected for the location of the Warwick Train Station at T.F. 
Green Airport?
    Answer. The Freight Rail Improvement Project (FRIP), or ``third 
track'', will not be completed in 2001. Beginning in July of 1999, the 
Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) began a value 
engineering effort on the FRIP, which revisited many of the basic 
premises and criteria associated with the project. Amtrak worked 
closely with the State in this process, and as a result of that effort, 
RIDOT has decided to focus on the Track 3 (milepost 168 to milepost 
184) portion of the project. In April, Amtrak will begin the mainline 
track undercutting necessary to accommodate tri-level and double stack 
clearances. RIDOT is continuing their design efforts in the Track 3 
segment, however these efforts are primarily related to bridge 
modifications required for the project. In the Track 7 portion of the 
project (milepost 184 to milepost 190), although Amtrak has completed 
the 90 percent design, RIDOT has requested a suspension of all work 
while they review options relating to the scope of work. Based on the 
above, RIDOT has established summer of 2002 as the in-service date for 
this project.
    The Warwick Train Station at T.F. Green will be located at 
approximately milepost 176.5, which is west of Coronado Road.

    NORTHEAST CORRIDOR ELECTRIFICATION AND HIGH-SPEED RAIL TRAINSET 
                              PROCUREMENT

    Question. Due to findings of excessive wheel wear and a slower 
trainset testing schedule than originally envisioned by Amtrak, the 
Acela Express high-speed service, originally scheduled to begin by the 
end of the calendar year 1999, has been delayed until July 2000, a 
delay of more than six months. What is the adjusted timetable for the 
delivery of Amtrak's 20 new high-speed rail trainsets and 15 new 
electric locomotives? What is Amtrak's payment schedule for this 
procurement?
    Answer. The Consortium's estimate for the delivery of trainsets is 
as follows:
    Trainset 1--July 2000; Trainset 20--March 2001; and Delivery rate 
is 2 to 3 trainsets per month.
    Locomotive schedule: Locomotive 1--May 2000; Locomotive 15--October 
2000; and Delivery rate is 2 or 4 locomotives per month.
    Payment will be made as each unit is accepted.
    Question. What are Amtrak's remaining challenges to meeting the new 
start-up date of July 2000? Will the railroad meet this delayed 
implementation schedule?
    Answer. The primary focus is to successfully complete the required 
qualification tests necessary to start the service on the NEC. The 
Consortium is projecting that they will meet this schedule.
    Question. Please update the Committee on the trainset testing. Is 
all TTC-based testing completed? What on-corridor testing remains to be 
done? Please prepare a table comparing the original trainset testing 
schedule with the revised schedule, specifying detailed testing 
benchmarks.
    Answer. All scheduled TTC testing is complete. The remaining on-
corridor testing is primarily propulsion qualification testing, brake 
qualification testing, high-speed stability testing and the shakedown 
testing (60,000 mile test). There is other testing scheduled but 
propulsion, braking, high-speed stability and shakedown are on the 
critical path.
    The schedule comparison between the contract and current schedule:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Contract          Consortium's revised
                                                                 ------------------------        schedule
                                                                                         -----------------------
                                                                     Start      Finish       Start      Finish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering and Qualification Tests.............................     7/10/99     9/27/99     5/28/99     8/10/00
Shakedown (60,000 mile test)....................................     8/28/99     1/24/00      3/2/00     6/28/00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Qualification testing required to start revenue service will be 
completed by early July 2000. Qualification testing for operating a 
double trainset will be completed by August 10, 2000. This testing is 
not required to be completed for the start of revenue service since 
Amtrak's current operating plan does not include operating a double 
trainset.
    Question. Is testing of the North End electrification complete? Do 
any segments of the total electrification project remain incomplete? If 
so, where are these segments and what is the timetable for their 
completion, testing, and integration into revenue service?
    Answer. The following segments of the total electrification project 
remain incomplete:
    Mainline Track 2 between View and Shaw's Cove Interlocks.--
Completion of testing and energization of this segment in the New 
London West electrical section is scheduled for June 2000.
    Mainline Track 2 from Cranston Interlock to Norton Switching 
Station.--Completion of testing and energization of this segment in the 
Warwick East electrical section is scheduled for May 2000.
    Mainline Track 2 from Norton Switching Station to Sharon 
Substation.--Energization of this segment in the Sharon West electrical 
section is complete, but testing with AEM-7 locomotives prior to 
revenue service is scheduled for May 2000 after the energization of the 
Warwick East electrical section.
    Mainline Track 2 from Sharon Substation to Transfer Interlock.--
Completion of testing and energization of this segment in the Sharon 
East electrical section is scheduled for June 2000.
    Crossovers between Mainline Tracks 1 and 2 at Plains and Cove 
Interlocks.--Completion of this segment in the Sharon East electrical 
section is scheduled for July 2000.
    Incomplete items in the Boston Terminal Area (BTA) are as follows:
  --Station Tracks 1-6 and 11-13.
  --Track B5 between Cove and Tower 1 Interlocks (Block 25).
  --Tracks D1, D2 12, 14 and 19 (Block 26).
  --Wet and Dry Loop Tracks (Block 27).
  -- Southampton Yard Tracks (Block 28).
    Substantial completion of testing and energization of the above 
items in the Boston Terminal area is scheduled for June 2000.
    Question. Is testing of the track and other on-the-ground 
infrastructure on the North End complete? What is a ``CPM schedule?''
    Answer. Testing of the track for high-speed operation began in 
January 2000 and occurs thereafter on a routine basis as mandated by 
existing FRA regulations (49 CFR Part 213, Subparts A-G). Additional 
track testing, ``GRMS'' (gauge restraint measurement system) has begun 
and will be completed in the near future.
    Signal testing of new/rehabilitated interlockings and other signal 
improvements is an integral part of the initial installations and 
occurs thereafter on a routine basis as mandated by existing FRA 
regulations (49 CFR Part 236). A ``Critical Path Method'' schedule 
calculates a single, early and late start and finish date for each 
activity based on specified, sequential network logic and a single 
duration estimate. The focus of CPM is on calculating float in order to 
determine which activities have the least scheduling flexibility.
    In summary, a CPM schedule determines the longest path through the 
project, which is also the shortest time required to complete the 
project
    Question. Please list all non-Amtrak railroads or commuter agencies 
that will need to be equipped with ACSES civil speed enforcement under 
FRA's mandate. Who is responsible for paying for the installment of 
these systems? Please describe any cost-sharing or reimbursement 
agreements.
    Answer. The testing requirements are: On board installation and 
verification; Wayside installation and verification; Proof of Design 
Test Program and Commissioning for revenue operation; and Regular 
Testing and Inspection.
    A copy of the ``AMTRAK TEST PLAN FOR ACSES'' is attached. The ACSES 
system must be operational and testing results must be approved by the 
Federal Railroad Administration prior to implementation of high-speed 
rail service. Eighty five percent (85 percent) of the wayside 
transponders have been installed along the tracks.

              ACSES ON-BOARD INSTALLATION AND VERIFICATION

    On board installation and verification will be divided into two 
phases. Phase I will be to install the complete ACSES hardware less the 
cardfile. Phase 2 will be to install the cardfile and initialize the 
system.
    Manufacturer of the ACSES equipment will document testing of 
components and assemblies with serial numbers of each item shipped for 
installation.
    Phase I will consist of installation of the main ACSES box 
including all the internal power supplies, ACSES antenna, CTV junction 
box, speed sensors, aspect display unit, air brake manifold, MCP radio, 
MCP antenna, audible alarm, acknowledgement push button, stop bypass 
button, and all the necessary pneumatic and electrical connections.
    Installation document will include locomotive number, serial 
numbers of each of the major components, location and date installation 
completed.
    Upon completion of the enclosure installation and before plugging 
the cardfile, all wires will be verified for continuity, and grounds. A 
special test box (designed for this application) will be used to verify 
power supplies, wiring and cable termination. Operation of the 
pneumatic magnet valve, suppression pressure switches, and cut-in and 
cut-out functions will be verified. This will be documented and records 
will be kept at the location where locomotive installation is taking 
place.
    Phase 2 will require a laptop loaded with ACSES setup software to 
initialize the system. Upon installation of the cardfile, setup 
software will allow input of unit number, wheel diameter, speed sensor 
type(s) and train type(s). ACSES self-tester will be then activated to 
verify the internal and external system operation. This will include 
verification of the software version, antenna and speed sensor checks. 
Magnet valve operation, all the indications on the ACSES aspect display 
unit, and alarm condition.
    Records of these tests will be kept at the locations where 
locomotives are undergoing modification. Upon completion of the above 
tests, locomotive will be ready for revenue service.
    Records of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 testing will be kept at the 
designated Amtrak location.

              ACSES WAYSIDE INSTALLATION AND VERIFICATION

    Wayside installation and verification will be divided into two 
phases. Phase I will be to install the transponders in the track 
structure, insert the plugs and verify the messages. Phase 2 will be to 
install the MCP data radios at the interlocking central instrument 
houses, wire in the encoders and verify the data radio messages.
    Manufacturer of the ACSES system will design and document the 
transponder layouts, the message structures to be contained in each 
plug, the wiring of the encoders, and the format structure contained in 
the data radio messages.
    Phase I will be divided into two parts.
    Part I involves installation of the transponders at correct 
locations and will require detailed transponder layouts from the 
manufacturer. These will be prepared by the manufacturer from the 
detailed layout engineering which determines deceleration curves by 
train type, considering maximum authorized speeds, grades, interlocking 
signal location, and location of the ``hs'', ``ds'', ``pds'', and other 
intermediate transponder sets on each track. Amtrak Standard Plans will 
be also prepared to insure proper location of the transponders within 
each set. These plans show the correct distances between the individual 
transponders in a set and between the first transponder in the set and 
the nearest insulated joints, as recommended by the manufacturer.
    Amtrak C&S employees will install the transponders according to the 
detailed transponder layouts from the manufacturer and the Amtrak 
Standard Plans. These documents will also be used to verify that the 
installed locations of all transponders are correct.
    Part 2 involves the insertion of the programmed plugs into the 
transponders and verification of the messages on each transponder. A 
programming tool is used to:
  --Enter all pertinent transponder information from the detailed 
        transponder layouts provided in Part I (Railroad, line, M.P. 
        location in feet, track number, position within the set, 
        linkage distance to next transponder set in feet, etc.).
  --Enter appropriate revision letter.
  --Enter packages using pop down menus.
  --Verify information.
  --Compile plug information.
  --Print transponder content.
  --Print special plug label in indelible ink.
  --Print hexadecimal bitmap for the transponder plug.
    Programming of transponder plugs will be performed only by 
qualified employees under the direct supervision of the Amtrak C&S 
Design office in Philadelphia, PA, or by qualified employees of the 
supplier. All documentation of individual transponder information, 
bitmaps, and detailed engineered transponder layouts will be kept in 
the Amtrak C&S Design office in Philadelphia, with copies to the 
appropriate Division supervision and field personnel, as required.
    Amtrak C&S employees will insert each plug into its appropriate 
transponder, using the printed label on the plug to insure that each 
transponder receives the correct plug. Each installation is then 
verified at the site with the Transponder Reader. As each plug is 
inserted, the Transponder Reader is placed on the transponder and the 
bitmap, printed for that transponder is compared with the bitmap 
displayed on the Transponder Reader screen, character by character. If 
all hexadecimal characters on the Reader screen match the printed 
bitmap for the transponder, the plug is the correct one for that 
transponder. When all the transponders in a set have been verified to 
contain the required message information, the required documentation is 
signed off by the responsible C&S employee in accordance with AMT-27, 
Test 28B.
    Phase 2 will also be divided into two parts.
    Part I involves radio coverage tests by Amtrak's Radio Department 
to determine optimum antenna location and height to develop adequate 
MCP data radio coverage throughout each interlocking area, out to the 
distant signals approaching each interlocking. MCP data radios and 
antennas are installed and signal strength throughout the coverage area 
is verified to be adequate for reliable data message exchange between 
train and wayside.
    Part 2 involves installation and wiring of the Encoders at each 
interlocking. Wiring of the Encoders will be verified by traditional 
C&S point-checking from detailed signal circuit wiring plans prepared 
by Amtrak from information furnished by the Manufacturer. Actual vital 
messages to approaching trains via data radio will be in the same 
formats as messages read from the transponders. A method to verify 
radio messages similar to the method used to verify transponder 
messages is to be developed and furnished by the manufacturer.
    Records of these tests will be kept at the same locations on each 
Division as all other AMT-27 Test Records, and will become part of 
Amtrak's over-all C&S Test Documentation Files.

   PROOF OF DESIGN TEST PROGRAM AND COMMISSIONING ACSES FOR REVENUE 
                               OPERATION

    Following is the procedure to fully implement the ACSES as per FRA 
final order of particular applicability.
    Testing and implementation are divided into two phases. Phase I 
will prove design parameters and the test program. Phase 2 will be 
commissioning of ACSES for revenue service.
    Phase I will be divided into three parts.
    Part I will be initial testing to verify the design concepts. This 
will be done at AAR Pueblo test track.
    Following parameters will be tested:
  --Relationship between antenna and transponder at different heights 
        and power levels
  --Consistency of reading transponder messages
  --Transponder linking distances
  --Enforcing civil speeds
  --Running release
  --Direction reversal
  --Positive stop application without ATC
  --Transponder plug programming tool
    During the testing, the system will be demonstrated to Amtrak 
operating department for refining ACSES operating rules and planned 
training. FRA will be invited to receive initial comments.
    Upon completion of these tests, modification will be made to the 
initial design. Any remaining message ``packages'' will be added for 
final design verification at the AAR test track. At this time ACSES 
will be installed on a High Speed, High Horsepower Locomotive. This 
will verify the wiring interface with the Cab signal system.
    During this period, the system will be tested for functionality of 
all ACSES features.
    As a minimum, proper execution of the following features will be 
verified:
  --Train type dependent civil speed restrictions
  --Enforcement of civil speeds for each train type
  --Correct braking profile for initial speeds throughout the speed 
        range and for various grade configurations
  --Dirction reversal
  --Transponder linking and missing transponder(s)
  --Positive stop application with and without ATC
  --Temporary speed restrictions with temporary transponders
  --Miscellaneous packages to verify train operation during catenary 
        phase break and voltage changes, and tilt enable and disable 
        operation
  --ACSES territory entrance/exit validation
  --Validation of communication link (Lonworks) between HST and ACSES
  --High Speed operation to validate correct reading of the 
        transponders at maximum operating speeds
    Test data will include:
  --Name of the manufacturer
  --Version number of the software
  --Equipment in which software is installed
  --Test location and date
  --Test results and corrective action taken
    Record of such test will be kept at the Amtrak designated Amtrak 
NEC headquarters.
    Part 2 will be to test the system between County and Ham 
Interlocking in Amtrak NEC territory. One AEM-7 will be equipped with 
final version of ACSES. Wayside location will have all the transponders 
with proper messages necessary as per final design.
    For the first two weeks, locomotive will be used in normal revenue 
service with ACSES pneumatic valve cutout. During this period every 
time the locomotive travels between County and Ham, the on board data 
logger will monitor transponder messages, and verify linking distances, 
civil speed restrictions, track numbers, and direction of travel. 
Information collected will be downloaded every third day and forwarded 
to the manufacturer for further analysis. Manufacturer will issue the 
final report of this testing within four weeks. On-board and/or wayside 
parameters will be changed accordingly to data collected.
    Detail test plans will be used to verify proper execution of all 
the features, and sheets with the test results will be signed off and 
kept at designated Amtrak NEC headquarters.
    Part 3 will be to validate the complete system using system 
simulator in the lab environment. The manufacturer will perform 
complete V. & V. FRA will then be given a demonstration and proof of 
testing at the manufacturer's designated location.
    Phase 2 will be commissioning of ACSES between New Haven and Boston 
and designated four sections south of New York for revenue service. At 
this time new ACSES operating rules will be made effective. This will 
be contingent upon receipt of the final software for the On-Board 
Computer and completion of electrification and all the related track 
and signal work in that region.
    Phase 2 is divided in to six parts scheduled to conform to other 
related activities in the NEC. These include the track and station 
improvements, electrification, signal work, availability of high-speed 
train sets, equipping MBTA control units, and training. This will allow 
the system to mature, gain operating experience, and make adjustment 
without going through major rework.
    Testing and commissioning procedure will be same for all six parts.
    Part 1: One AEM-7, one High Speed Train Set, one P. & W. RR diesel 
and one MBTA commuter car will be equipped with ACSES to verify all the 
speed restrictions, train types, and positive stop scenarios at all the 
interlocking home signals between New Haven, CT and Providence, RI.
    Each train type will run at full track speed in each direction on 
Track I and Track 2. Also shorter portions of Track 3 and Track 4 will 
be run in each direction, so that all ACSES equipped main tracks will 
be tested in each direction with each train type. During these runs the 
ACSES pneumatic valve will be cut out. During each run, a qualified 
employee will determine that all permanent speed restrictions are being 
correctly displayed at the correct locations, checking these on test 
sheets. ACSES will monitor all the transponder messages and speed 
restrictions to verify the design parameters. Positive stop commands 
will be generated internally, and the location where each positive stop 
command occurs will be recorded to verify proper location and stop 
distances, but trains will not be brought to a stop. The ``on-board'' 
data logger will be used to gather all the data necessary to confirm 
all these functions following the test runs.
    Proper braking distances for positive stop for example, will be 
confirmed by logging the points where ACSES first warns the engineer 
and then initiates the penalty approaching each interlocking home 
signal, while running at track speed. The location of the transponder 
set at the interlocking home signals will also be recorded; giving an 
accurate recorded distance between each ACSES calculated point of 
application and its corresponding stopping point. Following each test 
run, qualified employees will review each of these ACSES calculated 
braking distances to verify that each recorded braking distance is 
adequate to stop the train for the speed recorded at the application 
point. Proper braking distances for the civil speed reductions will 
also be reviewed to back-up the on-board test sheets, which were filled 
out while the test train was running at track speed.
    The detailed test plan along with all test results will be kept at 
Amtrak NEC Engineering Headquarters in Philadelphia, PA. Final on board 
installation drawings will be kept at locomotive maintenance 
facilities. Transponder installation drawings will be retained with 
other signal plans at Amtrak NEC headquarters in Philadelphia, PA.
    When all of the ACSES safety features have been validated, and all 
MBTA, CDOT, P. & W. RR, CSX RR and Amtrak ACSES equipped units are 
identified and verified with the final on-board software, ACSES will be 
placed in service with ACSES Operating Rules in service.
    Part 2: Testing between Providence, RI and Boston, MA.; Part 3: 
Testing between County and Ham (New Brunswick, NJ to Trenton, NJ); Part 
4: Testing between Ragan and Prince (Wilmington, DE to Perryville, MD); 
Part 5: Testing between Morris and Holmes (Morrisville, PA to 
Holmesburg, PA); Part 6: Testing between Grove and Landover (Odenton, 
MD to Landover, MD).
    Test Procedure:
    Test procedure will have following minimum guidelines.
    Test records will indicate: Test date, Location, Locomotive number; 
Equipment in which software is installed; Name of the lead test 
engineer; System description; Test results; and Comments, which should 
indicate pass/fail criteria and any corrective action taken.
    Test records will be kept at designated Amtrak location. Copy will 
be forwarded to FRA.
Test Schedule
    Phase 1, Part 1.--November 1, 1998 to October 31, 1999. Location: 
TTCI (AAR) Test Center, Pueblo, Colorado. Tracks: Initially Transit 
Loop, later on High Speed Loop. Locomotive: Amtrak No. 199 with test 
car 10501 and HH locomotive 11.
    Phase 1, Part 2.--July 26, 1999 to September 10, 1999. Location: 
``County'' Intlg. (New Brunswick, NJ) to ``Ham'' Int1g. (Trenton, NJ). 
Tracks: No 2 and No.3 Main Tracks. Locomotive: Amtrak AEM-7 No. 906.
    Phase 1, Part 3.--December 1, 1999 to February 29, 2000. Location: 
Simulator at PHW, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA. Tracks: All main tracks between 
New Haven and Boston, and tracks 2 and 3 between County and Ham will be 
simulated.
    Phase 2, Part 1.--April 1, 2000 to May 31, 2000. Location: New 
haven, CT to Providence, RI. Tracks: All main tracks.
    Phase 2, Part 2.--June 1, 2000 to August 31, 2000. Location: 
Providence, RI to Boston, MA. Tracks: All main tracks.
    Phase 2, Part 3.--September 1, 2000 to September 30, 2000. 
Location: County, NJ to Ham, NJ. Tracks: No. 2 and No. 3 main tracks.
    Note: Use of MCP for stop bypass, route dependency, and temporary 
speed restrictions will be activated in stages between October 1, 2000 
and October 1, 2001.
    Phase 2, Parts 4, 5, and 6.--Dates will be provided at later time.
           regular testing and inspection standards for acses
On-Board Equipment
    Daily Test and Inspection.--Record the railroad (Amtrak), unit 
number, date, time, location, and type of test on the proper form; 
Visual inspection of the ACSES and MCP Radio antennas; Visual 
inspection of the speed sensor; Secure and record the seals on 
Pneumatic cut-out cock in cut-in position and ACSES cut-out switch in 
cut-in position; With the power on, observe that the ACSES cut-in light 
is lit on the ADU; Operate the self-test switch. (This will initiate 
the following series of steps); Step 1, Observe that each LED in ADU is 
illuminated; Step 2, ACSES antenna is powered; Step 3, ACSES magnet 
valve is de-energized; Audible alarm will sound; Push and release the 
acknowledge button; Reset the brakes by moving the brake handle to 
suppression; Step 4, ACSES will request PTS; This will cause the 
penalty application; Reset the brakes; This completes the self test and 
ADU will only show the current status; Record any corrective action; 
Inspection form to be signed by the qualified inspector performing this 
Daily Test and Inspection.
    Periodic Test.--Every 92 days the ACSES event log should be 
downloaded to verify the ACSES activities.
    Yearly Inspection and Test.--Verify the self tester operation as 
per manufacturer specification; Verify the Pass/Fail ACSES antenna 
strength; Sign off the proper form indicating the corrective action.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.006

Wayside equipment
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.006

    Purpose:
    Test 28A.--To insure that ACSES transponders are in good condition 
for reading by ACSES--equipped trains.
    Test 28B.--To insure that ACSES--equipped trains receive the 
correct messages at each transponder upon new installation, 
modification, or any disarrangement of a transponder that would require 
a new programmed plug or require changing the programmed plug.
    Test 28C.--To insure that ACSES--equipped trains receive the 
correct messages from the encoder at each interlocking through the MCP 
data radio upon new installation, modification, or any disarrangement 
of the encoder, wiring of the encoder, wiring of the encoder, or 
software in the encoder or MCP data radio.
    Responsibility:
    Test 28A.--Maintainer C&S.
    Tests 28B & 28C.--Foreman C&S, Inspector C&S, Assistant Inspector 
Test, Maintainer C&S Test, Signal Inspector or Maintainer C&S.
    Records: Results of Test 28A shall be recorded on Form C&S 27. 
Results of Test 28B shall be recorded on Form C&S 27 in duplicate with 
one copy left in the house or case with the information sheet and 
hexadecimal bitmap for each transponder at that location, and a copy 
forwarded to the office of the Supervisor C&S. Results of Test 28C 
shall be recorded on Form C&S 27 in duplicate with one copy left in the 
house where the encoder is located with the information sheet and 
hexadecimal bitmap for each encoder at that location, and copy 
forwarded to the office of the Supervisor C&S.
    Results: Any defects or discrepancies shall be noted on the test 
form and corrected immediately. If defects cannot be immediately 
corrected, the Supervisor C&S must be notified and arrangements must be 
made to make the corrections as soon as possible.

                 TEST 28A--ACSES TRANSPONDER INSPECTION

    Frequency: At least once every three months.
    Inspection Procedure: Inspect all transponders adjacent to an 
insulated joint location to insure they are operative and in good 
condition. If the perimeter of any transponder is damaged so as to not 
properly protect the imbedded antenna loop, the transponder must be 
replaced.

             TEST 28B--ACSES TRANSPONDER PLUG VERIFICATION

    Frequency: Before a new or modified transponder and/or plug is 
placed in service, or when a damaged transponder is replaced.
    Procedure: 1. To insert a new or re-programmed plug into a 
transponder:
    a. Examine the label to insure that the plug for the right 
Railroad, Line, Location, Track, Transponder Position within the Set, 
Version, and CRC Number.
    b. When all of the above parameters have been verified, and with 
time on the track involved, insert the plug into the transponder.
    c. Place the Transponder Reader on the center of the transponder. 
Compare the hexadecimal bitmap on the Transponder Reader screen with 
the printed bitmap furnished by the Amtrak C&S Design office, line by 
line and character by character.
    d. If all characters read on the Transponder Reader screen match 
the corresponding characters on the bitmap furnished for the 
transponder, the plug is the correct one for that transponder.
    e. When all plugs in all transponders in the set have been 
verified, the track may be placed in service. Record this test on Form 
C&S 27 as Test 28B.I.
    f. If any character(s) in the bitmaps do not match properly, the 
plug must be immediately removed from the transponder.
    2. To change out a single transponder:
    a. Remove the transponder to be replaced from the track structure 
and place it alongside the transponder which is to replace it, in a 
location close to the track structure where it was located. Insure that 
the old and new transponders are carefully isolated from all other 
transponders throughout this process.
    b. Immediately remove the plug from the old transponder. Examine 
the label to insure that the plug shows the correct Railroad, Line, 
Location, Track Transponder Position within the Set, Version and CRC 
Number. If these parameters are correct, immediately insert the plug 
into the new transponder. Care must be exercised that this plug is kept 
isolated from all other plugs throughout this process.
    c. Immediately place the new transponder, with the original plug 
for that transponder location, attaching the transponder to the track 
structure at that location.
    d. If a, b, and c have been completed in sequence, with the 
responsible employee in constant attendance and involved only in this 
process, the track may be returned to service. Record this process on 
Form C&S 27 as successful completion of Test 28.13.2 for the 
transponder changed out.
    e. If any doubt arises during the changeout process concerning the 
correct handling of the plug, the transponder must be tested with the 
Transponder Reader before returning the track to service for ACSES--
equipped trains. Test 28B. I must be followed and recorded on Form C&S 
27.

        TEST 28C--ACSES ENCODER AND MCP DATA RADIO VERIFICATION

    Frequency: Before a new encoder/data radio package is placed in 
service, when an encoder, or a radio is changed out, or when any wiring 
to an encoder is changed.
    Procedure:
    1 . Examine the encoder, MCP data radio, antenna, coax cable and 
connectors to insure that all components of the system are in good 
operative condition.
    2. Point check all wiring to the encoder to insure that all new or 
modified circuitry added to drive the encoder is installed exactly 
according to the authorized circuit plan.
    3. Use the Data Radio Reader supplied by the manufacturer. Compare 
the hexadecimal bitmap displayed on the Data Radio Reader screen with 
the printed bitmap furnished for each aspect displayed on each signal 
at the interlocking being tested.
    4. Line routes and shunt track circuits to display each signal 
aspect on each signal in the interlocking, comparing the bitmaps as 
outlined in 3 above. Record the results of the test on each signal on 
Form C&S 27.
    Note: During the first two years of ACSES operation, the inspection 
and test results will be checked for any adjustments in the procedure 
or the frequencies.
    Question. Please list all non-Amtrak railroads or commuter agencies 
that will need to be equipped with ACSES civil speed enforcement under 
FRA's mandate. Who is responsible for paying for the installment of 
these systems? Please describe any cost-sharing or reimbursement 
agreements.
    Answer. The non-Amtrak railroads or commuter agencies that will 
have their locomotives equipped with the Advanced Civil Speed 
Enforcement System include the Massachusetts Bay Transportation 
Authority (MBTA), the Providence & Worcester Railroad Company (P&W), 
Connecticut DOT's Shoreline East service, and the CSX Transportation 
Company.
    Amtrak is currently paying all costs associated with the 
installation of ACSES, at least at the outset. Amtrak believes the 
costs for ACSES should be paid by the federal government. The Federal 
Railroad Administration mandated the requirement for ACSES as a 
stipulation to allow operation of any passenger railroad trains in the 
New Haven to Boston territory where some trains would operate above 110 
mph.
    The costs for the infrastructure portion (or wayside) of the system 
were incorporated into the improvements to the north end infrastructure 
and paid by Amtrak. But the costs for computer control and 
telecommunications equipment on each train should be the responsibility 
of each operator using the Northeast Corridor.
    In the interest of meeting the high-speed rail implementation 
schedules, Amtrak has been forced to fund the acquisition and 
installation of ACSES equipment for each operator listed above and to 
determine funding responsibility after the installation. Amtrak funded 
the installation of ACSES equipment on the High-speed trains sets and 
other Amtrak locomotives that will be providing Acela service.
    Question. Does the trainset procurement delay have a domino effect 
on the implementation of high speed Acela services in fiscal year 2001, 
as well, because the trainset delivery schedule has been set back?
    Answer. The implementation of service is driven by the contractor's 
delivery schedule, and yes, there is a ``domino'' effect. The 
Consortium's estimate for the delivery of trainsets is as follows: 
Trainset 1--July 2000; Trainset 20--March 2001; and Delivery rate is 2 
to 3 trainsets per month.
    Locomotive schedule: Locomotive 1--May 2000; Locomotive 15--October 
2000; and Delivery rate is 2 or 4 locomotives per month.
    Payment will be made as each unit is accepted.
    Question. Last year, Amtrak testified that the budget result 
improvement in fiscal year 2000 due to implementation of high-speed 
service was projected to be $150,000,000. The fiscal year 2002 
improvement was project to be $180,000,000. What are the financial 
effects of this delay on Amtrak's revenue projections for fiscal years 
2000, 2001, and 2002?
    Answer. Amtrak has identified the revenue impact in fiscal year 
2000 to be $156 million. The full financial impact for fiscal year 2001 
is currently being assessed and will be determined upon finalization of 
the Acela Express phase-in and operating plans.
    We anticipate that fiscal year 2002 will be the first full year of 
high-speed rail service in the NEC. It is in this fiscal year that the 
implementation of high-speed rail results in an incremental bottom line 
improvement of $180 million. It is not expected that the delay 
continuing into 2001 will negatively impact fiscal year 2002, however 
this assumption will be further assessed in the upcoming budget cycle.
    Question. How has the Corporation made up for the lost revenue due 
to the delay in implementing high-speed service in fiscal year 2000? 
How do you plan to make up for lost revenue due to the delay in 2001?
    Answer. For Amtrak's fiscal year 2000, the passenger revenue 
shortfall resulting from the delay in the delivery of the new trainsets 
is estimated to be $156 million. The budget gap created by this revenue 
shortfall was resolved by identifying measures that offset this deficit 
and was incorporated as part of the company's business plan.
    These items include revenues associated with liquidated damages to 
be paid to Amtrak by the consortium pursuant to the contractual 
agreement between the two parties and equipment leasing transactions. 
Interest expense savings stemming from the late delivery of the new 
trainsets and operating cost savings for Acela Express due to the later 
implementation of the service are also included.
    Similar measures will be employed to offset revenue shortfalls 
occurring in fiscal year 2001.
    Question. What percentage of the trainset costs are ``Made in 
America?'' Please break out material and labor?
    Answer. Pursuant to its Agreements for the design and manufacture 
of high-speed trainsets and high-horsepower locomotives, the ``United 
States Content'' of the trainsets and locomotives is required to be at 
least 67 percent and 63 percent respectively. These requirements exceed 
significantly the statutory requirements of both Amtrak's Domestic 
Buying Preferences, 49 USC Section 24305(f) and the Buy American Act, 
41 USC Section 10a-10c. Amtrak will conduct a post delivery audit to 
determine the actual percentage of the United States content of the 
equipment. Such an audit will include a breakdown of appropriate labor 
and material costs. Each Agreement carries penalties for non-
compliance. Moreover, as required by law, final assembly of the 
trainsets and locomotives is being performed in the United States.
    Question. Please outline the construction schedule and related 
costs for the three high-speed maintenance facilities. Please describe 
the cost-sharing arrangements for the construction and operation of 
these maintenance facilities with Bombardier.
    Answer. Amtrak issued a partial substantial completion for the Ivy 
City and Southampton Facilities in February 2000. Amtrak will issue 
substantial completion for Ivy City when the consortium completes the 
Wheel Diagnostic, Trainset Washer and Split Rail Systems. The 
consortium expects the Wheel Diagnostic and Trainset Washer to be 
completed by the end of May 2000. The Split Rail System for is expected 
to be completed by June 15, 2000. Amtrak will issue substantial 
completion for Southampton when the consortium completes the Split Rail 
System, estimated to be early June 2000. The consortium expects to 
present the Sunnyside Facility to Amtrak for substantial completion in 
late May 2000.
    The Maintenance Facilities cost $112 million. There are no cost 
sharing arrangements. Amtrak's contract with the Consortium is to 
design and construct the facilities. Amtrak's contract with the 
Consortium for Management Services requires the consortium to operate 
and maintain the Maintenance Facilities.
    Question. Please describe the contractual penalty clauses that 
Bombardier is subject to regarding trainset delivery and maintenance. 
What level of recoveries have been made to date due to the delay in the 
trainset procurement? Given the current rollout schedule, what total 
level of recoveries is Amtrak assuming in fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. Amtrak's contract with the Bombardier-Alstom consortium for 
high-speed trainsets provides liquidated damages for late delivery. The 
relevant contractual provisions provide Amtrak with the right to obtain 
reimbursement or offset payments otherwise due the contractor with 
liquidated damages beginning at $1,000 per day for each day an 
individual trainset is delayed and escalating to $13,500 per day.
    Amtrak's contract with Bombardier-Alstom for the management of 
maintenance services also contains various liquidated damages 
provisions relating to trainset availability, reliability, and 
performance. As service has not yet commenced, no liquidated damages 
have been incurred to date.
    Question. Since Amtrak signed its procurement agreement with 
Bombardier in 1996, have any contract changes or change orders been 
made to the trainset and maintenance facility contract--either 
financial or technical in nature? Please describe these changes and 
when they were made.
    Answer. In May of 1996, the original contract was signed for: 12 
trainsets, 15 locomotives, 2 facilities.
    September 1996--the Management Services option (trainset 
maintenance) portion of the Contract was exercised.
    October 1997--an option was exercised for a facility at Sunnyside, 
NY, bringing the total to three.
    December 1997--there was an interior change order adding the first 
class car, cafe car and the Acela image to the train interior and 
exterior.
    March 1998--an option for six additional trainsets was exercised to 
bring the total number of trainsets on order to 18.
    July 1998--an option for two additional trainsets was exercised, 
bringing the total number of trainsets to 20. The trainset simulator 
was upgraded to a full motion simulator.
    The Trainset Contract had five minor change orders for the month of 
September 1997. These minor change orders consisted of items such as 
printer and refrigerator in the operating cabs and five pairs of coach 
seats for marketing purposes.
    The Maintenance Facilities Contract had sixteen minor change orders 
from the period of July 1997 to November 1997. These minor change 
orders consisted of items such as the Split Rail System, Sanding System 
and Vacuum System.
    There was one minor Maintenance Facility change order in July 1998 
relating to the yardmaster office in Sunnyside.
    There are several relatively minor changes under price 
negotiations.
                        south end capital needs
    Question. Please outline the Amtrak's Northeast Corridor South End 
short term plan (fiscal years 2001--2005) to address high priority rail 
infrastructure needs between New York and Washington, DC. Include a 
detailed cost sheet of major projects, sorted by benefit category 
(i.e., life safety/mandated, operational reliability, high-speed rail, 
shared benefit/capacity, and commuter/freight).
    Answer. A copy of the South End Projects--Summary of Short Range 
Plan for fiscal years 2001-2005 is attached.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.010

    Question. Amtrak had proposed paying 50 percent of the costs 
associated with these improvements, and having commuters and freights 
pay the other 50 percent. What has the reception been from the 
commuters and freights to this split cost proposal? Please describe any 
project cost agreements that are negotiated at this time.
    Answer. There has been no response from the commuter railroads or 
the freight railroads regarding the proposed cost sharing proposals. A 
presentation of the South End report to all South End stakeholders is 
planned for May 17 to discuss the contents, assumptions and further 
development of a jointly funded capital investment program for the 
South End of the Northeast Corridor.
    Amtrak's intent is to define a process and enter negotiations with 
each carrier to develop the scope, schedule, budget and funding share 
for the next five years (fiscal year 2001-2005) and the longer range as 
well. The requirement to perform safety/mandated and operational 
reliability is central to the adequate delivery of existing services 
that affect all operators on the Corridor and the funding 
responsibility for these investments must be shared. Further 
improvements to maximize the potential of the South End from a travel 
time and capacity viewpoint are also needed and should be apportioned 
among the operators generally in proportion to the relative benefits 
that result. A combined funding and development plan is required to 
respond to these challenges.
    The report incorporates the infrastructure improvements needed to 
meet all operators' future needs-Amtrak, commuter railroads and freight 
railroads. The infrastructure improvements (additional tracks, new 
interlockings, improved switches, etc.) to accommodate future operating 
plans were shared with the stakeholders. But the costs and funding 
assumptions had not been shared with stakeholders as noted in the 
report. The challenge is to develop a five-year funding plan that will 
ensure safe, quality service delivery as well as develop the plan for 
infrastructure improvements needed for the future. The South End Plan 
is the first step in this process and will be periodically updated as 
agreements are reached or priorities change.

                          CSX TRACK CONDITION

    Question. What Amtrak routes operate over CSX-owned track? Has 
Amtrak experienced track condition-related delays or slower running 
times? What are the Corporation's alternatives for redress when the 
condition of non-Amtrak owned track causes delays or even derailments?
    Answer. CSX owns all or a portion of the trackage on the following 
routes: Orlando--Los Angeles/Washington--Chicago via Pittsburgh/
Washington--Chicago via Charleston/New York--Chicago/Boston--Chicago/
Chicago--Jeffersonville/Sanford--Lorton/Boston--Newport News/New York--
Charlotte/Boston--Richmond/Chicago--Grand Rapids/New York City--Niagara 
Falls/New York City--St. Albans/New York City--Rutland/Washington--
Albany/Syracuse/Schenectady/Washington--Boston via Springfield.
    Particularly since CSX's merger with Conrail, Amtrak trains 
regularly experience delays and slower running times which result in 
late trains.
    When freight railroad delays cause late trains, the freight 
railroad foregoes incentive payments it would otherwise earn from 
Amtrak for good on-time performance. If a freight railroad's on-time 
performance falls below 70 percent on a route in a given month (as 
measured based on exclusion of certain delays not within the railroad's 
control), the railroad is penalized. For example, during February 2000, 
CSX did not earn any of the $1.65 million in on-time incentive payments 
it was eligible to earn, and was assessed penalties of $46,557. In 
addition, virtually all of the operating agreements that Amtrak has 
negotiated with freight railroads require the railroad to maintain the 
rail lines over which Amtrak's trains operate to a ``level of utility'' 
that will enable those trains to operate at specified speeds and 
schedules. The CSX Agreement has such a provision, with exceptions for 
several ``low density'' segments of CSX rail lines. If a railroad fails 
to maintain the required level of utility, Amtrak can initiate an 
arbitration proceeding to obtain an order requiring the railroad to 
restore its tracks to the contractually mandated level. Where 
appropriate, Amtrak can also ask the arbitrators to award damages.

                           CATERING CONTRACT

    Question. It has been one year since Amtrak commissaries were 
turned over to Dobbs International Services, which has a seven-year 
contract with Amtrak to provide food and beverage labor and management 
services for all Amtrak-operated intercity trains. In last year's 
record testimony, Amtrak estimated a net savings ranging from 
$21,500,000 to $28,100,000 over the length of the contract. What level 
of savings has been realized in the first year of this contract? Are 
you on track to realize savings over the life of the contract within 
the range estimated in last year's testimony?
    Answer. Of the $5.2 million net labor savings targeted in the first 
year of the contract, Amtrak has realized $2.548 million through 
February 2000. Amtrak is ahead of the projected annual savings of $5.21 
million by $0.377 million year-to-date. There was an additional savings 
in fiscal year 1999 of $1.54 million as a result of funds budgeted but 
not spent for employee buyouts.

                         AMTRAK REVENUE SOURCES

    Question. Please update the table on pages 225-226 of Senate 
hearing 106-221, showing the actual versus budgeted revenues for fiscal 
years 1998, 1999, and anticipated for 2000, including all revenue 
sources broken out by type.
    Answer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             1998              1999                 2000
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Actual   Budget   Actual   Budget  Forecast \1\   Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core.................................................   $1,294   $1,331   $1,395   $1,438      $1,555     $1,718
Commuter.............................................      260      267      261      255         258        258
Reimbursable.........................................       91       90       94      106          91         93
Commercial...........................................       63       69       78       51          48         55
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Total..........................................    1,708    1,757    1,828    1,850       1,952      2,124
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Fiscal year 2000-2004 strategic business plan.

    Question. Please update the table on page 226 of last year's 
hearing record that breaks out commuter service revenue by route 
location for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and anticipated for 2000.
    Answer. The following schedule shows the breakout of commuter 
services revenues by SBU by commuter agency:

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal years
                                              --------------------------
                                                 1998     1999     2000
                                                Actual   Actual   Actual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass. Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)....      154      164      165
Connecticut Dept. of Transportation (CDOT)...        5        6        5
Maryland Dept. of Transportation (MARC)......       18       18       19
Virginia Railway Express (VRE)...............        8       10       11
                                              --------------------------
      Total NEC Commuter.....................      186      198      200
Metrolink Commuter Rail Service..............       27       16       17
Caltrain Commuter Service....................       37       40       41
Coaster Commuter Service.....................        7        7        7
                                              --------------------------
      Total West Commuter Service............       71       83       65
      Total Commuter Revenue.................      257      281      265
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The figures for 1998 above do include the Florida Fun Train for 
which Amtrak earned $4 million in revenue in that year. The train 
service was terminated after that.
    Question. Please update the table on pages 226-227 of last year's 
hearing record that lists the Corporation's rent and retail locations, 
amount of space, and associated income in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 
projected for fiscal year 2000. Are all of Amtrak's commercial and 
retail development assets on the Northeast Corridor?
    Answer.

       AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year
                                     -----------------------------------
          Revenue category                                2000 Forecast
                                         1999 Actual           \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real Estate.........................       \2\ 2,536.4       \3\ 1,800.0
Retail..............................       \4\ 7,952.5       \4\ 7,700.0
Telephones..........................             476.6             400.0
Pipe & Wire.........................           3,609.0           3,900.0
Parking.............................           4,150.9           4,000.0
Advertising.........................           3,108.4           3,000.0
Telecommunications..................      \5\ 25,463.0      \6\ 19,200.0
Other...............................      \7\ 15,810.8  ................
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................          63,107.6          40,000.0 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Actuals through February and forecast March through September.
\2\ Includes: $1,280.0 one-time revenue events (i.e. property sales).
\3\ Includes: $575.0 one-time revenue events (i.e. property sales).
\4\ Includes: All Amtrak owned NEC Stations.
\5\ Includes: $4,800.0 flagging protection and $900.0 one-time payments.
\6\ Includes: $1,250.0 flagging protection and $3,800.0 one-time
  payments.
\7\ Includes: $14,100.0 Providence Sale, $1,300.0 MA Condemnation,
  $350.0 32nd Street Sale.

    No. Amtrak does have commercial and retail development assets off 
of the Northeast Corridor.
    Question. Please update the table on page 227 of last year's 
hearing record showing the actual and estimated income from express 
freight and mail service for fiscal years 1999 through 2002.
    Answer. [Information follows]

                        [In Millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year
                             -------------------------------------------
                               1999 \1\     2000       2001       2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail........................       80.6      103.8      114.5      118.2
Express.....................       17.2       72.2       78.0       99.5
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................       97.8      176.0      192.5      217.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: FIS

    Question. For fiscal years 1998, 1999, and anticipated through 
2000, please breakout the level of state support by State, with totals 
for each year.
    Answer.

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year
                                        --------------------------------
                                            1998       1999       2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total operating subsidies from States..       82.6       99.9      112.2
Total Capital subsidies from States....      107.6      302.9      218.5
                                        --------------------------------
      Grand total......................      190.2      402.8      330.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                AMTRAK CONTRACTS WITH FREIGHT RAILROADS

    Question. Please describe all contracts between Amtrak and the 
freights wherein the Corporation makes payments on a contractual or 
incentive basis. Prepare a table that breaks out the types of payments 
and the amount paid, by freight railroad and total, for fiscal years 
1997, 1998, and 1999, and projected for 2000.
    Answer. Based upon 49 United States Code 24101, et. Seq. (the Rail 
Passenger Service Act, as amended) and as otherwise agreed by the 
parties, Amtrak's agreements with the freight railroads spell out both 
Amtrak's and the railroad's rights and obligations, provide for payment 
for the railroad's incremental costs, and includes an incentive 
provision to allow the railroads to earn payments above incremental 
costs for quality service measured by on-time performance. Payments for 
the fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999 and projected payments for 2000 
are attached.

                                       AMTRAK'S PAYMENTS TO RAILROADS \1\
                                               [Fiscal year 1999]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Cost         Incentives
                                                                   reimbursement      earned       Total payment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroads with incentive contracts:
    BNSF........................................................     $16,190,206     $12,231,404     $28,421,610
    CN--Grand Trunk.............................................         307,716  ..............         307,716
    CN--Illinois Central........................................       2,452,508       1,118,038       3,570,546
    CP--D&H.....................................................         534,121         405,110         939,231
    CP--Soo Line................................................       1,407,621         722,232       2,129,853
    CSX.........................................................      13,520,071       3,002,421      16,522,492
    FDOT........................................................         569,611         337,497         907,108
    Metra.......................................................         236,008         135,779         371,787
    Metro North.................................................       6,101,376         498,832       6,600,208
    New England Central.........................................         873,514         361,856       1,235,370
    Norfolk Southern............................................       5,661,923       1,528,166       7,190,089
    SCRRA--Los Angeles..........................................       1,187,242         983,049       2,170,291
    Union Pacific System........................................      13,835,954       2,446,428      16,282,382
    Vermont Railway.............................................         136,587           7,933         144,520
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Sub-Total.................................................      63,014,458      23,778,745      86,793,203
Railroads without Incentive Contracts:
    Chicago Union Station.......................................       8,058,629  ..............       8,058,629
    CN--Canadian National.......................................         700,592  ..............         700,592
    Kansas City Terminal........................................         139,308  ..............         139,308
    Minnesota Commercial........................................         279,109  ..............         279,109
    NCTD--San Diego.............................................       1,493,924  ..............       1,493,924
    Portland Terminal RR........................................         122,952  ..............         122,952
    VIA Rail Canada.............................................       1,194,515  ..............       1,194,515
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Sub-Total.................................................      11,989,029  ..............      11,989,029
      All Railroads.............................................      75,003,487  ..............      98,782,232
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on todays railroads after mergers.

    Question. Please update the information on page 232 of last year's 
hearing record describing all contracts between Amtrak and freight 
railroads wherein freights are given access to routes over Amtrak-owned 
tracks. What are the most recent payment levels from freight railroads?
    Answer. Freight service is provided over the rail lines in the 
Northeast and Michigan that Amtrak acquired in connection with 
Conrail's formation in 1976 pursuant to trackage rights that were 
granted to freight railroads at the same time. Certain of these rights 
have subsequently been transferred to other railroads, most recently as 
a result of the division of Conrail's rights between Norfolk Southern 
and CSXT during 1999.
    The terms of these rights are set forth in various agreements 
between Amtrak and the freight railroads. The compensation Amtrak 
receives under these agreements is for the most part based upon the 
number of car miles (one freight car travelling one mile) that the 
railroads operate over Amtrak-owned lines.
    The following is a summary of the rights covered by these 
agreements. Certain of these rights, including all of Delaware & 
Hudson's rights, were not exercised during 1999.
  --Norfolk Southern has rights between New York, NY, and Washington, 
        DC; Philadelphia, PA, and Harrisburg, PA; and Kalamazoo, MI, 
        and Michigan City, IN.
  --CSXT has rights between New Rochelle, NY, and Washington, DC, and 
        over certain trackage in Southern Connecticut.
  --Conrail has retained rights to provide local service on behalf of 
        Norfolk Southern and CSXT between Newark, NJ, and Philadelphia, 
        PA.
  --Delaware & Hudson Railway, a subsidiary of Canadian Pacific 
        Railway, has rights between Perryville, MD, and Washington, DC, 
        and over short track segments in New York, NY, Philadelphia, 
        PA, and Harrisburg, PA.
  --Springfield Terminal Railway, a subsidiary of Guilford Rail System, 
        has rights between New Haven, CT, and Springfield, MA.
  --Providence & Worcester Railroad has rights over certain Amtrak-
        owned lines in southern Connecticut, Rhode Island, and near New 
        Rochelle, NY.
  --Connecticut Southern Railroad has rights between New Haven, CT, and 
        Springfield, MA.

Freight Railroad Payments for fiscal year 1999 Operations

Conrail......................................................$11,180,222
Norfolk Southern.............................................. 5,523,868
Connecticut Southern.......................................... 1,285,378
CSXT..........................................................   221,226
Providence & Worcester........................................   167,509
Springfield Terminal..........................................   127,304
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................18,505,507

    Certain of the above payments have not yet been made, and the 
dollar amounts shown are subject to audit.
                   ridership and employment by state
    Question. Please provide a breakdown of fiscal year 1999 Amtrak 
ridership by State, as well as the number of residents employed 
directly by Amtrak in each State.
    Answer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        State                            Boardings      Alightings         Total       Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................................          26,052          25,152          51,204          26
Arkansas............................................           8,442           8,767          17,209          28
Arizona.............................................          45,023          46,177          91,200          23
California..........................................       3,258,809       3,248,256       6,507,065       3,490
Colorado............................................         132,461         130,146         262,607          90
Connecticut.........................................         434,360         450,500         884,860         751
Washington, DC......................................       1,576,025       1,594,735       3,170,760         343
Delaware............................................         357,326         359,912         717,238       1,134
Florida.............................................         458,989         458,357         917,346         953
Georgia.............................................          73,518          74,675         148,193          69
Iowa................................................          29,102          29,737          58,839          10
Idaho...............................................           2,190           2,158           4,348           1
Illinois............................................       1,442,702       1,436,791       2,879,493       2,066
Indiana.............................................          55,507          59,688         115,195       1,232
Kansas..............................................          17,829          18,127          35,956          21
Kentucky............................................           5,289           4,982          10,271           3
Louisiana...........................................          95,507          96,825         192,332         338
Massachusetts.......................................         589,063         563,646       1,152,709       2,299
Maryland............................................         820,280         813,379       1,633,659       2,494
Maine...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............          16
Michigan............................................         293,593         292,166         585,759         155
Minnesota...........................................          78,264          79,604         157,868          77
Missouri............................................         230,291         230,751         461,042          96
Mississippi.........................................          45,198          46,783          91,981          57
Montana.............................................          65,245          66,086         131,331          48
North Carolina......................................         262,395         259,713         522,108         132
North Dakota........................................          40,841          41,016          81,857          12
Nebraska............................................          20,969          21,492          42,461          17
New Hampshire.......................................             888             933           1,821         166
New Jersey..........................................       1,747,445       1,750,297       3,497,742       1,724
New Mexico..........................................          51,807          51,304         103,111          62
Nevada..............................................          42,106          51,118          93,224          31
New York............................................       4,709,895       4,687,881       9,397,776       2,064
Ohio................................................          85,007          84,795         169,802          68
Oklahoma............................................          14,601          13,816          28,417           3
Oregon..............................................         304,671         303,109         607,780          73
Pennsylvania........................................       2,338,445       2,338,083       4,676,528       3,120
Rhode Island........................................         181,274         188,963         370,237         399
South Carolina......................................          91,800          90,929         182,729          53
Tennessee...........................................          22,220          22,335          44,555          14
Texas...............................................          84,718          83,463         168,181         180
Utah................................................          16,694          17,871          34,565          45
Virginia............................................         467,711         468,950         889,162         792
Vermont.............................................          48,927          51,073         100,000          12
Washington..........................................         467,711         468,950         936,661         428
Wisconsin...........................................         250,670         250,011         500,681          79
West Virginia.......................................          18,479          19,859          38,338          32
United States Total.................................      21,386,663      21,379,538  \1\ 42,766,201     25,326
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The above figure represents total boardings and alightings in the United States. Since each trip contains
  two endpoints, total ridership is equal to half of total boardings and alightings.


                           STATION RENOVATION

    Question. Please update the tables on pages 234 and 235 of last 
year's hearing record, providing data on station renovation costs for 
fiscal years 1999, 2000, and planned for fiscal year 2001.
    Answer. [Information for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 is attached.] 
The fiscal year 2001 Capital Budget is currently under development and 
therefore no specific information relating to station renovation costs 
have been included.

                                      FISCAL YEAR 2999 STATION RENOVATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Station                                  Amtrak       Funding other       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
King Street Station Intermodal Project..........................       4,000,000      16,250,000      20,250,000
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN........................................         500,000  ..............         500,000
Raleigh, North Carolina Station Expansion.......................         444,000  ..............         444,000
Chicago Union Station...........................................       5,519,000  ..............       5,519,000
Southern Pines, NC Station Restoration..........................         800,000  ..............         800,000
Erie, PA Station Renovation.....................................       1,400,000  ..............       1,400,000
NEC Station and Customer Service Impro..........................       4,850,000  ..............       4,850,000
Washington Union Station--Lower Level...........................  ..............       3,200,000       3,200,000
MetroPark Station...............................................         600,000  ..............         600,000
Wilmington Station..............................................       3,000,000       1,900,000       4,900,000
Tukwila, WA Station.............................................         500,000      24,200,000      24,700,000
Everett, WA Intermodal Project..................................       1,000,000      40,430,000      41,430,000
Eugene, OR Multimodal Station...................................         500,000       3,600,000       4,100,000
Albany, OR Multimodal Station...................................         500,000      11,000,000      11,500,000
San Diego Station Improvement...................................         800,000         400,000       1,200,000
Salinas Station Improvement.....................................         300,000       2,979,000       3,279,000
Sacramento, CA Station Renovation...............................       1,500,000      36,580,000      38,080,000
Great American Station Foundation...............................       1,000,000  ..............       1,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total Fiscal Year 1999 Station Renovations................      27,213,000     140,539,000     167,752,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                      FISCAL YEAR 2000 STATION RENOVATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Station                                  Amtrak       Funding other       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intercity Leveraged Station Projects............................       1,000,000          49,000       1,049,000
Minn-St. Paul Station Repairs...................................          75,000  ..............          75,000
Spartanburg, SC Station Improvements............................          35,000         565,000         600,000
Great American Station Foundation...............................         950,000  ..............         950,000
Northern Auto Train Terminal Replac.............................       4,000,000  ..............       4,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total Fiscal Year 2000 Station Renovations................       6,060,000         614,000       6,674,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  FISCAL YEAR 2000 CAPITAL INVESTMENT

    Question. The Federal Railroad Administration was appropriated 
$3,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 for the Michigan high-speed positive 
train control project (a joint FRA/Amtrak/Michigan DOT and Harmon 
Industries project). What level of funding for this project is provided 
by each of the four partners for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and projected 
for 2001? Is the project on track for completion in May 2001?
    Answer. Attached is the funding allocation matrix for the complete 
Michigan High-Speed Positive Train Control Project. The designated 
fiscal years are actually based on the FRA funding granted to the 
project. Funding agreements are in place through Phase 5 between the 
FRA and Michigan DOT and Michigan DOT and Amtrak.
    All funding agreements for Phase 5 (FRA fiscal year 1999 funding 
and Amtrak fiscal year 2000 capital funding) indicate that Amtrak's 
contribution to the project will be supplemented by $1 million. 
However, during Amtrak's fiscal year 2000 capital authorization 
process, only $900,000 was authorized, resulting in a shortfall of 
$100,000. The FRA and Michigan DOT agreement and the Michigan DOT and 
Amtrak agreement indicate the funding level of $1 million by Amtrak. 
These agreements will require that Amtrak fund the shortfall.
    Michigan DOT has submitted a grant application to the FRA for the 
Phase 6 (fiscal year 2000) funding grant in the amount of $3 million. 
Once the FRA and Michigan DOT have executed the funding agreement for 
the FRA fiscal year 2000 funding, Michigan DOT and Amtrak will execute 
the funding agreement for the supplemental monies.
    Based on the FRA funding grant and the Michigan DOT and Amtrak 
Agreement, the project completion date was extended as follows: Project 
Completion: August 2001; Final Report Due: December 2001.
    Phase 1 of ITCS (Incremental Train Control System) revenue service 
implementation commenced on March 20, 2000 at 12:01 a.m./ET.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                               Phase
                                                                                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Funding                                 Percentage                                                                  5--Fiscal year  6--Fiscal year       Total
                                                                                         1               2               3               4             1999            2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULL FUNDING COMMITMENT & PLAN:
    FRA............................................................        41.92      $6,081,176      $3,000,000      $1,000,000  ..............      $1,000,000      $3,000,000     $14,081,176
    MDOT...........................................................        31.86       9,700,000  ..............       1,000,000  ..............  ..............  ..............      10,700,000
    Amtrak.........................................................        11.58       2,891,000  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,000,000  ..............       3,891,000
    Harmon Industries..............................................        14.64  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       4,916,569  ..............       4,916,569
                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL........................................................       100.00      18,672,176       3,000,000       2,000,000  ..............       6,916,569       3,000,000      33,588,745
                                                                    ============================================================================================================================
CURRENT FUNDING AUTHORIZED:
    FRA............................................................        42.05       6,081,176       3,000,000       1,000,000  ..............       1,000,000       3,000,000      14,081,176
    MDOT...........................................................        31.95       9,700,000  ..............       1,000,000  ..............  ..............  ..............      10,700,000
    Amtrak.........................................................        11.32       2,891,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         900,000  ..............       3,791,000
    Harmon Industries..............................................        14.68  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       4,916,569  ..............       4,916,569
                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL........................................................       100.00      18,672,176       3,000,000       2,000,000  ..............       6,816,569       3,000,000      33,488,745
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               FLEET DATA

    Question. Please provide a breakout of the active passenger car and 
locomotive fleets owned and leased by Amtrak as of February 2000.
    Answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       SBU Active
  Amtrak Active Equipment Inventory    Total  --------------------------
                                       active    NEC      ICY      AMW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locomotives:
    Diesel Switchers................       63       47       10        6
    Metroliner Cab Cars.............       15        7  .......        8
    F 40 Cab Cars--NPCU.............       15  .......       11        4
    Diesel Locomotives..............      292       75      183       34
    P 42............................      119       11       99        9
    P 40............................       41  .......       41  .......
    F 40............................       67       39       24        4
    P 32 (BW and DM)................       36       18       18  .......
    F 59............................       21  .......  .......       21
    GP 40...........................        6        5        1  .......
    FL 9............................        2        2  .......  .......
    Electric Locomotives............       65       65  .......  .......
    AEM 7...........................       52       52  .......  .......
    E 60............................       13       13  .......  .......
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................      450      194      204       52
                                     ===================================
Turboliners:
    Turbo Power Cars................        2        2  .......  .......
    Turbo Coach and Food Car........        3        3  .......  .......
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................        5        5  .......  .......
                                     ===================================
Mail, Baggage 8 Express Misc:
    Mail/Baggage/RoadRailer.........    1,437        8    1,418       11
    Mail Baggage (1700).............       38  .......       33        5
    Baggage Cars (1000-1800)........       92        8       78        6
    Material Handling Cars (1400-         139  .......      139  .......
     1500)..........................
    Express Cars....................      250  .......      250  .......
    RoadRailer Equipment............      918  .......      918  .......
    Vans (Mail 48') (Express 53')...      451  .......      451  .......
    Bogeys..........................      324  .......      324  .......
    Coupler Mates (Mail, Express)...      123  .......      123  .......
    Reefer Railers (Ind. 12 vented         20  .......       20  .......
     53' vans)......................
    Auto-Train Auto Carriers........       64  .......       64  .......
    Inspection And Training Cars....        7        2        5  .......
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................    1,508       10    1,487       11
                                     ===================================
Passenger Cars:
    Viewliner Passenger Cars........       51        4       47  .......
    Horizon Fleet Passenger Cars....       99  .......       64       35
    Coaches.........................       82  .......       54       28
    Food Service....................       17  .......       10        7
    Former Metroliner Cars..........        5  .......        5  .......
    Amfleet I.......................      469      438       20       11
    Coaches.........................      280      265        5       10
    Custom Coaches..................        6        6  .......  .......
    Food Service....................      121      105       15        1
    Capstone........................       62       62  .......  .......
    Business Class Coach............        9        9  .......  .......
    Coach...........................       53       53  .......  .......
    Amfleet II......................      138  .......      138  .......
    Coaches.........................      113  .......      113  .......
    Food Service....................       25  .......       25  .......
    Superliner I....................      252  .......      239       13
    Coaches.........................       80  .......       75        5
    Diners..........................       30  .......       28        2
    Lounges (incl. Autotrain               29  .......       28        1
     lounges).......................
    Snack Coach.....................        9  .......        8        1
    Sleeper.........................       58  .......       58  .......
    Coach/Baggage...................       13  .......        9        4
    Smoking Coach...................       33  .......       33  .......
    Superliner II...................      175  .......      135       40
    Coaches.........................       31  .......       21       10
    Diners..........................       28  .......       24        4
    Lounges.........................       23  .......       18        5
    Coach/Klddie Car................        5  .......  .......        5
    Sleeper.........................       42  .......       30       12
    Sleeper/Deluxe..................        6  .......        6  .......
    Trans. Sleeper..................       40  .......       36        4
    Heritage Fleet Passenger Cars...       85       21       56        8
    Automat & Table.................        1  .......        1  .......
    Diners..........................       22  .......       22  .......
    Sleepers........................        4  .......        4  .......
    Sleepers Crew Dorm..............       23  .......       23  .......
    Lounge..........................        3        3  .......  .......
    Dome Coaches or Lounge..........        3  .......  .......        3
    Clocker Coaches.................       18       18  .......  .......
    SF Parlour Car..................        5  .......  .......        5
    SF High Level Dorm, Coaches,            6  .......        6  .......
     Diner..........................
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total Passenger Cars..........    1,274      444      699       99
                                     ===================================
      Total Passenger & MB&E Cars...    2,782      454    2,186      110
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            TALGO TRAINSETS

    Question. Has FRA issued a final rule regarding railroad passenger 
car safety equipment? What are the potential implications for the use 
of Talgo equipment in the United States if the rulemaking is 
promulgated in the same form as the September 1997 proposed rule?
    Answer. The final FRA rule regarding railroad passenger equipment 
safety was published in May 1999. The regulations established a 
procedure for obtaining permanent permission to operate equipment that 
did not meet the newly promulgated buff strength requirements, and 
allowed continued operation pending action by FRA on requests for 
relief. Pursuant to those provisions of the final rule, Amtrak 
petitioned the FRA for permanent permission to continue operating 
(i.e., ``grandfathering'') five Talgo trainsets which were already 
built and in operation at the time the final rule was issued. Four of 
those trainsets currently operate in the Pacific Northwest Corridor; 
one trainset will be used for Amtrak's Las Vegas Service. Amtrak's 
grandfathering petition is still pending before the FRA. Because the 
final rule called for a May 8, 2000 deadline for operation of non-
compliant equipment, and it does not appear that FRA will make a 
determination by the May 8 deadline, Amtrak has submitted a separate 
waiver petition requesting extension of the May 8 deadline in order to 
continue to operate the Talgo trainsets pending final action by FRA on 
our grandfathering petition. Amtrak's request for extension is 
currently pending.
    Question. What level of investment has Amtrak made or is Amtrak 
planning to make in the Talgo leases for the Northwest Seattle to 
Vancouver corridor and for the Los Angeles to Las Vegas service?
    Answer.
    Pacific Northwest Corridor.--Currently, Amtrak owns one Talgo 
trainset and leases a second Talgo trainset for Amtrak's Pacific 
Northwest Corridor operations. The Washington State Department of 
Transportation owns two Talgo trainsets used in this service. Lease 
payments on the trainset leased by Amtrak are $175,000 per month. All 
lease payments made by Amtrak for the leased trainset will be applied 
to the purchase price of the trainset if the Secretary of the U.S. 
Department of Transportation grants Amtrak's pending request for a 
waiver of the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 24305(f) (Amtrak's Buy America 
requirements). The purchase price for the leased trainset is 
$11,124,000.
    Los Angeles to Las Vegas Service.--Amtrak has entered into a lease 
agreement with Talgo for one Talgo trainset to be operated in the Los 
Angeles to Las Vegas Service for up to four (4) years. The lease 
payments for the trainset, which are not to be paid until the service 
begins, will be as follows: Year 1--$700,000; Year 2--$1.2 million; 
Year 3--$1.2 million; and Year 4--$1.2 million.
    Question. Last year Amtrak testified for the record that Los 
Angeles-Las Vegas service could start as early as the first quarter of 
fiscal year 2000. Has this service been inaugurated? If not, what has 
slowed down the initiation of this service and when will it begin?
    Answer. Amtrak held a ceremony for the Los Angeles-Las Vegas 
service on December 14, 1999. Amtrak has announced that service is 
expected to begin this fall.
    In November, 1999, Amtrak signed an agreement with the Union 
Pacific Railroad to construct about 20 miles of double track to ensure 
a competitive run time. The contract allowed for up to 12 months to 
complete construction. However, the Union Pacific has encountered 
delays related to obtaining the necessary environmental permits for 
construction of the 20 miles of double tracking and the twelve month 
time frame for construction has been delayed. Amtrak has retained the 
services of an attorney to assist the Union Pacific with obtaining the 
permits. We are confident that the necessary permits can be obtained 
and construction can be completed with few additional delays. While 
Amtrak plans to run special trains prior to the initiation of regular 
service, we are hopeful that the service will begin regular revenue 
service by the end of the year.
    Question. Are the cost sharing arrangements for the operation of 
the Los Angeles to Las Vegas Talgo service which were described in last 
year's hearing record still in place?
    Answer. Operating funds for the service will come from four primary 
areas: passenger revenues, gaming partners, state support and marketing 
partners. The State of Nevada has allocated $2 million in Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality funds to support operating costs for the 
start-up of the service. We are aggressively pursuing partnerships with 
gaming properties. While the delay in service and transferring 
ownerships have postponed the commitment of the properties who had 
previously signed letters of intent to pre-purchase seats, Amtrak 
continues to discuss a host of partnership agreements with specific 
gaming properties.
    Seat purchase negotiations continue with RIO Hotel and Suites as 
well as other key Las Vegas properties. The Las Vegas Convention and 
Visitors Authority remains committed to cooperative marketing programs. 
A local firm, FFE Advertising, has also been retained for sales for 
onboard advertising as a way to supplement the cost of the service and 
revenue is already being generated through this program.
    The combination of public and private funding--working with gaming 
and resort properties, state elected officials and transportation 
agencies and the railroads has created a business partnership unlike 
any other in current Amtrak service.
    Question. Please describe the capitalization issues that must be 
resolved to make this service possible. What level of cooperation and 
investment is being made by Union Pacific Railroad? What level of 
capital support has Amtrak committed (in fiscal years 1999 and 2000)?
    Answer. Amtrak and the Union Pacific Railroad have agreed to 
provide $28 million of capital improvements prior to commencement of 
service. Amtrak has agreed to fund half of that amount--$14 million--
for the two-year demonstration period. If service continues beyond two 
years, Amtrak will provide the balance of those funds. The first $14 
million is provided by $9 million of Taxpayer Relief Act funds and $5 
million of federal funds secured in the 1999 Appropriations Omnibus 
bill. Amtrak is also funding the construction of a new platform near 
the Strip.

                 CAPITAL NEEDS BEYOND FISCAL YEAR 2002

    Question. On an annual basis, approximately what level of capital 
funding from federal sources will Amtrak require beyond the end of 
fiscal year 2002? This question was not answered satisfactorily in last 
year's hearing record.
    Answer. Amtrak is currently in the process of developing a long-
term capital plan as part of its fiscal year 2001 strategic planning 
process. The capital plan will incorporate the funding required to 
maintain basic operations, to address state-of-good-repair needs, to 
take advantage of market opportunities that exist today for the 
national network, to develop high-speed corridors across the country 
and to address excess RRTA requirements. Federal funding would be used 
to support debt service, life/safety, operational reliability, 
equipment overhaul and refleeting, infrastructure, state-of-good-
repair, high-speed corridor development and other capital investment 
needs. The long-term capital program and budget will be included in 
Amtrak's fiscal year 2001 business plan, issued in the fall of this 
year, the annual value of which will be greater than $521 million.

           BMWE LABOR COSTS AND CARRY-THROUGH TO OTHER UNIONS

    Question. Have Amtrak's other unions used the BMWE agreement as a 
blueprint? Which unions have reached agreement? What are the costs are 
associated with these other agreements?
    Answer. We have concluded negotiations with all of our bargaining 
units for the round of bargaining that began in 1995. The BMWE labor 
agreement set a conceptual framework that has been followed in our 
subsequent labor agreements. Our agreements contained wage packages 
valued at approximately 90 percent of those reached nationally by the 
freight railroads. Additionally, wage increases will be offset by 
productivity, work rule and/or other wage changes. Through fiscal year 
1999 these savings have amounted to about $22.5 million. Preliminary 
results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2000 show we will reach or 
exceed our goal of $26 million this year. Additionally about $4 million 
of the increased wage cost will be paid on reimbursable accounts. 
Projections show the increased cost of the new agreements will be about 
$260 million.
                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

            Questions Submitted by Senator richard C. Shelby

                            STAFFING LEVELS

    Question. Please provide a table that delineates the current fiscal 
year 2000 and proposed fiscal year 2001 staffing levels by office, and 
break down the allocation by state and resource center.
    Answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Fiscal years--
                                                       -----------------
                                                          2000     2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEADQUARTERS:
    Administrator & Deputy............................  .......        4
    Assistant Administrator \1\ (Chief Safety Officer)        4        8
    Regulatory Ombudsman..............................  .......        1
    Chief Counsel \2\.................................        2       14
    Public & Consumer Affairs.........................        2        5
    Civil Rights......................................  .......        3
    Associate Administrator Offices...................  .......        8
    Budget, Finance & Management Services.............        6       17
    Human Resources (includes NTC @ 9)................       12       20
    Research & Technology.............................       16       20
    Data Analysis & Information Systems...............       51       49
    Policy, Plans & Regulations.......................       19       20
    Bus & Truck Standards & Operations................       24       26
    Enforcement & Compliance..........................       35       37
    Motor Carrier Safety Programs.....................       22       23
                                                       -----------------
      HQ TOTAL........................................      193      255
                                                       =================
FIELD ORGANIZATION:
    Service Centers...................................       51       60
    State FMCSA Division Offices......................      470      534
                                                       -----------------
      FIELD TOTAL.....................................      521      594
      FMCSA TOTAL.....................................      714  \3\ 849
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 4 Exec Sec positions.
\2\ 12 legal position are in the field.
\3\ Includes 17.6 legal positions transferred from FHWA.

    Question. Please provide a table that delineates the fiscal year 
2000 and proposed fiscal year 2001 costs of training, transportation, 
travel, international travel, PCS, communications, nonmandatory bonuses 
or incentive (awards), and other administrative expenses.
    Answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal years--
                                         -------------------------------
                                               2000            2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries & Benefits--Salaries & Benefits      43,534,000      54,635,000
Salaries & Benefits--Incentive Awards...         179,000         225,000
Travel--Domestic........................       3,505,000       4,184,000
Travel--International...................          15,000          30,000
Transportation..........................         110,000         316,000
Rent....................................  ..............       4,561,000
Communications..........................         419,000         423,000
Printing................................         564,000         667,000
Supplies................................         291,000         480,000
Equipment...............................       1,867,000       2,277,000
Other Services--Crash Data Collection...       4,000,000       2,750,000
Other Services--Crash Causation Database       3,000,000  ..............
Other Services--Census Update...........       4,500,000  ..............
Other Services--Incident Management.....       2,000,000  ..............
Other Services--School Bus Study........         200,000  ..............
Other Services--Operation Respond.......         350,000  ..............
Other Services--Research & Technology...  ..............       9,550,000
Other Services--Training................       1,250,000       1,550,000
Other Services--PCS.....................       1,000,000       1,124,000
Other Services--ADP.....................       3,700,000       3,900,000
Other Services--Intrastate Data           ..............         500,000
 Enhancement............................
Other Services--Vision Waiver             ..............         636,000
 Administration.........................
Other Services--Basic Operation Costs     ..............       4,386,000
 from FHWA..............................
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL.............................      70,484,000      92,194,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           FEDERAL INSPECTORS

    Question. What are the relative tradeoffs of increasing the number 
of federal inspectors at the border in fiscal year 2001 versus 
assigning those additional positions to other areas of the country 
based solely on safety risks and number of motor carriers?
    Answer. The out-of-service rate for Mexican domiciled vehicles at 
the border is 39 percent compared to the national average of 25 
percent. Even though the border rate is an improvement over past years, 
it remains substantially higher than the national average. The Federal 
inspectors assigned at the border were specifically hired to augment 
the state enforcement presence already there to increase enforcement 
and compliance activities and address border safety concerns. To 
continue to address these safety concerns, we plan to increase the 
Federal inspection presence at the border from 40 to 60 inspectors. As 
the states' safety inspection facilities become operational and fully 
staffed within the next 5 to 7 years, the Federal presence at the 
border will be decreased and inspectors will be reassigned to other 
responsibilities. At this time, assigning the Federal inspectors to 
other areas is not possible without compromising safety along the 
southern border.

                          TRUCK AND BUS SAFETY
 
   Question. How does FMCSA propose to address each of the findings 
and recommendations specified in the recent IG and GAO reports which 
pertain to the effectiveness of the federal truck and bus safety 
programs.
    Answer. Provided below are the recommendations from the 1999 IG and 
GAO motor carrier safety reports and the status of actions taken by 
FMCSA.
    IG Recommendation A1.--Strengthen its enforcement policy by 
establishing written policy and operating procedures to take 
enforcement action against motor carriers with repeat violations of the 
same acute or critical regulation. Strong enforcement actions would 
include assessing fines at the statutory maximum amount, the issuance 
of compliance orders, not negotiating reduced assessments, and when 
necessary, placing motor carriers out of service.
    Status.--Enforcement guidance was issued in April 1999 and June 
1999 which doubles the number of compliance reviews performed by safety 
specialists and increases penalties as provided in TEA-21. The Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) established a repeat 
violators policy and a limitation on negotiated settlements except in 
unusual circumstances in June 1999. FMCSA issued an NPRM in August 1999 
to implement the TEA-21 shutdown authority and expects to complete a 
final rule by Fall 2000. At that time, new policy guidelines will be 
issued to FMCSA field staff to ensure shutdown procedures are utilized 
to the fullest extent. In the interim, the agency will follow current 
procedures on compliance orders and out-of-service orders. The 
enforcement manual identifies when out-of-service orders are used, 
penalties, hearing procedures, and appeal rights. Out-of-service orders 
are prepared by the legal staff in the Regional Service Centers, based 
on the evidence collected by the field investigator and are signed by 
the Area Administrator. The orders are prepared case-by-case, each case 
is based on legal precedent and preparation of the order is specific to 
the case. Compliance order directions are also contained in our 
enforcement manual. A limited number of senior enforcement staff at the 
Regional Service Center have the responsibility for preparing the 
compliance orders. These officials are well versed in preparing and 
issuing compliance orders. The FMCSA expects to publish a final rule 
requiring motor carriers determined to be unfit to correct safety 
problems within 60 days or face a shutdown. This requirement will 
provide the FMCSA with its strongest enforcement tool yet.
    IG Recommendation A2.--Remove all administrative minimum fines 
placed in the Uniform Fine Assessment (UFA) program and increase the 
maximum fines to the level authorized by TEA-21.
    Status.--Congressional direction set in Section 222 of the Motor 
Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA) of 1999 recommends that the 
Secretary establish minimum and maximum civil penalties for violations 
where there are repeated violations or a pattern of violations of 
critical or acute regulations. A study of the effectiveness of penalty 
provisions is also required by the Act. FMCSA will begin the study in 
fiscal year 2001 and a report to Congress will be prepared by September 
30, 2002. Guidance was issued in June 1999 that updates the UFA model 
with the TEA?21 fine schedule, including progressive sanctions for 
repeat violators.
    IG Recommendation A3.--Establish stiffer fines that cannot be 
considered a cost of doing business and, if necessary, seek appropriate 
legislation raising statutory penalty ceilings.
    Status.--Completed. FMCSA updated the Uniform Fine Assessment model 
with the TEA-21 fine schedule and set progressive sanctions for repeat 
violators with an effort to obtain settlement for the full amount of 
the assessment. Guidance was issued to FMCSA field offices in June 1999 
to establish a repeat violators fine policy and to limit negotiated 
fines settlements. FMCSA continues to monitor the appropriateness of 
fine levels. The average fine settlement has now increased from $3,650 
in 1998 (as calculated by FMCSA) to $4,479 in the first quarter of 
fiscal year 2000. The difference between the average amount claimed for 
enforcement cases compared to average settlement was 17 percent in 
fiscal year 1998. The difference between these two figures is now only 
3 percent, demonstrating the effectiveness of the FMCSA policy limiting 
negotiated settlements.
    IG Recommendation A4.--Implement a procedure that removes the 
operating authority from motor carriers that fail to pay civil 
penalties within 90 days after final orders are issued or settlement 
agreements are completed.
    Status.--Section 206 of the MCSIA of 1999 includes authority to 
take strong sanctions, including removing operating authority, against 
carriers that fail to pay civil fines. The statute established a 
deadline of December 9, 2000 to issue regulations by implementing this 
provision.
    IG Recommendation A5.--Establish criteria for determining when a 
motor carrier poses an imminent hazard.
    Status.--Section 208 of the MCSIA of 1999 revises the definition of 
imminent hazard. A rulemaking to implement this provision will be 
issued by summer 2001.
    IG Recommendation A6.--Require follow-up visit and monitoring of 
those motor carriers with a less-than satisfactory safety rating, at 
varying intervals, to ensure that safety improvements are sustained or, 
if safety has deteriorated, that appropriate sanctions are invoked.
    Status.--FMCSA enforcement policy is to target high-risk carriers 
for enforcement. The Agency employs the Safety Status Measurement 
System (SAFESTAT), using motor carrier crash, roadside inspection and 
compliance review data to target carriers for review. Given limited 
staff resources, we believe this is the most effective safety strategy. 
At present, follow-up is required only on carriers with enforcement 
actions. Current policies dictate that enforcement follow-ups must be 
recorded, tracked, and prioritized and the manner of handling follow-
ups must be documented. FMCSA has calculated the resource requirements 
to conduct follow-up visits with all motor carriers receiving less-
than-satisfactory ratings. Our estimate is that 31 additional Safety 
Investigators will be required to meet this requirement. If current 
staff resources were diverted to meet this requirement, we estimate 
that 1,500 fewer compliance reviews would be performed annually.
    In the near future carriers with unsatisfactory safety ratings will 
be subject to shutdown orders under a TEA-21 rulemaking requirement. 
The final rule is under Departmental review and concurrence. The FMCSA 
will issue a full operational policy, including follow-up provisions, 
in advance of implementation of the rule, which will become effective 
90 days after its publication in the Federal register.
    The agency's priority program is the nationwide implementation of 
the Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM) 
program. A key component of PRISM is the Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Process (MCSIP). The MCSIP tracks high-risk carriers 
through compliance reviews and applies progressive sanctions, if safety 
improvements are not made. An eight month follow-up is required for 
those carriers with an enforcement case. Additional funding was 
requested by the Administration to rapidly expand PRISM. In addition, 
carriers with unsatisfactory safety ratings will be subject to shutdown 
orders under TEA-21.
    IG Recommendation A7.--Establish a control mechanism that requires 
written justification by the FMCSA State Director when compliance 
reviews of high-risk carriers are not performed.
    Status.--Completed. Consistent with FMCSA policy to focus 
enforcement on problem carriers, each State Director is expected to 
complete reviews on all high-risk carriers identified by semi-annual 
reports. An eight month follow-up review is required for those carriers 
with an enforcement case. list. A review may not be performed if the 
carrier has been subject to a review within the previous 12 months. If 
a review is not performed on a high-risk carrier, the Director must 
have evidence of corrective action taken by the motor carrier. 
Completion of compliance reviews on all high-risk carriers is monitored 
by FMCSA headquarters.
    IG Recommendation A8.--Establish a written policy and operating 
procedures that identify criteria and time frames for closing all 
enforcement cases, including the current backlog.
    Status.--Enforcement guidance has been issued on closing the 
backlog of enforcement cases. To date, FMCSA has reduced the overall 
backlog by over 86 percent to 138 cases U.S. carriers and 43 foreign 
cases. Written procedures for closing routine enforcement cases are 
described in the FMCSA enforcement manual. The agency will reaffirm 
these procedures with its field staff.
    IG Recommendation B1.--Require applicants requesting operating 
authority to provide the number of commercial vehicles they operate and 
the number of drivers they employ and require all motor carriers to 
periodically update this information.
    Status.--FMCSA requires applicants for operating authority to 
submit a Motor Carrier Identification Report, Form MCS-150, which 
captures vehicle and driver data. Section 217 of the MCSIA of 1999 
requires that motor carriers update their motor carrier identification 
report one year from enactment. FMCSA is proposing to update the motor 
carrier census by the statutory deadline of December 9, 2000 and 
require periodic updates of the information. Also, to ensure that the 
information is updated periodically, FMCSA is implementing the PRISM 
program. States participating in PRISM require carriers to update their 
MC-150 annually when their commercial vehicles are registered.
    IG Recommendation B2.--Revise the grant formula and provide 
incentives through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program grants 
for those states that continue to report accurate, complete and timely 
commercial vehicle crash reports, vehicle and driver inspection 
reports, and traffic violation data.
    Status.--FMCSA issued the March 1999 MCSAP Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking including incentive funding to encourage states to meet the 
target deadlines for reporting accurate, complete, and timely data. The 
final MCSAP rule is now in Departmental review.
    IG Recommendation B3.--Withhold funds from the Motor Carrier Safety 
Assistance Program (MCSAP) grants for those states that continue to 
report inaccurate, incomplete, and untimely commercial vehicle crash 
data, vehicle and driver inspection data, and traffic violation data 
within a reasonable notification period, such as one year.
    Status.--FMCSA is using incentive funding in the MCSAP program as a 
means of prompting states to improve the timeliness and completeness of 
commercial vehicle reports. In addition, FMCSA has targeted for 
assistance through its Division offices a number of states with the 
most significant data collection problems. The agency is concerned that 
taking MCSAP funds from states with data problems may lead to reduced 
levels of enforcement by the affected jurisdictions. This could have 
the unintended consequence of diminishing safety without improving 
state data collection. Studies identifying states with crash reporting 
problems have been completed. In fiscal year 1999, 15 of the states 
received special MCSAP grants to improve data collection and reporting. 
All states are eligible for the grants. All states participating in the 
MCSAP have submitted crash data improvement plans. The agency will 
continue to work with the states and state enforcement organizations to 
improve data collection.
    IG Recommendation B4.--Initiate a program to train local 
enforcement agencies for reporting of crash and roadside inspection 
data, including associated traffic violations.
    Status.--FMCSA has been working with the state of Minnesota to 
create a crash investigation course for police to improve crash 
investigation data collection. The course has now been expanded to 
include training at facilities in Florida year-round. FMCSA will offer 
the course more broadly in fiscal year 2000. Courses directed at MCSAP 
personnel in reporting crash and inspection data are open to local 
enforcement agencies, space permitting. Several MCSAP agencies have 
local government sub-grantees. These local jurisdictions must meet the 
same standards for roadside inspection and crash data reporting imposed 
on the state. The agency has been working with the Commercial Vehicle 
Safety Alliance to persuade local governments to participate in motor 
carrier safety programs, while ensuring that standards for data quality 
and reporting are met.
    IG Recommendation B5.--Standardize OMC (now FMCSA) and NHTSA crash 
data requirements, crash data collection procedures, and reports.
    Status.--FMCSA and NHTSA have been working together along with 
organizations representing state safety agencies for several years to 
standardize a core set of data elements that each state should include 
on their police crash reports. The effort is a cooperative one with 
NHTSA, the National Association of Governor Highway Safety 
Representatives, American Automobile Association, International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 
and others. These criteria cover all crash reports, including trucks 
and commercial passenger vehicles. This effort, the Model Minimum 
Uniform Crash Criteria, would enhance crash data quality for both FMCSA 
and NHTSA. The agency will continue to work with these organizations to 
promote adoption of the criteria, which is voluntary.
    IG Recommendation B6.--Obtain and analyze crash causes and fault 
data as a result of comprehensive crash evaluations to identify safety 
improvements.
    Status.--FMCSA and NHTSA have an interagency agreement to conduct a 
large truck crash causation study within the framework of the NHTSA 
National Automotive Sampling System. This effort will collect detailed 
crash data on a sample of serious large truck crashes and build a crash 
causation data base. The crash causation study is required under 
Section 224 of the MCSIA of 1999. Data collection methods and forms are 
now in development and crash data investigations will begin in four 
pilot sites in June 2000. The four pilot programs are in: Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania; Charles and Prince Georges Counties, Maryland; Chicago, 
Illinois; and Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona.
    GAO Recommendations.--The GAO recommended in their 1999 report on 
the motor carrier program that the Department prioritize the activities 
in the Agency's draft safety action plan according to their potential 
for reducing the number of crashes and deaths and, to ensure that the 
activities are completed in a timely manner, only undertake those that 
the Office is reasonably sure it can complete within available 
budgetary and human resources.
    Status.--The final Safety Action Plan completed in February 2000 is 
a statement of the Agency's top priorities for the next three years. 
Within the Plan, the highest priority is assigned to strengthening 
targeted enforcement, completing important rulemakings, improving 
safety information and technology, and increasing safety awareness. 
Over three quarters of the actions included in the Plan are required by 
law in appropriations legislation, the MCSIA, TEA-21, or other laws. 
The Plan sets out only a subset of the agency's overall activities. 
Many research projects and rulemakings that are underway have not been 
included. Taken together the actions in the plan will materially 
contribute to the 50 percent fatality reduction goal Secretary Slater 
has set for our agency. The Department of Transportation has 
recommended increases in FMCSA funding and personnel levels in the 
fiscal year 2001 budget, and we believe these are appropriate and 
adequate to carry out the Plan in the near term. We believe achieving 
the goal will be the result of the aggregation of our efforts in 
targeted enforcement, data improvements, new technology, safety 
awareness, and strengthening equipment and operating standards along 
with the concerted efforts of all segments within the motor carrier 
industry and safety community.

                                 MCSIA

    Question. Please describe how your budget request addresses each of 
the new responsibilities specified in the Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA).
    Answer. MCSIA requirements to establish the FMCSA are included in 
the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget. Both staffing and support 
services necessary to operate independently in fiscal year 2001 are 
included as part of the requested $92,194,000. The $65 million of 
increased MCSAP funding provides $5 million for the crash causation 
study and $5 million for information systems and the remaining $55 
million will be distributed similarly to the $100 million in fiscal 
year 2001 MCSAP funding provided in TEA-21. The proposed fiscal year 
2001 budget plans to use all of the $5 million of MCSAP information 
systems funds to support crash data collection efforts. The proposal to 
fund CDL improvements with $10M of RABA funds will provide needed 
funding to the states to improve their existing systems. The $12 
million in information systems and strategic safety initiatives 
requested for fiscal year 2001 broadly support both new and existing 
FMCSA responsibilities. The information systems funds will in part 
address new initiatives to update and improve carrier information. Data 
analysis funding plays a critical role in evaluating planned and 
existing safety initiatives. The evaluation of minimum and maximum 
penalties is typical of data analysis evaluations. PRISM's $5 million 
relates directly to new enforcement of carrier registration 
requirements. The $1 million in driver programs directly supports the 
broad mandate in MCSIA for CDL improvements.

                        IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

    Question. For each new regulatory or programmatic responsibility or 
required study specified in the MCSIA, please detail an implementation 
strategy, as well as the amount of fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 
2001 funds that will be allocated to conduct each task.
    Answer. The requested information is provided in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        MCSIA requirement           Implementation          Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of long-term          Performance Plan    $155,000 of fiscal
 strategy to improve CMV,          and Safety Action   year 2001 funds
 operator, and motor carrier       Plan issued in      is estimated for
 safety.                           February 2000;      the strategic
                                   Progress report     planning
                                   will be issued in   initiative.
                                   May 2000;
                                   Strategic Plan
                                   will be developed
                                   by Fall 2000.
Improvements in Commercial        Comprehensive       FMCSA staff
 Driver Licensing (including       rulemaking will     resources and in
 driver disqualifications &        be conducted to     fiscal year 200l:
 serious traffic violations,       establish           $10 million RABA
 uniform state data                definitions and     $1 million Driver
 transmission, and strengthened    specific state      Program.
 state program requirements).      requirements to
                                   implement MCSIA
                                   CDL improvements.
Include medical qualification     Conduct             FMCSA staff
 certificate in CDL.               rulemaking. NPRM    resources.
                                   is in review.
Study reporting of positive drug  Conduct             Limited fiscal
 tests by CDL holders.             feasibility study   year 2001 funding
                                   and report to       is estimated.
                                   Congress. Privacy
                                   issues will be
                                   given attention
                                   in study.
Enforcement of carrier            Develop specific    FMCSA staff
 registration requirements.        procedures for      resources.
                                   carrying out
                                   enforcement to
                                   ensure due
                                   process and
                                   provide guidance
                                   to field staff.
Revocation or suspension of       Required            FMCSA staff
 registration for failure to pay   rulemaking.         resources.
 penalties.
Minimum and maximum penalties;    Examining changes   $150,000 of fiscal
 study of effectiveness.           to Uniform Fine     year 2001 data
                                   Assessment model    analysis funding.
                                   and related
                                   policy changes.
                                   Preliminary
                                   proposal is in
                                   review to conduct
                                   effectiveness
                                   study.
Safety reviews of new motor       Establish program   FMCSA staff
 carriers and minimum              to assure safety    resources in
 requirements to ensure new        fitness of new      short-term and
 carrier applicants are            carriers            potential fiscal
 knowledgeable about FMCSRs.       including (1)       year 2002 funding
                                   background          requirements.
                                   research and
                                   review of past
                                   studies; (2)
                                   design conceptual
                                   framework for new
                                   entrant safety
                                   fitness process;
                                   (3) establish
                                   minimum
                                   requirements for
                                   knowledge about
                                   safety
                                   regulations; and
                                   (4) develop
                                   procedures for
                                   safety reviews of
                                   new entrants
                                   within 18 months
                                   of beginning
                                   operation.
Training and certification of     Required            FMCSA staff
 motor carrier safety auditors.    rulemaking.         resources. Fiscal
                                                       year 2002 funding
                                                       requirements.
Implementation of DOT Inspector   Detailed report     FMCSA staff
 General recommendations.          addressing each     resources.
                                   recommendation
                                   issued March 9,
                                   2000. Followup
                                   reports will be
                                   sent to Congress
                                   every 90 days.
Issuance of small passenger van   Required            FMCSA staff
 regulations.                      rulemaking. Final   resources.
                                   rule in review.
Staffing standards for            FMCSA is working    FMCSA staff
 international border areas.       with Southern       resources.
                                   border states and
                                   International
                                   Association of
                                   Chiefs of Police
                                   to establish
                                   criteria
                                   (including MCSIA
                                   criteria) for
                                   setting standards.
Definition of imminent hazard...  Technical rule      FMCSA staff
                                   change.             resources.
24-hour operation of driver       Modify agreement    $375,000 in fiscal
 hotline.                          with hotline        year 2001.
                                   contractor for
                                   extended
                                   operation.
Update of motor carrier           Requests sent in    FMCSA staff
 identification reports.           April 2000 to       resources and
                                   carriers to         partial
                                   update records on   Information
                                   voluntary basis;    Systems funding.
                                   mandatory carrier
                                   refiling will be
                                   required upon
                                   completion of
                                   final rule.
Commercial motor vehicle crash    Nationally          $5 million in
 causation study.                  representative      fiscal year 2001
                                   data on the         MCSAP funds.
                                   primary and
                                   secondary causes
                                   of serious large
                                   truck crashes
                                   will be collected
                                   by teams of
                                   trained
                                   investigators
                                   from NHTSA's
                                   National
                                   Automotive
                                   Sampling System
                                   and FMCSA-funded
                                   truck inspectors.
                                   Testing in four
                                   pilot sites will
                                   begin in Summer
                                   2000 and full
                                   data collection
                                   will begin
                                   January 2001.
Program to improve collection     FMCSA is working    $7.75 million in
 and analysis of commercial        with NHTSA to       fiscal year 2001
 motor vehicle crash data.         replicate the       MCSAP and
                                   success of the      administrative
                                   Fatality Analysis   funds.
                                   Reporting System
                                   in collecting
                                   fatal crash data
                                   from the States.
                                   Involvement will
                                   include State
                                   agencies which
                                   receive federal
                                   bus and truck
                                   safety funds,
                                   police agencies,
                                   and other State
                                   and local
                                   agencies with
                                   responsibility
                                   for traffic
                                   records
                                   collection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What is the expected date of completion or initial 
implementation of each provision?
    Answer. This information is provided in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            MCSIA requirement                 Expected completion date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of long-term strategy to       Safety Action Plan and
 improve CMV, operator, and motor carrier   Performance Plan completed
 safety.                                    February 2000. Progress
                                            Report May 2000. Strategic
                                            Plan Fall 2000.
Improvements in Commercial Driver          NPRM Fall 2000. Final Rule
 Licensing (including driver                Fall 2001.
 disqualifications & serious traffic
 violations, uniform state data
 transmission, and strengthened state
 program requirements).
Include medical qualification certificate  NPRM Summer 2000. Final Rule
 in CDL.                                    Spring 2001.
Study reporting of positive drug tests by  December 2001.
 CDL holders.
Enforcement of carrier registration        Summer 2000.
 requirements.
Revocation or suspension of registration   December 2000.
 for failure to pay penalties.
Minimum and maximum penalties; study of    Minimum and Maximum
 effectiveness.                             Penalties--Fall 2000.
                                            Effectiveness Study--
                                            September 2002.
Safety reviews of new motor carriers.....  December 2000.
Minimum requirements to ensure new         December 2000.
 carrier applicants are knowledgeable
 about FMCSRs.
Training and certification of motor        December 2000.
 carrier safety auditors.
Implementation of DOT Inspector General    Report issued March 9, 2000;
 recommendations.                           Report each 90 days.
Issuance of small passenger van            Final Rule Summer 2000.
 regulations.
Staffing standards for international       December 2000.
 border areas.
Definition of imminent hazard............  Fall 2000.
24-hour operation of driver hotline......  May 2000.
Update of motor carrier identification     Voluntary carrier update
 reports.                                   December 2000. Final Rule
                                            requiring periodic update
                                            Spring 2001.
Commercial motor vehicle crash causation   Full crash causation study
 study.                                     data collection begins
                                            January 2001. Study
                                            completion 2004.
Program to improve collection and          Pilot testing for large bus
 analysis of commercial motor vehicle       and truck data collection
 crash data..                               improvement programs in
                                            2000. Implementation of data
                                            collection improvement
                                            programs in all states that
                                            require them in 2001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       GPRA GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    Question. What are the FMCSA's GPRA goals and objectives and how is 
the fiscal year 2001 budget request designed to address each of those 
goals and objectives?
    Answer. As prescribed in the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act 
of 1999, the performance goals and indicators of the FMCSA are:
  --reducing the number and rate of crashes, injuries, and fatalities 
        involving commercial motor vehicles.
  --improving the consistency and effectiveness of commercial motor 
        vehicle, operator, and carrier enforcement and compliance 
        programs.
  --identifying and targeting enforcement efforts at high-risk 
        commercial motor vehicles, operators, and carriers.
  --improving research efforts to enhance and promote commercial motor 
        vehicle, operator, and carrier safety and performance.
    Two performance indicators are used to measure progress towards 
these goals: reduction of the number of fatalities in crashes involving 
large trucks 50 percent by the end of 2009, using a 1998 baseline of 
5,374; and reduction of the number of persons injured in crashes 
involving large trucks 20 percent by the end of 2008, using a 1998 
baseline of 127,000.
    While there are no numerical goals established for the rates of 
fatalities and injured persons involved in motor carrier traffic 
crashes, the following performance indicators are also used by the 
FMCSA to monitor progress toward the safety goals: reduction of the 
rate of large truck-related fatalities per 100 million commercial 
vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT); reduce the rate of motor vehicle-related 
fatalities per 100 million commercial vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT); and 
reduction of the rate of motor vehicle-related injuries per 100 million 
commercial vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT).
    In fiscal year 2001, the FMCSA will make progress towards achieving 
these goals by:
  --increasing enforcement and better targeting high-risk carriers and 
        commercial motor vehicle drivers;
  --improving the timeliness of the issuance of vehicle equipment and 
        operating standards;
  --improving safety information and commercial motor vehicle 
        technologies; and
  --increasing the safety awareness of the driving public and motor 
        carrier industry.
    In particular, the agency will continue to move aggressively to 
significantly increase its targeted enforcement program. Targets for 
increased compliance reviews have been established for each safety 
investigator and guidance has been issued to limit the use of 
negotiated fines. The agency will also strengthen its enforcement 
efforts at the border by significantly increasing inspection staff in 
preparation for full implementation of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement. With respect to data deficiencies, the agency is addressing 
this issue through regulation and an effort to update existing census 
information. In addition, FMCSA is working to improve the performance 
of its vehicle inspection and crash data systems for the collection of 
commercial motor vehicle crash data. These strategic initiatives are 
included in the fiscal year 2001 budget request and in the Agency's 
fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan. Funding requests for key areas of 
the National Motor Carrier Safety Program include MCSAP ($165M), 
Information Systems ($22M) and General Operating Expenses ($92.2M) for 
staff enhancements and research and technology.

                          NAFTA IMPLEMENTATION

    Question. Please provide an update on activities or efforts that 
are intended to open up the southern border in order to implement the 
NAFTA, being certain to address progress to date, remaining concerns, 
and the status of each of the following: efforts to improve safety 
monitoring of Mexican carriers, exchange of driver licensing 
information, frequency and quality of training of Mexican inspectors, 
out-of-service rates of Mexican carriers, and safety management systems 
for Mexican carriers. Please provide quantitative data to support your 
answer.
    Answer. Although the United States and Mexico have been engaged in 
safety consultations since 1996, the pace of the talks has slowed 
considerably as the countries await a hearing before an arbitration 
panel under the NAFTA's dispute resolution procedures. The panel met on 
May 17, 2000 to examine Mexico's claim that the United States has 
violated the NAFTA by not lifting restrictions on cross-border trucking 
and bus services as provided in the Agreement's access liberalization 
schedule. In an effort to prepare for the eventual implementation of 
the NAFTA's land transportation provisions, the Department has 
increased inspection capacities at the border. We believe, however, 
that given the high volume of cross-border truck traffic, this step 
alone is not sufficient to assure the highest level of safety 
compliance. Adequate assurances of safety also require that Mexico 
adopt safety controls within its own borders. Thus, the restrictions on 
Mexican carrier operations will continue until Mexico has established 
an effective motor carrier safety oversight program for carriers 
seeking U.S. operating authority. The Department is committed to 
continue to work cooperatively with Mexico to achieve this goal and 
ensure safe cross-border operations.
    The U.S. and Mexican Governments have agreed that Mexico will 
complete the following actions before the Department begins to process 
Mexican motor carrier applications for operating authority: (1) issue 
final standards requiring a log book to record drivers' hours of 
service; (2) use the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's criteria for 
inspecting vehicles; (3) establish a roadside vehicle inspection 
program near the U.S. border; (4) implement databases to provide DOT 
with specific data on carrier applicants--including information on 
their drivers and vehicles; and (5) put in effect a carrier safety 
oversight program and provide the results to DOT. Mexico has taken 
significant steps to improve its carrier safety program, but work still 
remains to be done. For example, although Mexican inspectors have been 
trained (with DOT's help) to conduct commercial vehicle inspections in 
accordance with U.S. standards and procedures, Mexico does not yet have 
a fully functioning vehicle roadside inspection program. Mexico has 
developed an integrated information system linking driver, vehicle and 
carrier safety and economic information. This information system 
includes inspection/supervision, accident, and infraction modules. 
Several of the modules are in final testing and Mexico anticipates they 
will be fully operational in the summer of 2000. The carrier economic 
data base information has been fully entered and the driver license 
data base information is being entered now. This information system 
will be electronically connected to the U.S. systems providing 
enforcement officials with real-time access to the information.
    In addition to our bilateral efforts with Mexico, we have been 
working closely with the border states to increase their inspections 
and other compliance and enforcement activities. Over the past 5 years, 
we have allocated over $15 million in special funding for border 
commercial motor vehicle safety programs and projects. These efforts 
have helped improve compliance with federal safety requirements and 
reduce the out-of-service rate of Mexican vehicles from over 50 percent 
in 1995 to 39 percent in 1999. DOT also is working cooperatively with 
the state enforcement agencies in the border states to make certain 
that the long-term needs of the enforcement agencies--including funding 
for inspection facilities and electronic clearance technologies--are 
given priority consideration in the state's application for grants made 
available under the Transportation Efficiency Act for the Twenty-First 
Century's (TEA-21) National Corridor Planning and Development Program 
(Section 1118), the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program (Section 
1119) and other Federal?Aid programs. Under the corridor and border 
program, $10 million is being made available to the General Services 
Administration (GSA) for the construction of transportation 
infrastructure necessary for law enforcement in the border states. 
Also, in fiscal year 2000, $10 million has been set aside for the 
states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas for safety and 
enforcement projects.
    States are effectively leveraging their own revenues with federal 
funds available under these programs to address the need for permanent 
facilities along the border. California has state-of-the art facilities 
at their two major commercial ports of entry. Arizona has purchased 
land to construct a facility at Nogales. New Mexico plans on building a 
facility at Santa Teresa. Texas intends to build facilities at eight 
key locations.

                 MEXICAN DOMICILED COMMERCIAL VEHICLES

    Question. What are the safety parameters that must be reached 
before the Department is likely to open up the border to the entrance 
of Mexican-domiciled commercial vehicles beyond the commercial zone? 
How far along are the Mexicans in reaching these parameters? What are 
the remaining concerns? How do the Department's fiscal year 2000 
activities contribute towards the attainment of those safety 
assurances?
    Answer. The U.S. and Mexican Governments have agreed that Mexico 
will complete the following actions before the Department begins to 
process Mexican motor carrier applications for operating authority.
    (1) Issue final standards requiring a log book to record drivers' 
hours of service.--Mexico's Secretariat of Communications and 
Transportation (SCT) recently issued regulations mandating log book 
requirements. In addition, SCT has established a committee to analyze 
Mexico's current labor law to determine if work hour requirements can 
be made more specific to commercial motor vehicle driver operations. 
This work is yet to be completed.
    (2) Use the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's (CVSA) criteria 
for inspecting vehicles.--On June 9, 1999, SCT published proposed 
inspection standards that are very similar to the CVSA criteria. The 
requirements are being prepared for publishing criteria in final form.
    (3) Establish a roadside vehicle inspection program near the U.S.-
Mexico border.--SCT maintains that it is conducting inspections at 
locations near the U.S. border.
    (4) Implement databases to provide DOT with specific data on 
carrier applicants--including information on their vehicles and 
drivers.--SCT has developed a state of the art information system that 
integrates databases containing carrier, driver, and vehicle 
information. SCT officials are currently entering information into 
these databases and developing an electronic link to the U.S. system to 
enable DOT and SCT to share carrier safety information.
    (5) Put in effect a carrier safety oversight program and provide 
the results to DOT.--SCT is in the process of developing a program for 
carriers seeking authority to operate in the United States and for 
carriers that transit the United States on the way to Canada.
    SCT continues to make progress in achieving the agreed actions. The 
Department's major concern is that there be a system in place in Mexico 
to independently verify the safety compliance of the carriers that will 
be operating across the border into the United States. We believe that 
once these actions are completed, both countries will be better able to 
ensure safe cross-border operations.
    The Department's fiscal year 2000 activities continue to 
concentrate on providing technical assistance to Mexico to complete 
development and to populate its information systems. In addition, the 
Department continues to emphasize the importance of developing 
compatible motor carrier safety requirements throughout North America 
as part of the trilateral discussions with Mexico and Canada.
    Question. Please break out by project or activity exactly how much 
the Department is allocating during fiscal year 2000 to promote the 
safety of Mexican-domiciled commercial vehicles and drivers that 
currently enter the United States. In addition to specifying the 
purpose and nature of each project and activity, please assess whether 
and how these expenditures improve safety and compliance with U.S. 
registration requirements and safety regulations.
    Answer. In fiscal year 2000, $4.75 million was made available to 
the border states to promote safety at the border. Of the $4.75 
million, $575,000 was allocated to develop software to provide better 
network access to border inspectors, and to conduct a study to 
determine the extent of the safety problems associated with the cross-
border commercial van operations commonly referred to as camionetas. 
Sec. 212 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 requires 
that we complete rulemaking to determine which small passenger vans 
should be covered by FMCSRs.
    Consistent with our goal to optimize the level of the enforcement 
and compliance activities along the southern border, the majority of 
the funds awarded to the states are used for state personnel services 
and expenses to conduct inspections. Other initiatives include 
training, education and outreach activities, and purchase of vehicles 
and other equipment used by the inspectors. We estimate that these 
increased enforcement efforts will result in over 83,000 commercial 
motor vehicle inspections along the border regions.
    In addition to the state grants, the FMCSA will spend approximately 
$1,632,000 to support the Federal inspectors assigned at border 
locations. We estimate that Federal inspection efforts will result in 
an additional 14,000 inspections.

                      U.S SAFETY AND REGISTRATION

    Question. Please break out the expected allocation of similar funds 
requested for fiscal year 2001 and specify how fiscal year 2001 
projects and activities are anticipated to further U.S. safety and 
registration objectives.
    Answer. In fiscal year 2001, $7,750,000 will be made available for 
border commercial motor vehicle safety program and enforcement 
activities and projects directed at improving the compliance rate of 
foreign commercial motor vehicle operations with both safety standards 
and registration requirements. The funds are being made available to 
both the northern and southern border states. However, in recognition 
of the safety concerns that still exist along the southern border, 
proposals received from California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas will 
receive priority consideration.
    Each border state is invited to submit a performance-based proposal 
for these funds reflecting safety performance goals. In fiscal year 
2001, priority consideration will be given to those projects that 
include hiring additional permanent inspectors to increase the 
enforcement presence along the border and implement the staffing 
standards. These staffing standards are being developed in compliance 
with Sec. 218 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. The 
goal of the standards is to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, 
that inspectors are on duty at all border crossings at all times the 
U.S. Customs Services' ports of entry are open to commercial vehicle 
traffic. States have been reluctant to use the special border grants to 
hire additional inspectors because the availability of the funds in 
subsequent years has been uncertain. Since TEA-21 provides support for 
the special border grant program through fiscal year 2003, states are 
being encouraged to consider using the funds to hire new personnel and 
establish a more permanent presence along the border.
    A portion of the available program funds may be set aside to 
support the activities of the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police (IACP) to complete Spanish translation of inspection training 
videos, and to support other safety program activities that are of 
mutual benefit to all border States and the nation.
    All of these projects are directed at improving the states' 
capabilities to increase enforcement and compliance activities and 
establish a permanent and consistent enforcement presence along our 
border.

                          OTHER SERVICES FUNDS

    Question. Please break out in detail how FMCSA expects to spend the 
$18.875 million of ``other services'' included within the fiscal year 
2001 base. Please do the same for the fiscal year 2001 base amounts 
requested for supplies and equipment. How are the Department's fiscal 
year 2001 anticipated activities expected to contribute towards the 
attainment of those safety assurances.
    Answer. A break out of the $18.875 ``other services'' is provided 
in the following chart. The same chart was prepared in response to a 
previous question. Supplies and equipment funding supports FMCSA 
operations in over 75 offices nationally. The funding for supplies and 
equipment are allocated at the beginning of each fiscal year to 
headquarters and our 52 Division Offices located in each state. The 
allocation is generally based on size of the office and specific unique 
annual needs. The typical allocation provides approximately 30 percent 
of the funds to headquarters and 70 percent to the field offices. The 
break out of supplies vs. equipment for both fiscal year 2000 and 
fiscal year 2001 is also included in the chart that follows. In fiscal 
year 2001, FMCSA's proposed additional administrative staff will study 
and procure the support of a fiscal management and information system 
that will provide ready access to more detailed expenditures of all 
FMCSA accounts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal years--
                                         -------------------------------
                                               2000            2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries & Benefits--Salaries & Benefits      43,713,000      54,860,000
Salaries & Benefits--Incentive Awards...         179,000         225,000
Travel--Domestic........................       3,505,000       4,184,000
Travel--International...................          15,000          30,000
Transportation..........................         110,000         316,000
Rent....................................  ..............       4,561,000
Communications..........................         419,000         423,000
Printing................................         564,000         667,000
Supplies................................         291,000         480,000
Equipment...............................       1,867,000       2,277,000
Other Services--Crash Data Collection...       4,000,000       2,750,000
Other Services--Crash Causation Database       3,000,000  ..............
Other Services--Census Update...........       4,500,000  ..............
Other Services--Incident Management.....       2,000,000  ..............
Other Services--School Bus Study........         200,000  ..............
Other Services--Operation Respond.......         350,000  ..............
Other Services--Research & Technology...  ..............       9,550,000
Other Services--Training................       1,250,000       1,550,000
Other Services--PCS.....................       1,000,000       1,124,000
Other Services--ADP.....................       3,700,000       3,900,000
Other Services--Intrastate Data           ..............         500,000
 Enhancement............................
Other Services--Vision Waiver             ..............         636,000
 Administration.........................
Other Services--Basic Operation Costs     ..............       4,386,000
 from FHWA..............................
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL.............................      70,484,000      92,194,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please break out in detail how FMCSA is allocating the 
$18.875 million of ``other services'' included with the fiscal year 
2000 appropriation. Please do the same for the amounts appropriated for 
supplies and equipment.
    Answer. The previous answer provides the requested response for 
both fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.

                             SHARE THE ROAD

    Question. Please describe in detail what FMCSA is doing during 
fiscal year 2000 to advance ``share the road'' activities. Exactly how 
much is being spent on each aspect of this effort?
    Answer. The FMCSA, in cooperation with NHTSA, is expanding the 
scope of the ``share the road'' effort to include safety 
recommendations for all types of highway users (drivers of passenger 
cars, trucks, buses, motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians) to 
promote safe driving in, and around, trucks and motor coaches. We are 
educating highway users about the operating characteristics and 
limitations of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) and developing 
strategic outreach efforts for specific target audiences.
    In addition to the ``No Zone'' visibility issue, we will increase 
public awareness of the longer braking distances, weight differentials, 
acceleration variances, turning radius', structural configurations and 
basic survivability ratios of CMVs as compared with smaller vehicles. 
Each provide very good safety reasons for being aware of, and cautious 
around, large trucks and motor coaches. Knowledge of these 
characteristics may lead to reduced aggressive driving behavior, 
increased seatbelt use, and other improved driving practices around 
CMVs on the highway. In addition, we will provide recommendations to 
motorists about how to drive around commercial vehicles in real-life 
driving situations. We will devote significant attention to CMV driver 
behavior, by identifying and promoting best defensive driving 
practices, work zone safety concerns and other safe driving skills.
    Estimated costs for the various aspects of our fiscal year 2000 
``share the road'' program include:

Development of new outreach materials.........................  $100,000
Campaign distribution and dissemination.......................   325,000
Research--campaign awareness assessment.......................    75,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total estimated costs...................................   500,000
            communication, computer and information systems
    Question. Please submit budget justification information equivalent 
to that previously provided by the FHWA for the communication, 
computer, and information systems components of your program.
    Answer.

                         [Dollars in millions]

1B funding for fiscal year 2000 is as follows:
    ADP Services and System Support...............................  $3.6
    ADP Equipment and Supplies....................................   0.2
Requested 1B funding for fiscal year 2001 is as follows:
    ADP Services and System Support...............................   3.6
    ADP Equipment and Supplies....................................   0.2
    Identify High-Risk intrastate Carriers........................   0.5

    Currently, 20 percent of the U.S. commercial fatalities are caused 
by intrastate carriers. We cannot meet our 50 percent fatality 
reduction goal until we focus on intrastate carriers. We have an 
opportunity to use our substantial resources to identify high risk 
carriers and help them improve with a relatively small marginal cost.
    Including intrastate carriers in our databases does not require a 
software database modification. It is information system mainframe 
processing costs that prevent us from identifying the high-risk 
intrastate carriers, resulting in lives lost. Numerous states are 
requesting that we identify these high-risk operations using our 
information systems capabilities. However, we contract for mainframe 
processing and do not have sufficient funding in the budget to support 
the annual operational mainframe expense of $0.5M associated with 
maintaining and processing information on these operations.
Background on Current Initiatives
    The FMCSA information technology system maintains an electronic 
motor carrier safety history, and national motor carrier census that 
systematically identifies ``at risk'' carriers and provides all of this 
information electronically to Federal and state field managers and 
investigators. This creates efficient, focused use of field resources 
with high quality and uniformity. It also provides an industry 
awareness that a carrier can no longer hide poor safety performance. 
Thus, the information systems of the FMCSA are recognized throughout 
the organization as extremely successful in providing crucial, daily 
support to motor carrier safety programs. Federal and state usage of 
the Motor Carrier Management Information System, (MCMIS), SAFETYNET and 
our field data systems such as CAPRI and ASPEN) increases continuously 
because these ``tools'' are an integral part of how the job of motor 
carrier safety enforcement is performed today. Examples of other 
enforcement system supported include CaseRite III (prepares legal 
cases), UFA (Ensures Uniform Fine Assessment across the U.S.), CAPRI 
(for compliance reviews), ASPEN v2 (for roadside inspection), 
Inspection Selection System (ISS v2) identifies high risk carrier at 
the roadside, Past Inspection Query (PIQ) v2 identifies out of service 
violation and driver log book falsification, and Commercial Drivers 
License Information System (CDLIS) roadside query v2.

                       MOTOR CARRIER REGISTRATION

    Question. How much is specified within the fiscal year 2001 budget 
request for the unified motor carrier registration system?
    Answer. FMCSA has requested $1.5 million in fiscal year 2001 for 
the unified motor carrier registration system. An additional $1.5 
million has been requested by the ITS Joint Program Office for the 
project, since this project meets the program goal of the FMCSA and ITS 
Joint Program Office.

                           COMPLIANCE REVIEWS

    Question. Please present data on the number of compliance reviews 
performed by federal investigators during each of the last five years. 
How has the targeting of those audits improved? How does FMCSA know 
it's conducting the ``right'' number of compliance reviews?
    Answer. During the last five years, compliance reviews by federal 
investigators have been performed as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Fiscal year                                1999     1998     1997     1996     1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reviews conducted............................................    6,240    4,587    4,013    5,414    5,553
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Targeting for compliance reviews has improved by using a 
prioritization listing identified by SafeStat (Safety Status 
Measurement System) is an automated, data-driven analysis system that 
is designed to incorporate on-road safety performance information and 
enforcement history with on-site compliance review information in order 
to measure the relative safety fitness of interstate motor carriers. 
SafeStat is designed with four evaluation areas, known as SEAs (safety 
evaluation areas). These four areas (crash, driver, vehicle, and safety 
management) fuel the SafeStat score.
    Reviews on interstate motor carriers are targeted to the carriers 
with the highest safety risks--those with high crash rates, driver and 
vehicle problems or safety management problems. We track the SafeStat 
list to ensure that the high risk reviews are being conducted. We 
define the highest risk carrier as those carriers who are in the worst 
25th percentile of three or four of the Safety Evaluation Areas. 
Periodically throughout a six month time frame, we compare the SafeStat 
list to the Motor Carrier Management Information System database to 
determine the status.
    The focus of compliance reviews is to improve safety performance of 
problem carriers. The FMCSA is conducting the ``right'' number of 
reviews by reviewing the ``right'' carriers--carriers which pose the 
highest risk to safety. Reviews on the highest risk carriers are very 
labor intensive, but provide the greatest safety return on the time 
invested.
    Question. Please present data on the number of compliance reviews 
performed by state investigators during each of the last five years.
    Answer. During the last five years, compliance reviews by state 
investigators have been performed as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Fiscal year                                1999     1998     1997     1996     1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reviews conducted............................................    2,677    2,149    2,900    3,848    4,022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               IG AND GAO RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

    Question. In March 2000, the IG and GAO testified before the House 
Committee on Appropriations and made recommendations to improve FMCSA 
activities. Please specify in detail how the Agency will respond to 
each of their recommendations and conclusions.
    Answer. Testimony was presented to the House Committee on 
Appropriations on March 2, 2000, by Mr. Ken Mead, the Inspector General 
of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and Ms. Phyllis Scheinberg, 
the Associate Director of the Transportation Issues, Resources, 
Community, and Economic Development Division of the U.S. General 
Accounting Office (GAO). Mr. Mead recognized the progress of FMCSA to 
increase compliance reviews and increase civil penalties for safety 
violations. The Agency will continue to move aggressively to strengthen 
its enforcement program. Mr. Mead recommended a total Federal presence 
of 126 inspectors at the U.S.-Mexico border, noting that 2 inspectors 
should be located at each crossing during all hours of operation and 
additional inspectors should be stationed at high-volume crossings. The 
OIG's recommendations for staffing levels will be considered when the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) prepares the border 
staffing standards required in the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act 
of 1999 (MCSIA, Pub.L.106-159). The statutory deadline for completing 
the staffing standards is December 9, 2000. FMCSA currently plans to 
hire 20 additional Federal inspectors in fiscal year 2001 for the U.S.-
Mexico border, bringing our total contingent to 60. This is very close 
to the level of Federal inspectors recommended by the May 1999 ``Review 
of the Motor Carrier Program'' conducted by former Chairman Norman 
Mineta for the Department. We are working closely with the States to 
improve their border infrastructure and increase the number of state 
personnel they assign to this work. We have seen good progress and 
believe that these steps, along with the increased number of federal 
enforcement personnel, will substantially upgrade overall enforcement 
efforts at our southern border.
    Mr. Mead indicated that mandatory shut down of motor carriers that 
cannot meet basic safety fitness requirements is an essential, potent 
tool for improving safety. A final rule to implement this provision, 
which was included in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21) at the request of the Department, is now in the last 
stages of review. We intend to use our shut down authority as one of 
our principal methods of ensuring high-risk carriers improve their 
safety performance. Although it will be more common for us to use our 
TEA-21 shut down authority, in some cases we will still need to rely on 
imminent hazard authority for the immediate shut down of motor carriers 
that pose an extreme safety risk. We agree with the Inspector General 
that the circumstances which give rise to an imminent hazard should be 
clarified. The Department proposed a legislative change in the Motor 
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) to facilitate such a 
clarification. We are making a technical change in our regulations 
which should make this a much more useful and effective safety 
enforcement tool.
    The Inspector General stated that timely issuance of rulemakings 
will be essential to achieving our aggressive goals for fatality and 
injury reductions. FMCSA's new organizational structure establishes a 
special rulemaking development unit to expedite the rulemaking process. 
Also, we are filling a Regulatory Ombudsman position to help move 
forward particularly complex or controversial rulemakings. It should be 
noted that we are already making progress in rule development, with 
several major rules in the final stages of consideration.
    The Inspector General noted that leadership positions in the Agency 
are still unfilled. Efforts to fill leadership positions in the 
organization are progressing well. Secretary Slater is making every 
effort to select a candidate for Administrator, and the Department has 
secured approval from the Office of Personnel Management for new senior 
leadership positions, including four Associate Administrators. But the 
major accomplishments of current leadership should not be overlooked. 
It has taken strong, focused leadership to produce the enforcement 
results we have achieved since last May and to swiftly establish the 
new FMCSA organization.
    Mr. Mead's stated that major improvements are needed in commercial 
driver licensing (CDL). Last year, the Department proposed legislation 
to close loopholes such as granting of special licenses to drivers with 
suspended licenses, and to include all traffic convictions on a 
commercial driver's official record. We will be working vigorously to 
develop the rules necessary to implement MCSIA's CDL reforms and a 
strong Federal CDL oversight program. We have requested $10 million in 
fiscal year 2001 to fund a CDL Improvement Pilot Program to speed the 
exchange of drivers' record data, and have already begun discussions 
with state motor vehicle administrators and AAMVA Net to address many 
of the specific issues raised in Mr. Mead's testimony.
    The GAO in its testimony recognized the progress of FMCSA on 
initiatives to reduce truck-related fatalities. In commenting on the 
FMCSA draft Safety Action Plan, Ms. Scheinberg of the GAO stated that 
no prioritization has been given to the activities contained in the 
Plan. FMCSA's final Safety Action Plan is a statement of the agency's 
top priorities for the next three years. Within the Plan, we have 
assigned the highest priority to strengthening targeted enforcement, 
completion of important rulemakings, improving safety information and 
technology, and increasing safety awareness. Over three quarters of the 
actions included in the Plan are required by law in appropriations 
legislation, the MCSIA, TEA-21, or other laws. The Plan sets out only a 
subset of the agency's overall activities. Many research projects and 
rulemakings that are underway have not been included. Together we 
believe the effects of all these actions will materially contribute to 
the 50 percent fatality reduction goal Secretary Slater has set for our 
agency and all who play a role in motor carrier safety.
    In addition, Ms. Scheinberg recommended a realistic evaluation of 
whether expected budgetary and human resources will be sufficient to 
achieve the actions in the Safety Action Plan. The Department has 
recommended increases in our funding and personnel levels in the fiscal 
year 2001 budget, and we believe these are appropriate and adequate to 
carry out the Plan in the near term.
    The GAO concluded that a comprehensive strategy is needed to 
achieve the Secretary's goal to reduce bus and truck fatalities by 50 
percent. The agency has established targets for fatality reduction for 
each year to achieve this goal by the end of calendar year 2009. We 
believe achieving the goal will be the result of the aggregation of our 
efforts in targeted enforcement, data improvements, new technology, 
safety awareness, and strengthening equipment and operating standards 
along with the concerted efforts of all segments within the motor 
carrier industry and safety community.

                  COMPLIANCE REVIEWS/ENFORCEMENT CASES

    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 under 
each of the State Directors during each of the last three years?
    Answer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Compliance   Closed  Compliance  Consent
                             Div                                 reviews    W/ENF     orders     orders    OOS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997:
    AK.......................................................          6        10  ..........  .......  .......
    AL.......................................................        119        35  ..........  .......        1
    AR.......................................................         86        30          1   .......  .......
    AZ.......................................................         65        14  ..........  .......  .......
    CA.......................................................        175        89  ..........  .......  .......
    CO.......................................................        205        37          2         2  .......
    CT.......................................................        124        50  ..........        8  .......
    DC.......................................................         48         4  ..........  .......        1
    DE.......................................................         20        16          2         1  .......
    FL.......................................................         76        29  ..........  .......  .......
    GA.......................................................        271       110  ..........  .......  .......
    HI.......................................................  ..........  .......  ..........  .......  .......
    IA.......................................................         45        37          2         3  .......
    ID.......................................................         44        24  ..........  .......  .......
    IL.......................................................        251        89          6         6        2
    IN.......................................................        222        58          4   .......  .......
    KS.......................................................         24        16  ..........        1  .......
    KY.......................................................        168        30  ..........  .......  .......
    LA.......................................................         90        31  ..........  .......  .......
    MA.......................................................         82        30  ..........        2  .......
    MD.......................................................         47        34          5         2  .......
    ME.......................................................         26        25  ..........        4  .......
    MI.......................................................        270       108          4         1  .......
    MN.......................................................        381        75          2         1  .......
    MO.......................................................        275        34  ..........        1  .......
    MS.......................................................         77        30  ..........  .......  .......
    MT.......................................................         47        31          1         1  .......
    NC.......................................................        156        47  ..........  .......  .......
    ND.......................................................         43        52          1         5  .......
    NE.......................................................         63        26  ..........        3  .......
    NH.......................................................         16         3  ..........        1  .......
    NJ.......................................................        274        47  ..........        7  .......
    NM.......................................................        137        17  ..........  .......  .......
    NV.......................................................         33         9  ..........  .......  .......
    NY.......................................................        190        64  ..........        9  .......
    OH.......................................................        835        79          1         5        0
    OK.......................................................        128        48          2   .......  .......
    OR.......................................................        200        32          4         1  .......
    PA.......................................................         79        74          2   .......  .......
    RI.......................................................         31        17  ..........        2  .......
    SC.......................................................         87        24          7   .......  .......
    SD.......................................................         38        14  ..........        1  .......
    TN.......................................................        101        29  ..........  .......  .......
    TX.......................................................        422       187          1   .......  .......
    UT.......................................................         99         2  ..........  .......  .......
    VA.......................................................         53        21  ..........  .......  .......
    VT.......................................................         22        16  ..........        2  .......
    WA.......................................................        252        93          2        14  .......
    WI.......................................................        354        86          1         3  .......
    WV.......................................................         26        11  ..........  .......  .......
    WY.......................................................         30         7          1   .......  .......
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Totals 1997............................................      6,913     2,081         51        86        4
                                                              ==================================================
Fiscal year 1998:
    AK.......................................................  ..........        2  ..........  .......  .......
    AL.......................................................        139        57  ..........  .......  .......
    AR.......................................................         87        36  ..........        1  .......
    AZ.......................................................         77        28  ..........  .......  .......
    BC.......................................................          1   .......  ..........  .......  .......
    CA.......................................................        272        88  ..........  .......  .......
    CO.......................................................        172        59  ..........        5  .......
    CT.......................................................         95        44  ..........        4        1
    DC.......................................................         15        13  ..........  .......  .......
    DE.......................................................         21        21  ..........  .......  .......
    FL.......................................................        103        29  ..........  .......  .......
    GA.......................................................        229        96  ..........        1  .......
    HI.......................................................          7         1  ..........  .......  .......
    IA.......................................................         38        36  ..........        2  .......
    ID.......................................................         38        25  ..........        2  .......
    IL.......................................................        278        74  ..........        3  .......
    IN.......................................................        200        42          1         7        2
    KS.......................................................         24        25          1         1  .......
    KY.......................................................        120        33  ..........  .......  .......
    LA.......................................................        100        19  ..........  .......  .......
    MA.......................................................         62        20  ..........        6  .......
    MD.......................................................         24        36          2   .......  .......
    ME.......................................................          8        16  ..........  .......  .......
    MI.......................................................        267        69  ..........        1  .......
    MN.......................................................        374        92  ..........        1  .......
    MO.......................................................        146        54          1   .......  .......
    MS.......................................................        104        32  ..........        1  .......
    MT.......................................................         52        25          1         2  .......
    NC.......................................................        239        54  ..........  .......  .......
    ND.......................................................         41        39  ..........        4  .......
    NE.......................................................         51        11  ..........  .......  .......
    NH.......................................................         27         6  ..........        1  .......
    NJ.......................................................        215        59          1         5  .......
    NM.......................................................        132        32  ..........  .......  .......
    NV.......................................................         58        10  ..........  .......  .......
    NY.......................................................        183        52          2        14  .......
    OH.......................................................        769        67  ..........        3  .......
    OK.......................................................        150        40  ..........  .......  .......
    OR.......................................................        150        25          4   .......  .......
    PA.......................................................         73        62          1         1        1
    RI.......................................................          6         7  ..........  .......  .......
    SC.......................................................        122        38          6   .......  .......
    SD.......................................................         37        21  ..........  .......  .......
    TN.......................................................        112        28  ..........  .......  .......
    TX.......................................................        510       306  ..........  .......  .......
    UT.......................................................         87        14  ..........  .......  .......
    VA.......................................................         75        37          3         1  .......
    VT.......................................................         25        32  ..........        5  .......
    WA.......................................................        180        64          1         7  .......
    WI.......................................................        339        90  ..........  .......  .......
    WV.......................................................         30        12  ..........  .......  .......
    WY.......................................................         72        12          1         4        1
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Totals 1998............................................      6,736     2,190         25        82        5
                                                              ==================================================
Fiscal year 1999:
    AK.......................................................          1         2  ..........  .......  .......
    AB.......................................................          1   .......  ..........  .......  .......
    AL.......................................................        146        28  ..........  .......  .......
    AR.......................................................         86        40  ..........  .......  .......
    AZ.......................................................         66        71  ..........  .......  .......
    BC.......................................................          1   .......  ..........  .......  .......
    CA.......................................................        378       112  ..........  .......  .......
    CH.......................................................          2   .......  ..........  .......  .......
    CO.......................................................        221        91  ..........        2  .......
    CT.......................................................        117        40  ..........  .......  .......
    DC.......................................................         33        15  ..........        3  .......
    DE.......................................................  ..........       37         27         1  .......
    FL.......................................................        150        42  ..........  .......  .......
    GA.......................................................        408       174  ..........  .......  .......
    HI.......................................................          3         4  ..........  .......  .......
    IA.......................................................         80        37  ..........  .......  .......
    ID.......................................................         60        18  ..........  .......  .......
    IL.......................................................        250        54          2         2  .......
    IN.......................................................        304        58          1         3  .......
    KS.......................................................         56        15  ..........  .......  .......
    KY.......................................................        336        37          2         1  .......
    LA.......................................................        109        28  ..........  .......  .......
    MA.......................................................         74        34  ..........        2  .......
    MD.......................................................         49        38          1   .......  .......
    ME.......................................................          3         5  ..........  .......  .......
    MI.......................................................        249        67  ..........        6  .......
    MN.......................................................        454       105  ..........  .......  .......
    MO.......................................................        309        86  ..........  .......  .......
    MS.......................................................        222        32  ..........  .......  .......
    MT.......................................................         71        28  ..........        2  .......
    NC.......................................................        261        57  ..........        1  .......
    ND.......................................................         45        31  ..........  .......  .......
    NE.......................................................         73        12  ..........  .......  .......
    NH.......................................................         49         9  ..........  .......  .......
    NJ.......................................................        268        54  ..........  .......  .......
    NM.......................................................        154        41          4   .......  .......
    NV.......................................................         74        10  ..........  .......  .......
    NY.......................................................        213        86          2         4  .......
    OH.......................................................        643        88          1         4  .......
    OK.......................................................        185        46          1         1  .......
    ON.......................................................          1   .......  ..........  .......  .......
    OR.......................................................        214        25  ..........  .......  .......
    PA.......................................................        290       175  ..........  .......        1
    RI.......................................................         45        11  ..........  .......  .......
    SC.......................................................        127        45          3   .......  .......
    SD.......................................................         62        28  ..........  .......  .......
    TA.......................................................          1   .......  ..........  .......  .......
    TN.......................................................        194        31  ..........  .......  .......
    TX.......................................................        715       226  ..........  .......  .......
    UT.......................................................        146        13  ..........  .......  .......
    VA.......................................................        107        59  ..........        2  .......
    VT.......................................................         39        19  ..........  .......  .......
    WA.......................................................        240        42  ..........  .......  .......
    WI.......................................................        362       109          2         2  .......
    WV.......................................................         94        41  ..........  .......  .......
    WY.......................................................         39         9  ..........  .......  .......
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................      8,917     2,555         20        35        1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             CVO AND PRISM

    Question. Given the progress made under the PRISM, why are 
additional staff requested at this time?
    Answer. Additional staff are requested for PRISM to be able to 
manage the rapid influx of new states interested in participating in 
the program and ensure consistent program implementation nationwide. 
Each new state that joins the program requires ongoing program guidance 
and technical assistance throughout the two year development phase of 
the program. Resources are needed to conduct training for each new 
state, assist states in the development of their implementation plans, 
and provide technical assistance when problems arise. In addition, as 
each state completes its two year program development, staff are need 
to conduct program reviews to monitor state implementation and ensure 
the terms of the grant agreement are met and maintain a level of effort 
in carrying out the program. Finally, technical staff will be needed to 
review, assess, and make improvements to the information and 
communication systems that support the program and ensure they provide 
the flexibility needed to address state needs and, if necessary, 
examine emerging technologies that could improve program delivery at 
both the Federal and state level.
    Question. Please discuss the challenges, status, opportunities and 
issues associated with PRISM.
    Answer. Twelve states are currently participating in the PRISM 
program. Of these, the original pilot states are Iowa, Colorado, 
Indiana, Minnesota, and Oregon. The remaining seven states are 
Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Georgia, and 
Kentucky. In addition, there are twelve other states (Arizona, South 
Carolina, Alaska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, Idaho, 
Wyoming, New York, Illinois, and South Dakota) which have expressed 
interest in participating in the program, and the number continues to 
expand.
    Every participating state has entered into a grant with the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to implement PRISM. Each of 
the five pilot states have implemented the program and are operational. 
The remaining states have received training on the program and are in 
various stages of the implementation process, which generally takes 
anywhere from 18-24 months to complete. During this period, states must 
modify their registration systems to be PRISM compliant, establish and 
update a complete census of all interstate carriers, establish 
automated data improvement procedures for both registration and at the 
roadside enforcement, and provide training to state registration and 
enforcement personnel.
    Pennsylvania has developed its implementation plan and expects to 
be operational by October of this year. Maine's implementation plan has 
recently been approved and the implementation process is expected to 
begin in April. Rhode Island, Georgia, and Arizona are currently 
developing their implementation plans. Connecticut, Tennessee, and 
Kentucky have not yet developed their implementation plans, but are 
expected to do so within the next 3-4 months.
    PRISM provides many opportunities to improving highway safety. 
These include:
  --establishing accountability for safety by identifying the carrier 
        responsible for the safe operation of every commercial vehicle 
        on the road through the U.S. DOT number;
  --improving overall data quality by establishing and updating the 
        current carrier census annually;
  --establishing a link between motor carrier's registration and safety 
        fitness;
  --expanding FMCSA's ability to reach a great many more carriers 
        through issuance of Warning Letters;
  --accurately identifying high risk carriers based on actual over the 
        road performance through SafeStat, the algorithm developed 
        under the PRISM pilot program;
  --providing equitable treatment to all interstate carriers.
    There are, however, challenges and issues associated with full 
deployment of the PRISM program. First, in most instances, new states 
must pass legislation that will allow them to apply state vehicle 
registration sanctions based upon a Federal Operations Out-of-Service 
Order. All participating states have not yet passed this legislation.
    Second, the FMCSA has experienced difficulty in issuing OOSOs. The 
term imminent hazard, as defined prior to the new Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act, was operationally unworkable and thus not effective as 
an enforcement tool. Clearly, without the issuance of out of service 
orders, PRISM cannot be as effective as it was originally designed to 
be. Under PRISM, states cannot suspend and/or revoke plates of a motor 
carrier unless the FMCSA first issues an operations-out-of-service 
order (OOSO) to the carrier.
    In the past, the FMCSA has had difficulty is issuing out-of-service 
orders. New policy directives encourage increased enforcement on unsafe 
carriers. The new legislative definition for imminent hazard will 
provide us with more effective enforcement tools to remove unsafe 
carriers from the highways. Question. How many states are participating 
in the program now?
    Answer. Twelve states are currently participating in the program. 
The states are Iowa, Colorado, Indiana, Minnesota, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Georgia, and 
Kentucky.
    Question. What is the status of each state's program?
    Answer. Every state that is a member of PRISM has entered into a 
grant with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). 
Each of the five pilot states (Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, and 
Indiana) have implemented the program and are operational. The 
remaining states have received training on the program and are in 
various stages of the implementation process which generally takes 
anywhere from 18-24 months to complete. During this period, states must 
modify their registration systems to be PRISM compliant, establish and 
update a complete census of all interstate carriers, establish 
automated data improvement procedures for both registration and at the 
roadside enforcement, and provide training to state registration and 
enforcement personnel.
    Pennsylvania has developed its implementation plan and expects to 
be operational by October of this year. Maine's implementation plan has 
recently been approved and the implementation process is expected to 
begin in April 2000. Rhode Island and Georgia are currently developing 
their implementation plans. Connecticut, Tennessee and Kentucky have 
not yet begun developing their implementation plans but are expected to 
do so within the next 3-4 months.

                             CVO AND PRISM

    Question. How many additional states want to participate?
    Answer. Twelve additional states (Arizona, South Carolina, Alaska, 
New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, New York, 
Illinois, and South Dakota) have expressed interest in participating in 
the program.
    Question. Please break out in detail how the PRISM monies are 
expected to be allocated during fiscal year 2000. Please specify the 
nature and amount of each research project, training activity, outreach 
function, and state deployment. For the fiscal year 2001 request, 
please provide comparable data wherever possible. Please document how 
program continuity is achieved.
    Answer.

                   ESTIMATED ALLOCATION OF PRISM FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal years--
                Activity                 -------------------------------
                                               2000            2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH................................        $500,000        $500,000
INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT AND                   875,000       1,200,000
 IMPROVEMENTS...........................
TRAINING AND OUTREACH...................         800,000       1,000,000
STATE DEPLOYMENT........................       2,700,000       2,300,000
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL.............................       4,875,000       5,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fiscal year 2000, the research allocation will be used to 
conduct a technology assessment of current PRISM hardware and software 
and make enhancements to the SafeStat methodology; fiscal year 2001 
funds will be used to identify data quality and timeliness issues and 
develop solutions address them.
    To make improvements to the program, we plan to allocate $875,000 
in fiscal year 2000, and increase the allocation in fiscal year 2001. 
These funds will be used to identify and resolve all issues related to 
both Federal and state information systems that affect PRISM, updating 
the national carrier census file to reflect state registration data, 
and improving system specifications for States.
    Approximately $800,000 will be spent on training and outreach in 
fiscal year 2000 and plan to increase it to $1 million in fiscal year 
2001 to accommodate an anticipated increase in PRISM states next year. 
These funds will support two-day training for all new PRISM States, 
briefings given to new states interested in joining the program, and 
development and publication of a PRISM newsletter and other marketing 
materials for use at public exhibits.
    Finally, State deployment is the core program. New PRISM states 
require approximately $450-500,000 to implement the program. Based on 
this figure, we have set aside $2.7 million for new State deployment in 
fiscal year 2000 (5-6 States) and $2.3 million (3-4 states) for fiscal 
year 2001.
    To ensure continuity, or uniformity, the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration (FMCSA) has developed a PRISM Implementation 
Guide for all participating states. The Guide provides a list of all 
registration and enforcement requirements that all PRISM states must 
meet in order to obtain PRISM funds. States use the Guide to help 
develop detailed implementation plans on not only how they will carry 
out each requirement, but also the anticipated costs. The plan will be 
used to help develop the grant to that state. Implementation plans must 
be completed and approved prior to entering into a grant agreement with 
the FMCSA. The FMCSA then uses these plans to monitor state compliance 
with the program requirements.

                             IVI TECHNOLOGY

    Question. Why did FMCSA decide to request additional staff to 
support the IVI given the uncertainty as to whether this initiative 
will be reauthorized in the next highway bill?
    Answer. The success of IVI and other technologies is critical to 
DOT and FMCSA achieving the goal of reducing the number of commercial 
truck-related fatalities by 50 percent over the next ten years. Thus, 
FMCSA is requesting additional staff to support the IVI to provide the 
technical and program support necessary to ensure the success of the 
IVI's commercial vehicle platform. This platform will test and evaluate 
on-board safety systems and technologies designed to reduce commercial 
motor vehicle crashes and enhance commercial vehicle and driver safety. 
These involve complex, multi-year on-road operational tests such as the 
ones planned for the IVI commercial vehicle platform in the areas of 
drowsy driver and electronically controlled brakes. Additionally, the 
added staff will test and evaluate new technologies for 2010 as well as 
develop ways to use on-board safety information for roadside 
enforcement.

                             CVO AND PRISM

    Question. Please discuss how CVO could be used to further 
strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of federal and state 
enforcement and compliance activities if additional funds were provided 
for this purpose in the fiscal year 2001 budget.
    Answer. In fiscal year 2001, $500 thousand is requested within 
FHWA's R&D CVO program to support new technology for enforcement and 
compliance, $150 thousand above the fiscal year 2000 level. These funds 
will be used to assess new and existing technologies in a timely 
fashion that will reduce crashes and improve: (1) the identification of 
high-risk motor carriers, vehicles, and drivers; (2) the enforcement 
of, and compliance with, performance-based regulations; and (3) the 
efficiency and accuracy of safety data collection and access at the 
roadside.

                REAR-END COLLISION AVOIDANCE TECHNOLOGY

    Question. How are you responding to the January 1995 NTSB 
recommendation to sponsor fleet testing of rear-end collision avoidance 
technology and incorporate testing results into demonstration and 
training programs?
    Answer. The IVI program recently awarded Volvo Trucks North America 
a cooperative agreement to test the operational effectiveness of the 
bundled advanced safety system of Collision Warning System (CWS), 
Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) and Electronically Controlled Brake 
System (EBS). The advanced safety system bundle is expected to enable 
truck drivers to reduce the number and severity of tractor-trailer 
accidents specifically associated with rear end collisions (forward 
crash) and lane change collisions. This project involves 100 new Volvo 
tractors operated by USXpress Leasing Inc. and will operationally test 
and evaluate the advanced safety systems in revenue generating, on road 
operations. The results of this operational test will be disseminated 
widely through reports and outreach activities. Significant market 
penetration of this technology will also be assisted by working with 
motor carriers to increase technology transfer and supporting tax 
incentives for the voluntary adoption of this type of on-board safety 
technology.

               REGULATORY AND STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES

    Question. Do you plan to establish a Motor Carrier Safety Advisory 
Committee in the near future? If not, please explain why. If you do, 
please discuss the scope and nature of the responsibilities and topics 
to be addressed. Would funds be needed in fiscal year 2001 to assist 
this advisory committee, especially if it is requested to assist FMCSA 
in addressing the regulatory backlog?
    Answer. FMCSA has no objection to establishing a Motor Carrier 
Safety Advisory Committee. We are in the very preliminary stages of 
internal discussions on its scope and funding requirements. At this 
time, we do not believe any additional funds are necessary for this 
activity in fiscal year 2001.
    Question. The Rail Safety Advisory Committee has helped FRA address 
more than 10 regulatory challenges or tasks during the last few years. 
What are the pros and cons of establishing a similar group to help the 
FMCSA deal with its regulatory backlog?
    Answer. An advisory committee could enhance communication between 
FMCSA and safety organizations, industry, labor, enforcement officials, 
state and local governments, and other stakeholders in motor carrier 
safety. It could foster discussion and cooperation among stakeholders 
and the agency and help to disseminate information about new regulatory 
and safety initiatives. In some cases, an advisory committee could help 
facilitate the rulemaking process by bringing together appropriate 
interests to arrive at a consensus solution.
    Establishing fair advisory committee representation may be a more 
manageable process for the railroad industry given the fact there are 
fewer than ten major railroads and approximately 500 short-line 
railroads in the U.S. Ensuring balanced committee representation for 
the large and extremely diverse motor carrier safety community could be 
more daunting. There are literally hundreds of thousands of motor 
carriers currently operating in the U.S. Also, the consensus process 
may not be the most timely or successful approach in some controversial 
rulemakings where affected interests are deeply divided on the issues. 
The travel and administrative costs for an advisory committee can be 
quite significant, as well.
    Question. Please list each of the motor carrier safety provisions 
of ISTEA or TEA-21 that have not yet been implemented and indicate your 
time table for completing or fulfilling legislative intent. Please 
document how your fiscal year 2001 budget request will help accomplish 
or implement each of these provisions.
    Answer. This information is provided in the tables below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Expected completion date                     Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           ISTEA requirement

Funding Sec. 4007(a) Training for Entry- NPRM Summer 2000.................  FMCSA staff resources.
 Level Drivers of CMVs.
Sec. 4007(b) Training for Operators and  NPRM Fall 2000...................  FMCSA staff resources.
 Training Instructors in Multiple
 Trailer Combination Vehicles.

           TEA 21 Requirement

Sec. 4004 Information availability and   Fall 2000........................  FMCSA staff resources.
 privacy protection policy.
Section 4008 Requirements for Operators  Summer 2000......................  FMCSA staff resources.
 of Small Passenger-Carrying Commercial
 Motor Vehicles.
Section 4008 Definition of CMV.........  Summer 2000......................  FMCSA staff resources.
Section 4009 Procedures--Unsatisfactory  Summer 2000......................  FMCSA staff resources.
 Safety Ratings.
Section 4018 Insulin Treated Diabetes    Summer 2000......................  FMCSA staff resources.
 Mellitus Report.
Section 4019 Benefits of Graduated       December 2000....................  Addressed with fiscal year 2000
 Licensing.                                                                  funds
Section 4020 Post-accident Alcohol       Summer 2000......................  Addressed with fiscal year 2000
 Testing Report.                                                             funds
Section 4022 Improved Flow of History    December 2002....................  $10 million RABA request for CDL
 Driver History Pilot Program.                                               improvements will help fund the
                                                                             driver history pilot program.
Section 4023 Study of effectiveness of   June 2000........................  Addressed with fiscal year 2000
 existing statutory employee                                                 funds.
 protections.
Section 4024 Interstate School Bus       ANPRM December 2000..............  FMCSA staff resources.
 Transportation Safety Rulemaking.
Section 4026 Assessment of Shipper       Summer 2000......................  FMCSA staff resources.
 Contributions to Violations of Safety
 Regulations.
Section 4014 Safety Performance History  SNPRM July 2000. Final Rule        FMCSA staff resources.
 of New Drivers.                          January 2001.
Section 4032 Study on the effects of     June 2000........................  Addressed with fiscal year 2000
 MCSAP grant reductions.                                                     funding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. How do you propose to implement each of these remaining 
provisions?
    Answer. The information is provided in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Implementation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             ISTEA Requirement

Training for Entry-Level Drivers of CMVs..  An NPRM has been drafted and
                                             is under review within the
                                             agency.
Training for Operators and Training         The agency is working on the
 Instructors in Multiple Trailer             preliminary regulatory
 Combination Vehicles.                       evaluation to assess the
                                             costs and benefits of the
                                             rulemaking. An NPRM will be
                                             drafted later this year.

            TEA 21 Requirement

Information availability and privacy        FMCSA will examine other
 protection pol-  icy.                       government information and
                                             privacy policies, request
                                             stakeholder comment, and
                                             formulate and notify the
                                             public of its policy.
Requirements for Operators of Small         A final rule is under review
 Passenger-Carrying Commercial Motor         within the Department. This
 Vehicles.                                   rule has been combined with
                                             ``Definition of CMV.''
Definition of CMV.........................  A final rule is under review
                                             within the Department. This
                                             rule has been combined with
                                             ``Requirements for
                                             Operators of Small
                                             Passenger-Carrying
                                             Commercial Motor
                                             Vehicles.''
Procedures-Unsatisfactory Safety Ratings..  A final rule is under review
                                             at OMB.
Insulin Treated Diabetes Mellitus Report..  An assessment of the
                                             feasibility of developing a
                                             protocol has been
                                             conducted. The agency is
                                             preparing a report to
                                             Congress and evaluating
                                             alternatives for
                                             implementation.
Benefits of Graduated Licensing...........  Focus groups have been
                                             conducted and a survey
                                             instrument has been
                                             developed. The agency is
                                             seeking OMB approval for
                                             conducting the survey.
Post-accident Alcohol Testing Report......  A draft report is in
                                             development.
Improved Flow of Driver History Pilot       A pilot program will be
 Program.                                    conducted to determine the
                                             extent data covered in
                                             Section 4022(a)(2)(A), such
                                             as failures to appear,
                                             should be included in
                                             information systems. Costs,
                                             benefits, and methods for
                                             exchange of driver safety
                                             data are being evaluated in
                                             implementation of state
                                             record exchange
                                             requirements of the Motor
                                             Carrier Safety Improvement
                                             Act of 1999.
Study of effectiveness of existing          A draft study report is in
 statutory employee protections.             review and the agency plans
                                             to submit a final report to
                                             Congress this summer.
Interstate School Bus Transportation        An ANPRM is in development.
 Safety Rulemaking.
Assessment of Shipper Contributions to      A study of the role of
 Violations of Safety Regulations.           shippers and other non-
                                             carrier entities in
                                             encouraging violations of
                                             motor carrier safety
                                             regulations has been
                                             conducted. The agency is
                                             reviewing policy options,
                                             including submission of an
                                             implementation plan to
                                             Congress.
Safety Performance History of New Drivers.  A supplemental NPRM has been
                                             drafted in response to
                                             comments for the Small
                                             Business Administration and
                                             concerns expressed by
                                             employers about liability
                                             for releasing personal
                                             information about
                                             employees.
Study on the effects of MCSAP grant         A study has been performed
 reductions.                                 and a draft report is in
                                             development.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         SECTION 4019 OF TEA-21

    Question. What is FMCSA doing to implement Section 4019 of TEA-21, 
which requires the Secretary to determine if the current system for 
commercial driver testing is adequate and to identify ways to improve 
testing and licensing standards? How much is in your budget request to 
accomplish this task?
    Answer. The FMCSA through a cooperative agreement with the American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) is reviewing the 
current CDL testing process. Over the past 18 months, the AAMVA in 
cooperation with the FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA), has conducted a series of meetings and forums 
with state licensing agency administrators, state test experts (chief 
examiners) and the commercial motor vehicle industry (bus and truck 
carriers, training schools and insurance companies) to identify 
perceived problems with the testing process. AAMVA will use this 
information in an 18-month in-depth study to review and revise, as 
needed, the current CDL skills tests. AAMVA will conduct field testing 
and revise, as needed, the current CDL examiner's manual.
    The FMCSA is also conducting a feasibility study to identify the 
costs and benefits of a graduated CDL. To accomplish this, focus groups 
have been held and a survey will be distributed later this year to 
state, industry, insurance, driver, safety and other interested groups.
    No new funding is being requested in our budget request to 
accomplish these tasks. However, if a graduated CDL is feasible, we may 
request funding in the future for implementation.
                         section 4026 of tea-21
    Question. What is the status of the assessment required under 
Section 4026 of TEA-21? What are you doing to further the development 
of a plan and an enforcement strategy to deal with shippers and others 
encouraging violation of motor carrier safety regulations?
    Answer. The report on the Assessment of Non-Carrier Encouraged 
Violations of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations is currently under 
review by FMCSA. The purpose of the study was to examine the extent to 
which commercial shippers and others involved in interstate commerce 
impose demands for the timely delivery of goods that may result in 
commercial motor vehicle operators' violation of Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Regulations, including commercial driver hours of service (HOS).
    The report recommends various options, which include legislative, 
regulatory, and non-regulatory actions (e.g., education, outreach, 
encouragement of industry best practice standards), to deal with 
shippers and others encouraging violation of motor carrier safety 
regulations.
    The findings of the study and resultant proposals will be forwarded 
to the Congress.
               regulatory and statutory responsibilities
    Question. Please describe what FMCSA is doing to implement Sections 
4018, 4020, 4022 and 4026 of TEA-21? What is the status, progress made 
or results of each of those efforts? Please specify the amount set 
aside in your fiscal year 2000 spending plan to implement each of those 
sections.
    Answer. Section 4018 of TEA-21 directs FHWA (now FMCSA) to 
determine if it is practical and cost-effective to have a program that 
allows individuals with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) to 
operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce. This summer 
the FMCSA will forward to the Congress, a report on the feasibility of 
allowing ITDM drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. This 
report include a description of the components of a screening protocol. 
The FMCSA's fiscal year 2000 and 2001 budgets do not include a specific 
set aside for implementing section 4018 of TEA-21.
    To implement Section 40201, FHWA (now FMCSA) published, in the 
Federal Register of January 27, 1999, a request for comments on the 
feasibility of using law enforcement officers to perform post-accident 
alcohol testing currently required of industry under the provisions of 
49 CFR 382.303. Comments have been received from the law enforcement 
community, motor carrier industry, and other interested parties. The 
required report to Congress is now being prepared. The motor carrier 
industry noted that, in many instances, it is impossible for them to 
have the testing performed within the required two-hour time period. 
However, there was virtually unanimous agreement among law enforcement 
respondents that no testing can be performed in the absence of 
``probable cause.'' Since it appears that there are serious obstacles 
to non-probable cause testing by law enforcement officials, it is 
anticipated that the current provisions of 49 CFR 382.303 will remain 
in effect.
    We have developed technical capabilities to support a plan we are 
finalizing to conduct a pilot program with one or more states to 
respond to Section 4022(a)(1) and (2)(A). The remainder of Section 4022 
is being incorporated into our efforts to satisfy the requirements of 
Section 221 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. To 
date, we have allocated no fiscal year 2000 funds for this project.
    A report on the analysis required by Section 4026, on the 
Assessment of Non-Carrier Encouraged Violations of Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations, is currently under review by FMCSA. The purpose of the 
study was to examine the extent to which commercial shippers and others 
involved in interstate commerce impose demands for the timely delivery 
of goods that may result in commercial motor vehicle operators' 
violation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), 
including driver's hours of service (HOS).
    The report recommends various options and policy options, which 
include legislative, regulatory, and non-regulatory actions (e.g., 
education, outreach, encouragement of industry best practice standards) 
to deal with shippers and others encouraging violations of the FMCSRs. 
The findings of the study and an agency proposal will be forwarded to 
the Congress. We have set aside no fiscal year 2000 funds to implement 
this section. We do, however, plan to allocate $150,000 for such an 
effort in fiscal year 2001.
    Question. If there is a specific funding set aside in the fiscal 
year 2001 budget to implement each of these sections, please list the 
amounts.
    Answer. There are no specific funding set asides in the fiscal year 
2001 budget for any of these activities. Staff resources are associated 
with each of these activities and the costs associated with the 
assigned staff are attributable to these initiatives.

                     REGISTRY OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

    Question. Have you requested funds to begin to establish a registry 
of medical examiners in fiscal year 2001? If not, is this a worthwhile 
activity or is the idea premature? How much would be required to 
initiate this project?
    Answer. No. The FMCSA will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) this fall, requesting comments on its proposal to link the 
driver physical qualification determination with the commercial 
driver's license (CDL) process. After the FMCSA has reviewed the 
comments to that docket, it will determine if a registry of medical 
examiners should be established and what it would cost to initiate and 
maintain such a registry.

                           REGULATORY DOCKETS

    Question. Please list each of the open regulatory dockets 
pertaining to motor carriers.
    Answer. The following table lists each open regulatory docket of 
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. We have included 
regulatory identification numbers for each rulemaking action; both the 
old RINs assigned when the rules were initiated by the FHWA and the new 
RINs assigned for the FMCSA. We have also included a brief description 
of each rulemaking action and the current status of the open dockets.
                           regulatory actions
    Question. Please list each of the regulatory actions taken during 
fiscal year 1999 and thus far during fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. The following table lists all rulemaking notices published 
in fiscal year 1999 and in fiscal year 2000, as of May 19, 2000. The 
table presents the title of the rulemaking notice, identifies the type 
of rulemaking action, and provides the Federal Register cite for 
reference.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Title of rulemaking action                 Type of action                     Federal register cite
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal Year 1999 Rulemakings
Safety Fitness Procedures...........  Final rule, corrections...........  63 FR 62957; November 10, 1998.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety          Interim final rule; request for     63 FR 67600; December 8, 1998.
 Regulations; Waivers, Exemptions,     comments.
 and Pilot Programs; Rules and
 Procedures.
General Requirements Inspection,      Advance notice of proposed          64 FR 7849; February 17, 1999.
 Repair, and Maintenance; Intermodal   rulemaking; request for comments.
 Container Chassis and Trailers.
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance       Notice of proposed rulemaking       64 FR 11414; March 9, 1999.
 Program (MCSAP).                      (NPRM); request for comments.
Parts and Accessories Necessary for   Final rule........................  64 FR 15588; March 31, 1999.
 Safe Operation; Lighting Devices,
 Reflectors, and Electrical
 Equipment.
Qualifications of Motor Carriers to   Notice of proposed rulemaking       64 FR 24123; May 5, 1999.
 Self-Insure Their Operations and      (NPRM); request for comments.
 Fees to Support the Approval and
 Compliance Process.
Safety Fitness Procedures...........  Notice of proposed rulemaking       64 FR 44460; August 16, 1999.
                                       (NPRM); request for comments.
Parts and Accessories Necessary for   Final rule........................  64 FR 47703; September 1, 1999.
 Safe Operation; Rear Impact Guards
 and Rear Impact Protection.
Commercial Driver Disqualification    Final rule........................  64 FR 48104; September 2, 1999.
 Provision.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety          Interim final rule; request for     64 FR 48510; September 3, 1999.
 Regulations; Definition of            comments.
 Commercial Motor Vehicle.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety          Notice of proposed rulemaking;      64 FR 48518; September 3, 1999.
 Regulations; Requirements for         request for comments.
 Operators of Small Passenger-
 Carrying Commercial Motor Vehicles.

 Fiscal Year 2000 Rulemaking Notices
Organization and Delegation of        Final rule........................  64 FR 56270; October 19, 1999.
 Powers and Duties; Recission of
 Delegation of the Administrator,
 Federal Highway Administration and
 Redelegation to Director, Office of
 Motor Carrier Safety.
Organization and Delegation of        Final rule........................  64 FR 58356; October 29, 1999.
 Powers and Duties; Redelegation to
 the Director, Office of Motor
 Carrier Safety.
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations....  Final rule........................  64 FR 58355; October 29, 1999.
Rules of Practice for Motor Carrier   Final rule........................  65 FR 7753; February 16, 2000.
 Proceedings; Violations of
 Commercial Regulations.
Safety Fitness Procedures; Safety     Final rule........................  65 FR 11904; March 7, 2000.
 Fitness Rating Methodology.
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance       Final rule........................  65 FR 15092; March 21, 2000.
 Program.
Hours of Service of Drivers.........  NPRM..............................  65 FR 25540; May 2, 2000.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety          Final Rule........................  65 FR 25285; May 1, 2000.
 Regulations: Technical Amendment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 MOTOR CARRIER RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

    Question. In House Report 106-180, DOT was directed to improve the 
budget justification for the motor carrier research area. The House 
Committee stated that: ``Future budget requests should delineate the 
specific projects that will be funded and the exact amount for each 
project, similar to the format used by the Federal Railroad 
Administration's next generation high-speed rail program.'' How was 
this requirement implemented? How do you propose to further improve the 
fiscal year 2002 research budget justification?
    Answer. The FMCSA (formerly, FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers) has 
significantly improved its budget requests over the past two years, and 
will make further improvements in the fiscal year 2002 Motor Carrier 
Research and Development (MCR&D) budget request. These improvements are 
summarized below:
    Fiscal year 2000.--The MCR&D program, and budget justification, 
were reorganized by focus areas to provide better information on the 
safety problems targeted by MCR&D projects.
    Fiscal year 2001.--In accordance with the Congressional request and 
in a similar manner to the Federal Railroad Administration, FMCSA 
provided, for each of nine focus areas, a matrix listing all projects 
receiving funding over three years (fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001) 
and the amount(s) received or requested. A summary chart compared total 
funding levels for each focus area across the three years. Each focus 
area write-up included information on the most important FMCSA 
programmatic safety goals being addressed (i.e., FMCSA Safety Action 
Plan items), and each project receiving fiscal year 2000 and/or fiscal 
year 2001 funding was described.
    Fiscal year 2002.--The FMCSA MCR&D budget justification will be 
expanded by the inclusion of paragraph summaries of all projects 
receiving funding in the three years addressed (fiscal years 2000, 
2001, and 2002). In addition, more detailed explanations and 
justifications will be provided for new fiscal year 2002 initiatives 
and for major changes in focus area funding.
           school transportation safety and operation respond
    Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the conferees 
stated that: ``$200,000 shall be available to conduct the school 
transportation safety study and $350,000 shall be available for 
Operation Respond.'' How much money was allocated for each of these 
activities in fiscal year 1999, how much is planned in fiscal year 
2000, and how much is requested for fiscal year 2001. What progress has 
been made in implementing each directive?
    Answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal years--
                                        --------------------------------
                                            1999       2000       2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Transportation Study (NHTSA)....     50,000    200,000  .........
Operation Respond (FHWA)...............    375,000    350,000  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA did not include funding for either of these initiatives in 
the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget.
    The Transportation Safety Board (TRB) School Transportation Safety 
study mandated in TEA-21 (Sec. 4030) began with the award of $50,000 
from NHTSA to TRB at the end of fiscal year 1999. An additional 
$200,000 of fiscal year 2000 funds transferred from FHWA to NHTSA is 
currently in the award process. A final amount of $200,000 is planned 
to be awarded in fiscal year 2001. Currently TRB is finalizing the 
selection of committee members. The first committee meeting will be 
held at the beginning of June. The study is expected to be completed by 
October 2001.
    The funds for Operation Respond have been allocated to support a 
detailed Statement of Work (SOW) recently completed and agreed to by 
FMCSA, FHWA and Operation Respond. The Tasks in the SOW include:
  --building an internet based version of the Operation Respond 
        Emergency Information System (OREIS);
  --building an interface with intermodal technology initiatives being 
        conducted by FHWA;
  --continued integration and installation of OREIS into two additional 
        Traffic Management Centers (TMCs); and
  --to incorporate OREIS into select border crossing sites on the 
        Northern and Southern border, to promote the safe movement of 
        vehicles across our international borders.

                   SMART COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE

    Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the Committee 
requested that FMCSA provide up to $1,000,000 for the testing and 
development of a smart commercial driver's license, utilizing smart 
card and biometric elements to enhance safety and efficiency. What has 
FMCSA done to implement the objective? How much will be allocated 
during fiscal year 2001 on those activities?
    Answer. The FHWA began to implement this objective in 1996 with a 
study of the feasibility of smart cards for commercial drivers 
licenses. The study's final report concluded that: ``Analysis shows 
that enhancing the CDL is most feasible through the use of a smart card 
for all drivers, not only commercial drivers. However, smart card 
tracking of hours of service was not found to be institutionally 
feasible. Although beneficial to law enforcement, smart card tracking 
of hours of service could be effectively opposed by drivers and 
carriers at several stages of system implementation.'' The American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators is working to standardize 
smart card technology. One Canadian province is scheduled to issue 
smart cards beginning in calendar year 2001.
    Currently, the FMCSA is evaluating the best biometric elements to 
uniquely identify a commercial driver. The FMCSA has a Cooperative 
Agreement with the California Department of Motor Vehicles to determine 
both the optimum combination of fingerprint and facial images to best 
detect license fraud and the optimum communication protocol to exchange 
fingerprint images between states electronically. California is one of 
3 states which will collect a total of 32,000 sample digital facial 
images and sets of fingerprints from volunteers. A random sample of 
records will be duplicated and sent to vendors to see if they can 
identify the duplicate records. The project started in fiscal year 1999 
with $100,000 in research funds. Funding for fiscal year 2000 is 
$100,000 in Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program funds and $100,000 
Intelligent Transportation Systems/Commercial Vehicle Operations funds. 
The project is scheduled for completion in October, 2001. No further 
funding for fiscal year 2001 is planned.

                                  NADS

    Question. Please discuss FMCSA's expected involvement in the NADS 
during fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
    Answer. During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, FMCSA is conducting a 
National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) Utilization Study. The NADS 
Utilization Study will identify potential, but realistic, uses of the 
NADS as a tool to help FMCSA accomplish its motor carrier safety 
research goals and objectives in areas such as fatigue, hours of 
service, impact of drugs and alcohol on driver performance, medical 
conditions, driver selection, driver performance evaluation and 
enhancement, assessment of technologies for improving CMV driver 
safety, and refinement of simulation technology for driver training and 
licensing purposes. Specifically, this study will: (1) review the goals 
and planned projects of the Motor Carrier Research and Development 
(MCR&D) program and identify potential contributions of advanced 
simulation research; (2) assess and delineate the capabilities and 
status of the NADS for MCR&D and for CMV safety research in general; 
and (3) identify specific NADS-related R&D opportunities. A ``menu'' of 
potential projects will be described in terms of objectives, background 
(problem discussion, summary of current knowledge, and rationale for 
the study), research methodology (including principal tasks or phases), 
critical NADS features/requirements (existing or new), critical 
contractor capabilities/facilities, period of performance, funding 
requirements, potential partners, final products and applications, and 
product dissemination/implementation plans. FMCSA will fund experiments 
on the NADS commencing in fiscal year 2002. FMCSA regards the NADS as a 
potentially useful research tool for addressing many CMV driver safety 
issues. However, like any research tool, its applicability and cost-
effectiveness for a research problem is being carefully assessed prior 
to use.
    Question. Please specify dollar amounts associated with each 
project by year.
    Answer. The NADS Utilization Study is funded at $100,000: $60,000 
in fiscal year 2000 and $40,000 in fiscal year 2001.

                      UNSAFE CAR DRIVING PRACTICES

    Question. What is the status of the DOT research project on unsafe 
car driving practices in the vicinity of trucks? What is the purpose of 
the study, and when will it be completed? What are the funding levels 
for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 for that project? How much 
will be spent during fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. The purpose of this recently completed project was to 
identify unsafe driving practices unique to cars traveling in the 
vicinity of trucks and show the relationship between these behaviors 
and crashes.
    The study provided a list of unsafe driving acts that were 
recommended to be included in training materials for law enforcement 
officers, truck drivers, and novice operators of passenger vehicles. An 
Unsafe Driving Acts Guide and a draft script for a training video 
intended for law enforcement officers were prepared.
    There were no funds expended on this project in fiscal year 1999. 
In fiscal year 2000, we are implementing the recommendations in the 
final report by developing training materials aimed at educating 
passenger vehicle drivers about the mechanical and operating 
characteristics of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), and what to do to 
avoid crashes with CMVs. Funding for this effort is estimated at 
$100,000.
    In fiscal year 2001, we will expand the previous research to focus 
on developing training materials to educate CMV drivers concerning how 
to avoid crashes with other vehicles, emphasizing defensive driving 
strategies and safe practices. Funding for this research is estimated 
at $250,000.
    The products of these efforts will be incorporated into FMCSA's 
expanded share the road program, and will be distributed using a number 
of marketing strategies, including the internet.

                          FATIGUE R&D PROGRAM

    Question. Which aspects of your current fiscal year 2000 and 
planned fiscal year 2001 fatigue R&D program will provide information 
useful in conducting rulemaking related to each of the outstanding NTSB 
recommendations on truck driver fatigue? How much is being allocated 
for these activities?
    Answer. There are four outstanding NTSB recommendations to FMCSA 
relating to driver fatigue. These recommendations are listed below, 
along with information on relevant FMCSA R&D projects:
    H-95-3 Examine truck driver pay compensation to determine if there 
is any affect on hours-of-service violations, accidents, or fatigue.
    The FMCSA began a study of the impact of pay compensation practices 
on safety in 1998. The Phase 1 work plan and literature review are 
complete. The analysis of data on the possible relationship of pay 
compensation method to safety is underway, and is due for completion in 
the Spring of 2001. This project is allocated $100,000 in motor carrier 
R&D funds in both fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
    H-95-4 Complete rulemaking within 2 years to amend 49 CFR 392 and 
395 to prohibit scheduling practices and the acceptance or scheduling 
of shipments which would require that the driver exceed hours-of-
service regulations.
    The report on the Assessment of Non-Carrier Encouraged Violations 
of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations has been completed and is currently 
under review by the FMCSA. The purpose of the study was to examine the 
extent to which commercial shippers and others involved in interstate 
commerce impose demands for the timely delivery of goods that may 
result in commercial motor vehicle operators' violations of Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, including commercial driver hours-of-
service (HOS). The report includes recommendations and policy options 
for addressing this issue. In addition to prior funds committed to this 
program from both MCR&D and non-MCR&D sources, the project is budgeted 
for $200,000 in MCR&D funding in fiscal year 2001.
    H-99-4 A fatigue video for motor coaches to include inverted sleep 
periods.
    FMCSA recently completed a project identifying unique factors 
affecting motor coach driver fatigue, such as interactions with 
passengers and inability to stop for naps or personal breaks, and 
recommended countermeasures. The project produced a video targeted to 
the motorcoach industry and drivers, which includes information on 
circadian rhythms and inverted sleep cycles, and instruction on the 
need for enlightened driver scheduling and on how to minimize the 
effects of inverted sleep schedules. This project was allocated 
$149,000 in fiscal year 1999. No expenditures are planned for fiscal 
year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
    H-99-19 Establish within 2 years, science-based hours-of-service 
regulations that set limits on hours of service, provide predictable 
work and rest schedules, and consider circadian rhythms and human sleep 
and rest requirements. The revised regulations should also (a) require 
sufficient rest provisions to enable drivers to obtain at least 8 
consecutive hours of sleep after either driving for 10 hours or being 
on-duty for 15 hours, and (b) eliminate 40 CFR 395.1 paragraph b, which 
allows drivers with sleeper berth equipment to cumulate the 8 hours of 
off-duty time in two separate periods.
    It is widely recognized that the current hours-of-service (HOS) 
regulations are incompatible with current knowledge of human sleep 
requirements. The FMCSA has prepared a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) on driver HOS, whose publication is imminent, that provides, 
among other issues, enough daily time off for a driver to obtain 
sufficient sleep. The NPRM is based on the most current scientific 
knowledge of driver fatigue.
    The split sleeper berth provision of the current HOS is one of the 
most problematic of HOS issues and is one for which there is little 
empirical data. Current Congressionally-mandated FMCSA research on 
sleeper berths is gathering data on the quality of sleep under various 
conditions, including sleeper berths in moving and parked vehicles. The 
next phase of this research, beginning in fiscal year 2001, will 
specifically address the split sleeper berth provision of the HOS.
    FMCSA has allocated $400,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $410,000 in 
fiscal year 2001 for HOS support, including cost-benefit analysis of 
various options and related analysis and research on HOS-related 
operational issues. Funding for sleeper berth research includes 
$242,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $400,000 in fiscal year 2001.
    Fatigue Management Technologies Pilot Test.--FMCSA has initiated, 
in response to Congressional direction, a pilot test of fatigue 
management technologies, including the actigraph (a wrist-worn sleep 
monitor), in-vehicle alertness monitoring, lateral lane tracking, in-
vehicle ``black box'' performance monitoring, and fatigue-reducing 
vehicle steering linkage. The project will incorporate a study of 
individual differences in commercial motor vehicle driver 
susceptibility to fatigue and employ two alternative work-rest 
schedules. The use of alternative work-rest schedules is enabled by 
TEA-21 legislation granting FMCSA broader waiver/exemption authority 
for safety pilots. The Phase 2 data collection will begin in mid-year 
2000. FMCSA believes that fatigue management technologies should be 
viewed primarily as aids to self and fleet management, not as 
instruments of surveillance. Both FMCSA Motor Carrier R&D and ITS 
Intelligent Vehicle Initiative funds are contributing to this project; 
Transport Canada is also contributing funds and participating in 
project management. Part of the test will be conducted in Canada and 
will involve international U.S./Canadian runs. This project is 
allocated $518,000 in motor carrier R&D funds in fiscal year 2000 and 
$518,000 in fiscal year 2001.

                           NEW PROJECT STARTS

    Question. Please specify how each of the new project starts 
requested in the fiscal year 2001 research budget request will be used 
in direct support of current rulemakings or regulatory 
responsibilities.
    Answer. In addition to numerous ongoing studies, the FMCSA Motor 
Carrier Research and Development program includes the new fiscal year 
2001 starts listed below that are directly relevant to current or 
planned rulemakings or the agency's regulatory responsibilities:
    Crash Risk Analysis.--The FMCSA is planning a fleet-based case 
control study in fiscal year 2001 comparing crash-involved and non-
crash involved drivers and vehicles to identify and quantify risk 
factors relevant to FMCSA regulatory and other safety programs, such as 
driver medical conditions and training history. This will supplement 
the on-going major crash causation study being conducted by FMCSA in 
conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 
National Automotive Sampling System.
    Economic Model for Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Safety 
Interventions.--This fiscal year 2001 Regulatory Research and Analysis 
Support project will develop and refine safety performance and cost 
models that could be used to evaluate the expected safety benefits and 
economic impacts of proposed regulatory initiatives, new enforcement 
strategies, technology advances, or incentive programs on CMV safety.
    Performance-Based Physical Qualifications: Diabetes.--Research 
beginning in fiscal year 2001 will provide regulatory analysis support 
to new performance-based physical qualifications relating to diabetes.

           IMPLEMENTING MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

    Question. Congress enacted significant legislation to establish a 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration dedicated to truck and bus 
safety. What are the key challenges in implementing the new Act? What 
is the Department doing to meet these challenges?
    Answer. The greatest challenges in implementing the Motor Carrier 
Safety Improvement Act of 1999 are in simultaneously, not sequentially, 
addressing the breadth of its new programmatic directives and 
establishing the new motor carrier safety agency. In fiscal year 2000, 
this must be done without an increase in personnel. We have succeeded 
in strengthening enforcement, conducting more compliance reviews and 
increasing penalties. We have quickly established the new agency and 
moved existing personnel into place. The Act requires major new 
initiatives in driver licensing and record exchange, safety reviews of 
new carrier entrants, enforcement of motor carrier licensing 
requirements, and enforcement at the Southern border. The FMCSA will 
substantially increase the number of safety investigators in the field 
and inspectors at the Southern border; expand its work with 
organizations such as the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the 
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, and other safety 
partners; and enhance its regulatory process so stakeholders have a 
greater opportunity to communicate with the agency and participate in 
the initial stages of rule development.
    Question. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 states 
that foreign boundaries of a commercial zone can be subject to civil 
penalties and will be disqualified from operating a commercial motor 
vehicle anywhere in the U.S. How should the Department ensure that this 
requirement is implemented and enforced?
    Answer. FMCSA has already promulgated a final rule to incorporate 
the civil penalty provisions of the MCSIA that are applicable to 
foreign motor carriers discovered to be operating outside of the border 
commercial zones. The new civil penalty provisions were recently 
incorporated into a revised 49 CFR part 386. The final rule was 
published on February 16, 2000 and became effective on March 17, 2000. 
This rule is significant because FMCSA civil penalty assessment 
procedures now apply to Mexican motor carriers for commercial zone 
violations, whereas prior to the rule, the procedures were only 
applicable for safety violations.
    FMCSA will conduct an outreach program to make all state 
enforcement partners fully aware of the prohibition on allowing 
Mexican- based motor carriers to operate outside of the border 
commercial zones. To aid in this effort, the FMCSA will issue a policy 
statement this Spring requiring each state to detail its registration 
enforcement activities in their respective Commercial Vehicle Safety 
Plans (CVSPs). The FMCSA will explore adding a provision related to 
commercial zone enforcement to the North American Standard Driver 
Vehicle Inspection Course.
    FMCSA is also developing automated reports to identify Mexican 
based motor carriers that have been inspected outside the border 
commercial zones. The reports will be compiled from the FMCSA's Motor 
Carrier Management Information System. Preliminary plans call for these 
reports to be provided to the FMCSA State Directors in CA, AZ, NM and 
TX. Identified occurrences will be investigated and, if appropriate, 
enforcement action will be initiated (i.e., civil penalty assessment) 
by the FMCSA division offices.
    FMCSA is developing training on collecting evidence sufficient to 
support this enforcement. FMCSA will work with the states in setting up 
agreements which will allow state enforcement official to participate 
in this enforcement.
    In accordance with the Act, intentional and repeat violators, as 
well as foreign motor carriers that do not respond to civil penalty 
notices, will be disqualified from operating in the U.S. through 
suspension of their Certificates of Registration. FMCSA is developing 
procedures to implement this requirement.
    Question. Please break out in detail how the administrative funds 
were used for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. The information follows.

Fiscal Year 1999 Administrative Funds

                                                                  Amount

$1,000,000 available:
    National Training Center (For state training courses and 
      state Associate Staff travel)...........................  $780,000
    ASPEN-32 Technical Work Group (State travel funds for one 
      person from 10 States to participate on the TWG. This is 
      a two-year effort.).....................................    60,000
    Support for the Analysis and Information Web site.........    90,000
    Guardian Newsletter.......................................    14,000
    Miscellaneous MCSAP and FMCSA-related Services and 
      Supplies (e.g., invitational travel, conference room 
      rental, plaques, optical updates).......................    56,000
$1,187,500 available:
    National Training Center (For state training courses and 
      State Associate Staff travel)...........................   950,000
    Printing of ``Stopping Safely'' Pocket Manuals (100,000 
      manuals printed and distributed during the International 
      Safety Week.)...........................................    15,495
    Miscellaneous MCSAP-related Services and Supplies (e.g., 
      invitational travel, conference room rental, plaques)...    37,780

    1.25 percent of the MCSAP appropriation makes up the Administrative 
Takedown. Legislation requires at least 75 percent of the 
Administrative Takedown to be used for MCSAP State personnel training 
and Associate Staff Travel costs. Traditionally, we have allocated 
approximately 85 percent to 90 percent of the Administrative Takedown 
funds for these purposes. The remainder is allocated for administrative 
expenses.

                           RABA DISTRIBUTION

    Question. How does FMCSA propose to use the increased funding that 
would be derived from the RABA distribution specified under existing 
law?
    Answer. The FMCSA plans to use the increased funding from the RABA 
distribution for Commercial Drivers License (CDL) improvement grants to 
the states.

             CRASH COLLECTION DATA BASE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

    Question. Is it correct that the fiscal year 2001 budget request 
includes $2.75 million for the crash collection data base improvement 
project and not the $5.0 million required under Section 225 of the 
MCSIA?
    Answer. Yes, the fiscal year 2001 budget includes $2.75 million 
from general operating expenses for the crash data improvement project. 
However, the fiscal year 2001 budget proposal also includes $5.0 
million from Section 225(f) Information Systems funding that FMCSA will 
use for this initiative for a total of $7.75 million in fiscal year 
2001. The $7.75 million budgeted for the early stages of this 
initiative was considered an adequate funding level. Question. Does the 
crash collection data base improvement project include all of the 
required components or activities needed to implement Section 225?
    Answer. Yes, the truck and bus crash data system project will 
include all the requirements of the subsections of Section 225 as 
follows: (1) Agreements will be signed with individual states to 
improve the collection and reporting of crash data to NHTSA and FMCSA. 
(2) FMCSA will sign a cooperative agreement with NHTSA to administer 
the program. The document will include a provision for agreements with 
the states for data collection and training for state and local 
personnel involved in the data collection. (3) NHTSA will insure that 
data (including driver citation data) on all truck and bus crashes are 
reported to the FMCSA Motor Carrier Management Information System which 
has links to the Commercial Drivers License Information System 
conviction data. FMCSA data files are and will be available to the 
public. (4) A report to Congress will be prepared within the three-year 
time frame. Question. How much will be spent on this effort during 
fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. FMCSA will spend $4 million on the Section 225 truck and 
bus crash data improvement project during fiscal year 2000.

                              SECTION 225

    Question. How do you propose to implement Section 225?
    Answer. FMCSA and NHTSA have begun a cooperative effort to improve 
the completeness, timeliness and accuracy of commercial vehicle crash 
reporting. The first priority is to obtain selected data on the 
approximately 50,000 truck and bus crashes each year that are not 
reported by the states to FMCSA. These data are essential to identify 
high risk carriers and improve reporting of driver citations to the 
CDLIS and will be uploaded through the SAFETYNET software that the 
states currently use. Up to ten states are expected to participate in 
the first phase of this effort later this year. The second priority of 
the project will be to collect an expanded set of truck and bus crash 
data elements that will allow improved analysis of the circumstances 
and reasons for these crashes. Efforts to collect these additional 
analysis data elements will not begin until the first goal of 
collecting data on all truck and bus crashes has been met.

                          SECTION 225 OF MCSIA

    Question. Is the Agency legally required to allocate the amount 
specified in Section 225 of MCSIA?
    Answer. Yes. FMCSA has reevaluated Section 225(e) and concluded 
that, as authorized, $5 million of 104(a)(1)(B) is only available for 
the crash data improvement project. As discussed in the answer to #56, 
FMCSA's proposal to use only $2.75 million was based on our assessment 
that the overall funding of $7.75 million, was adequate for the early 
stages of this initiative. Without further Congressional direction, 
FMCSA will amend our spending plan to provide the full $5 million from 
225(e) and reconsider whether the entire $5 million from 225(f) will be 
used for this initiative.

                       POSITIONS SUPPORTING MCSAP

    Question. Why did FMCSA decide not to request an increase in the 
number of positions supporting the MCSAP? What additional workload will 
be placed on the staff given the substantial increase in funding and 
growth of the program provided under MCSIA? Are there any surveys or 
covert operations planned to monitor this challenge with the results 
being submitted to FMCSA?
    Answer. FMCSA is committed to operating the headquarters office 
with a minimum of staff resources and rely on the field staff, located 
in the state Division Offices, to primarily deliver and oversee MCSAP. 
The increase in MCSAP funding will appropriately expand existing State 
programs and does not significantly impact the FMCSA overall oversight 
responsibility. FMCSA is confident that our Division Offices will be 
the front line managers of the MCSAP program and that adequate 
resources are programmed to provide the appropriate level of assistance 
and oversight to these State programs. No specific plans exist to 
survey this challenge. However, FMCSA's new organizational structure 
includes a State Programs Division and a Division that has the 
responsibility to perform program evaluations. MCSAP will be given full 
consideration for an early program evaluation.

                                 MCSAP

    Question. Please provide the empirical basis and strategic thinking 
that were used to determine the allocation requested on page 4.5 of the 
budget justification.
    Answer. Of the original $165 million in MCSAP funds (before RABA), 
$5 million each is allocated for Information Systems and the Crash 
Causation Study. Of the remaining $155 million, 1.25 percent 
($1,937,500) is set aside for State Training and Administration, and 10 
percent ($15,500,000) is set aside for Border and High Priority 
Initiatives. Of the remaining $137,562,500, 5 percent ($6,878,125) is 
set aside for Performance Incentive Grants. The remaining $130,684,375 
is reserved for Basic Motor Carrier Safety Programs.

                  BORDER AND HIGH PRIORITY INITIATIVES

    Question. What is the rationale behind the $15.5 million request 
for border and high priority initiatives? Please break out by activity 
how those funds will be allocated?
    Answer. High Priority projects to be funded for fiscal year 2001 
have not yet been selected. The agency has developed a set of criteria 
to use for evaluating proposed projects including the following 
questions:
    (1) How will this project serve to improve one or more of the MCSAP 
National Program Elements? (e.g., inspections, compliance reviews, 
traffic enforcement, data collection and analysis, and education and 
outreach)?
    (2) Will the project support identification of new technologies not 
currently available for commercial vehicle safety enforcement or safety 
programs?
    (3) Will the project support or promote effective state commercial 
motor vehicle safety program planning and implementation?
    (4) What is the programmatic impact and evaluation design for the 
project?
    (5) How will this project serve to benefit, enrich, augment, 
assist, or evaluate state(s) commercial motor vehicle safety programs?
    A request for proposed projects will be made late this summer. 
Final project decisions will be made early in the new fiscal year.
    Question. Are you planning to use any of the high priority funds 
for this purpose? If not, please explain why.
    Answer. The $15.5 million allocated for border and high priority 
initiatives represents the total of $7.75 million for each category. It 
is not anticipated that high priority funds will be used for border 
activities, since we typically receive more requests for high priority 
projects than can be funded each year.
    Question. Please list the high priority projects that were 
sponsored with fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 funds and the 
associated amount of funding to conduct each activity or project.
    Answer. The information follows:

                                                                  AMOUNT

Fiscal Year 1999 ($4,500,000 available):
    Congressionally mandated study of the effects of MCSAP 
      grant reductions........................................  $175,000
    Performance-based MCSAP Training for state Personnel......   120,000
    Commercial Vehicle Safety Partnership Program (formerly 
      JOP)....................................................   100,000
    National Judicial College.................................    50,000
    Traffic Enforcement Effectiveness Study...................   150,000
    Effective Sanctions Study.................................    50,000
    Massachusetts Training Center.............................   108,000
    Idaho Video Project.......................................   350,000
    CVSP Database.............................................    98,000
    Driver Diversion/Deferral Study...........................   225,000
    Pilot Test New Driver/Brake Inspection Protocol...........   100,000
    Minnesota Crash Investigation Course......................    75,000
    Risk Management Methodology and Safety Programs...........   125,000
    State Intergovernmental Personnel Exchange (2)............   206,000
    National Traffic Law Center...............................   150,000
    FMCSA Safety Compliance Microcomputer Support (VOLPE).....   675,000
    Maryland's Aggressive Driver Imaging and Enforcement 
      project.................................................    20,000
    TML Information Systems work related to Mexico............   450,000
    Support for the Commercial Drivers License program (AAMVA)   100,000
    Grants to states (WA, MN, NJ, UT, MA) to improve 
      inspection data quality.................................   108,000
    Grants to states (FL, WV, LA, NC, OH, MS, MD, NV) to 
      improve accident reporting data quality.................   455,000
    Grants to states (ME, NM) for the Driver History 
      Initiative pro- 
      ject....................................................   110,000
    Grant to Colorado to design a program to reduce commercial 
      vehicle accidents and fatalities........................   200,000
    Grant to North Dakota to continue the enhancement of the 
      ASPEN-32 third generation roadside inspection software..   200,000
    Grant to Kentucky for Infrared Brake screening, testing, 
      and evaluation..........................................   100,000
Fiscal year 2000 (to date) ($4,750,000 available):
    DIAP Analysis (EPIC) $64,000 Commercial Vehicle Safety 
      Partnership Program (formerly JOP)......................   156,000
    Risk based Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan training........   300,000
    Support for the Analysis and Information (A&I) Online 
      System..................................................   100,000
    Effective Sanctions Study.................................    75,000
    Development and testing of Unique Identifiers for the CDL 
      pro- 
      gram....................................................   100,000
    Support for the Commercial Drivers License program (AAMVA)   100,000
    Evaluation of Top Ten states and improve collection of 
      comprehensive and accurate crash data...................   268,000
    Grants to CVISN pilot states (CT, WA, MI, OR)............. 2,000,000

                                 MCSAP

    Question. What has FMCSA done since last year to upgrade MCSAP 
sites with new technology to help focus inspections on high-risk bus 
and trucking companies?
    Answer. FMCSA has devised a very effective means of focusing MCSAP 
enforcement resources on high-risk motor carriers. SafeStat is an 
information prioritization system which ranks motor carriers according 
to safety risk and generates a score and rank order list every six 
months. This process focuses enforcement efforts on problem carriers.
    SafeStat scores are now fed into the roadside prioritization 
algorithm which powers the Inspection Selection System. ISS is deployed 
in all states except California and Texas and is used along the 
roadside to prioritize selection of carriers for Driver/Vehicle Safety 
Inspections. ISS is decision assisting software which, when offered a 
U.S. DOT #, MC # or carrier name will display a recommendation of: 
INSPECT, PASS, or OPTIONAL along with a numeric risk score (0-100). 
This helps the roadside inspector decide whether to inspect a vehicle. 
In addition ISS provides a variety of additional data which can be 
consulted prior to an inspection. This type data includes carrier 
insurance status, operating authority status, past inspection out-of-
service rate, past areas of excessive violations, fleet size, etc.
    ISS, has been enhanced this year with introduction of ISS-2. The 
new ISS-2 is an overall enhanced system with more accurate scoring and 
easier identification of carriers. This summer FMCSA will introduce a 
new ASPEN v2 driver/vehicle inspection software which will expedite the 
inspection process even further.
    ISS scores are also being used in the PrePass electronic screening 
system and are being considered for NorPass. This will provide a 
uniform safety screening process across the United States. California 
is also moving toward use of ISS, possibility as early as this summer. 
The FMCSA PRISM program to check carrier safety status during the 
registration process generates a sanctioned carrier list for priority 
inspection. ISS now flags these priority PRISM carriers and requests 
that they be given priority for inspection.
    FMCSA is encouraging expenditures for inspection selection 
technology, with reimbursement under MCSAP. FMCSA continues to 
encourage states to test and adopt technologies that serve to improve 
roadside inspection effectiveness and efficiency.
    Question. Please summarize the progress to date, remaining 
challenges, and outlook for future deployments during the next few 
years. Please assess the costs and benefits of those investments.
    Answer. There are several projects underway to refine 
identification of high risk carriers and focus enforcement resources 
toward those companies. One ongoing project allows states to assign a 
U.S. DOT # to intrastate carriers. Once carriers are identified with a 
U.S. DOT #, all the various FMCSA data collection and analysis systems 
will function. ISS scores, for example, can be generated for this large 
group of carriers. This is particularly important because a significant 
number of these carriers actually move between intra and interstate 
commerce. There are significant additional FMCSA system costs ($0.5 
million/yr) to process this data. These costs are not currently covered 
in the FMCSA IT budget and that has slowed these efforts. The benefits 
are substantial in that they allow us to focus our resources to 
identify high risk intrastate carriers. Given that intrastate carriers 
are responsible for 20 percent of our fatalities, it is important to 
focus resources on them if we are to meet our 50 percent fatality 
reduction goal and provide this substantial benefit to the program.
    A decision is being evaluated to increase the SafeStat score 
calculation rate from every 6-months to every three months. This will 
enhance data accuracy and is highly favored by the motor carrier 
industry because it allows their safety improvements to be more quickly 
reflected in the prioritization systems. Cost is a major issue here 
since SafeStat currently still runs on a mainframe system. FMCSA is 
about 2-years from fully moving these systems to an enhanced Oracle 
server system.
    A new initiative at FMCSA is to develop a sophisticated third 
generation unified query system called Query Central (QC) which will 
allow combining six different critical safety information queries (ISS, 
Past Inspections, Commercial Driver License Status, PRISM, Licensing 
and Insurance) into a single, simple query. Targeted for early 
deployment on the Mexican-American border, Query Central will greatly 
speed delivery of decision level data to the roadside inspection sites. 
This system will be based on the latest web-based technology and employ 
considerable advanced analysis to deliver maximum information with 
minimum effort at the inspector level. While initial development of QC 
has been funded and will be done by the same group as ISS, the need 
remains to build a wireless infrastructure to allow roadside and 
carrier office queries to be entered into the web-based system.
    FMCSA has a small wireless information delivery project underway, 
but has no funding for a full development effort or grants to states to 
allow procurement of a wireless infrastructure. Estimates for state 
deployment are $7-$8 million, but before that, additional development 
funding of $2 million is needed. States are very interested in early 
deployment. FMCSA also has a small project for adding Voice Recognition 
technology to this effort.
    Another area of active development is enhancement of data quality 
to further improve the prioritization systems. A new project is 
underway to evaluate how most effectively to use commercial driver 
citation data in the SafeStat system. There are also several projects 
underway to improve collection of commercial motor vehicle crash 
information.
    An additional benefit that identification of out-of-service 
violators has increased during the operation of the SAFER Data Mailbox 
(SDM). While this increase is influenced by a number of factors and is 
not completely attributable to the SDM, anecdotal information from 
individual users indicates that inspection queries to the SDM does help 
to identify violators. Individual enforcement officers have identified 
multiple offenders in a single shift using the SDM, including offenders 
with out-of-service violations and false log books that have been 
inspected earlier on the same trip.

                              DEPLOY CVISN

    Question. How are you using MCSAP funds to help the states deploy 
CVISN?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2000, we are using $2 million of MCSAP high 
priority funds to support the CVISN Level 1 deployment efforts in four 
pilot states. The use of MCSAP high priority funds is critical for 
helping the Department achieve the Congressional goal of completing 
CVISN deployment in a majority of states by September 30, 2003. By the 
end of fiscal year 2000, based on a combination of using MCSAP high 
priority and ITS program funds, eight states (two CVISN prototype 
states and six pilot states) will be fully funded to complete Level 1 
deployment.
    Both MCSAP and CVISN are focused on improving safety and reducing 
the number of crashes involving commercial motor vehicles. CVISN 
supports MCSAP by providing more timely and accurate safety and related 
credentialing information, enabling state enforcement officials to use 
their resources more effectively to concentrate on high-risk and 
previously uninspected carriers, vehicles, and drivers.

                            BORDER PROJECTS

    Question. Please list the border projects that were awarded during 
fiscal year 1999 and 2000, the recipients, and the purpose and nature 
of each project or activity along with associated funding amounts.
    Answer. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) 
authorizes the Secretary to dedicate up to 5 percent of the Motor 
Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funds for border commercial 
motor vehicle safety program and enforcement activities and projects. 
Congress has appropriated the full 5 percent for border assistance in 
fiscal year 1999 ($4,500,000) and fiscal year 2000 ($4,750,000). These 
funds have been made available to both the northern and southern border 
states. However, in recognition of the special problems faced by the 
southern border states in addressing the current safety concerns and in 
preparing for full implementation of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA), proposals received from California, Arizona, New 
Mexico, and Texas have received priority consideration. Of the amount 
made available in fiscal year 2000, we are reserving $575,000 to fund 
two projects which will benefit all border states: (1) develop software 
to provide better network access to border inspectors ($500,000) and 
(2) conduct a study to determine the extent of the safety problems 
associated with the cross-border commercial van operations commonly 
referred to as camionetas ($75,000). Sec. 212 of the Act of 1999 
requires that we complete a rulemaking to determine which small 
passenger vans should be covered by FMCSRs and, at a minimum, apply the 
safety regulations to camionetas. Following is a summary of the amount 
awarded to each state that applied for the funds:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal years--
                  State                  -------------------------------
                                               1999            2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California..............................      $1,505,800      $1,418,200
Arizona.................................         530,900         370,800
New Mexico..............................         551,000         553,800
Texas...................................       1,826,300       1,832,200
Washington..............................          60,000  ..............
Vermont.................................          26,000  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The majority of the funds were used for personnel services to step 
up state enforcement activities at the border. Other specific projects 
funded include purchasing vehicles, laptop computers and other 
equipment needed by inspectors, traffic enforcement activities, and 
development of software to integrate Mexican motor carriers into the 
existing automated pre-clearance systems. A portion of the funds 
allocated to California in fiscal year 2000 will also be used to 
conduct inspections targeting Mexico-domiciled commercial motor 
vehicles traveling beyond the scope of their operating authority.

                 INSPECTION PROGRAM AT SOUTHERN BORDERS

    Question. How have you addressed each of the findings and 
recommendations specified in the IG's report number TR-1999-034 which 
pertains to the effectiveness of the inspection program at the southern 
borders?
    Answer. We have responded to all the OIG's recommendations as 
follows. Many of these activities were under way prior to the OIG's 
report:
    Recommendation 1.--Supplement border states with requisite federal 
inspectors at border crossings, and provide inspection facilities 
including communication lines and computers.
    Response 1.--We have hired 40 federal inspectors to complement the 
116 state inspectors working in the Southwest border area and plan to 
hire an additional 20 inspectors in fiscal year 2001. In addition, we 
purchased modular office space, including telephone and electrical 
connections at six Texas locations. We continue to work with Customs 
and INS to address space limitations within the ports of entry.
    Recommendation 2.--Establish partnerships with border states to 
ensure requisite inspection presence is maintained at the border and 
throughout the states.
    Response 2.--We continue to provide the states special funding 
above basic Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) grants to 
conduct additional compliance and enforcement activities and to 
encourage the states to make certain that inspection facilities are 
given priority consideration in the state's application for grants made 
available under the TEA-21 National Corridor Planning and Development 
Program (Section 1118), the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program 
(Section 1119) and other Federal-Aid programs.
    Recommendation 3.--Expedite procedural changes for Mexican carriers 
to obtain authority to operate in U.S. and ensure carriers provide more 
thorough information including the procedures they will use to ensure 
compliance with U.S. safety regulations.
    Response 3.--We have drafted three related Notices of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRMS) that a include totally revised application 
procedures for Mexican motor carriers. The proposed three-step process 
involves a new application form, a safety screen, and compliance and 
enforcement procedures. The draft rules are currently under review 
within DOT.
    Recommendation 4.--Develop DOT identification numbers that will 
distinguish between commercial zone and long-haul Mexican trucks to 
serve as a control at the border for safety inspections and to expedite 
registration and insurance verification as border entry points are 
equipped with electronic scanning devices.
    Response 4.--One of the draft rules currently under review, 
contains a method for easy identification of the type of operating 
authority that will be granted to a Mexican carrier. We are also 
testing the use of technologies for the electronic identification of 
carriers at selected ports of entry. The goal is to be able to make 
available to safety inspectors at the border information related to a 
carrier's registration, insurance, and safety record.
    Recommendation 5.--Establish a NAFTA program director to address a 
consistent enforcement program from state to state, to identify needed 
resources and infrastructure improvements, and to quickly realign 
resources as needed.
    Response 5.--The FMCSA has established a North America Borders 
Safety Programs Division with a designated Chief to advance our safety 
interests along the border.
    Recommendation 6 (addressed to the Secretary).--Establish a federal 
interagency group to coordinate border issues with the many federal and 
state agencies with jurisdiction at the border.
    Response 6.--The Department regularly participates in five 
interagency working groups that also include Canadian and/or Mexican 
government officials. These groups are charged with coordinating and 
monitoring a wide range of issues related to cross-border operations, 
facilitation, and infrastructure planning. DOT chairs two of these five 
groups: the Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning (JWC) 
and the Transportation Consultative Group (TCG). In response to the 
inspector general's recommendation, the Office of the Secretary, which 
heads the TCG, will strengthen its efforts to solicit the views of U.S. 
federal and state agencies at U.S. delegation meetings to ensure that 
U.S. interests are properly and comprehensively represented at 
international meetings.

                     ALLOCATION OF INCENTIVE FUNDS

    Question. What progress have you made in developing regulations to 
determine the allocation of incentive funds under the MCSAP, and when 
are those regulations likely to be issued in final form?
    Answer. The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program Final Rule 
became effective April 20, 2000. Contained therein are regulations 
governing the allocation of MCSAP funds to the States, including 
Incentive Funds. The new distribution formulas will be used to allocate 
Basic Program Funds and Incentive Funds for fiscal year 2001.

                        RESEARCH BUDGET REQUEST

    Question. What aspects of your research budget request pertaining 
to MCSAP could legally be supported with MCSAP funding? Please break 
out and specify amounts and projects.
    Answer. The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) High 
Priority funds can be used to support Motor Carrier Research & 
Development (MC R&D) projects if the projects increase either the 
effectiveness or efficiency of state motor carrier safety activities. 
The FMCSA MCR&D program contains a Compliance and Enforcement focus 
area. The following projects in this focus area, which total $1,625,000 
in the fiscal year 2001 MCR&D budget request, address commercial motor 
vehicle enforcement procedures, data systems, and technologies:

Development, Evaluation, and Application of Brake Testing 
    Devices...................................................  $150,000
Development of Voice Recognition Technologies.................   200,000
Development and Testing of Unique Identifiers for the CDL 
    Program...................................................   200,000
Data Quality Enhancement Study................................   100,000
Evaluation of FMCSA Compliance & Enforcement Information 
    Process...................................................   250,000
Evaluation and Enhancement of CMV Driver Data Exchange........   300,000
Development of SafeStat Algorithm for Motor Coaches...........    75,000
Technology Deployment for Improved Hours-of-Service Compliance   350,000

    Even though the above research projects are eligible for MCSAP high 
priority funding, many states also seek high priority funds for state-
wide efforts. Typically, the requests exceed the monies available and 
only priority projects receive funding (See Q65 for High Priority 
Guidelines). Therefore, FMCSA believes that both MCSAP High Priority 
and MCR&D funding are needed to support the many improvements needed in 
Federal and state CMV enforcement programs.

                       OPENING OF SOUTHERN BORDER

    Question. Why is FMCSA requesting funds to hire additional staff to 
inspect vehicles at the border when it appears that the opening of the 
southern border does not appear to be imminent?
    Answer. Additional Federal staff at the border is needed to address 
the existing safety concerns as well as prepare for the full 
implementation of the NAFTA provisions. According to the NAFTA truck 
access provisions, the U.S. and Mexico were to have allowed access to 
each other's border states for the delivery and backhaul of cargo by 
December 1995. Also, by January 2000, all restrictions on cross-border 
trucking were to have been lifted providing access to and from any 
point in each other's country. Even though these cross-border 
provisions have not been implemented because of safety concerns about 
Mexican operations, Mexican trucks have been and continue to be allowed 
to enter the U.S. and operate in limited commercial zones along the 
border. These zones are generally within a radius of two to twenty 
miles from the nearest U.S. border city. The NAFTA placed a new focus 
on the safety concerns that exist on the Southern border and the need 
to increase compliance and enforcement activities in advance of NAFTA.
    Our efforts in dealing with these safety concerns include both 
short term and long term strategies: In the short term we have hired 40 
Federal inspectors to augment the existing state enforcement presence 
at the border and plan to hire an additional 20 inspectors in 2001. 
These Federal inspectors are needed until states are able to assume all 
enforcement responsibilities. In the long term, we believe that the 
most effective means to ensure safe cross-border operations is through 
continued strengthening of the long-standing federal-state partnership 
created by the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP). As the 
states build and staff inspection facilities along the border within 
the next five to seven years, the Federal presence at the border will 
be decreased and inspectors will be reassigned to other 
responsibilities. As with all performance results approaches, specific 
periodic evaluations will be designed to assist in this decision.

              HIGHEST INCIDENT OF MOTOR CARRIER ACCIDENTS

    Question. Please provide a list of the ten highway facilities with 
the highest incident of motor carrier accidents with loss of life over 
the past five years.
    Answer. The following table lists the type of highway facility on 
which fatal crashes involving at least one large truck occurred in the 
last five-year period for which data are available. Almost one-fourth 
(23 percent) of all fatal truck crashes took place on rural principal 
arterial highways other than interstates. Over half of the fatal 
crashes took place on rural roads.

           FATAL CRASHES INVOLVING LARGE TRUCKS, 1994 TO 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fatal crashes
              Roadway function class               ---------------------
                                                      Total     Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural--Other Principle Arterial...................      5,066         23
Rural--Minor Arterial.............................      2,932         13
Rural--Interstate.................................      2,794         13
 Urban--Other Principle Arterial..................      2,489         11
Rural--Major Collector............................      2,383         11
Urban--Interstate.................................      2,068          9
Urban--Minor Arterial.............................      1,209          5
Rural--Local Road.................................        842          4
Urban--Local Road.................................        690          3
Urban--Freeway/Expressway.........................        785          4
Rural--Minor Collector............................        427          2
Urban--Collector..................................        278          2
Unknown...........................................        192          1
                                                   ---------------------
      Total.......................................     22,155       100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 1994-1998.

                INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ANALYSIS SECTION

    Question. How do you intend on using the $5 million of additional 
funds provided for information systems and analysis that are authorized 
in MCSIA?
    Answer. The $5 million will be used for the Section 225 truck and 
bus crash data improvement project. In this project, FMCSA will work 
with NHTSA and the states to improve the timeliness, completeness and 
accuracy of commercial vehicle crash data.

                COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH CAUSATION

    Question. Will FMCSA allocate $5 million during fiscal year 2001 to 
fund a study on commercial motor vehicle crash causation? How will 
these funds be used? Please detail the scope and nature of cooperative 
arrangements with NHTSA to improve data analysis and to conduct crash 
causation studies.
    Answer. The budget for the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (CCS) 
for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal years--
                Activity                 -------------------------------
                                               2000            2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation Research Board advisory          $188,000        $194,000
 committee..............................
Accident Expert.........................         100,000         100,000
State MCSAP Agencies....................         500,000         900,000
MCSAP post crash vehicle truck                    40,000         100,000
 inspection training....................
NHTSA--Training.........................          17,000           2,000
NHTSA--Data form and coding manual               122,000          40,000
 development............................
NHTSA--Data collection..................       1,140,000       2,989,000
NHTSA--Software design and maintenance..         893,000         675,000
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL.............................       3,000,000       5,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA and NHTSA have designed a crash causation study within the 
framework of NHTSA's National Automotive Sampling System. Beginning 
with the pilot study in four NASS sites this summer and continuing in 
all 24 sites in 2001, crash causation data will be collected on 
approximately 1,000 serious truck crashes. MCSAP inspectors will 
conduct post crash Level 1 inspections on all the trucks selected for 
the study. Both the NASS researchers and the MCSAP inspectors will 
receive special training to be able to collect the information 
necessary to determine the primary and secondary causes of the sampled 
crashes. Data will be entered in the field electronically and will be 
uploaded to a national database. A Transportation Research Board 
advisory committee will meet twice a year for three years to evaluate 
the study design, data collection protocol and preliminary results. 
FMCSA has hired a consultant who formally was in charge of NHTSA's 
Special Crash Investigation division and is an expert on crash 
reconstruction and analysis to review and evaluate every detail of the 
project.

                INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ANALYSIS SECTION

    Question. Please break out how the fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 
2000, and fiscal year 2001 funds for information systems and analysis 
have been or will be allocated. How much of these funds was or will be 
used for FMCSA-generated studies and information systems and how much 
was or will be allocated directly to the states?
    Answer. The Information Systems budget is shown in the table below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal years--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       1999            2000            2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis........................................................        $800,000      $1,100,000      $2,300,000
Information Systems.............................................       3,200,000       3,200,000       3,700,000
Driver..........................................................       1,000,000         825,000       1,000,000
PRISM...........................................................       5,000,000       4,875,000       5,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      10,000,000      10,000,000      12,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The majority of the Driver and PRISM funds go directly to the 
states for driver safety initiatives or to participate in the PRISM 
program. In general, the information systems funds do not go directly 
to the states, but support data systems that are used by the states to 
retrieve and upload safety data. In fiscal year 2000, however, one 
state did receive a $500,000 grant for information systems work. The 
analysis funds support FMCSA-generated studies and do not go directly 
to the states.

                            PERSONNEL ISSUES

    Question. Please prioritize the positions requested.
    Answer. New Administration positions. FMCSA proposal to add 49 
positions to ``staff out'' the management and administration and of 
this new Administration will provide a staff, that by comparison, is 
less than half the staffing level at similar sized DOT operating 
administrations. These positions are considered the minimum of 
additional personnel needed to effectively operate as an independent 
administration in fiscal year 2001. Prioritizing these necessary 
positions would require an evaluation of compromises to the overall 
delivery of FMCSA programs. The 4* ``program positions'' of the 49 have 
less priority than those needed to provide basic management and 
administration of the FMCSA. Additional Program Positions (prioritized 
below).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Additional
                                                   Existing    positions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New administrative positions:
    Agency Management...........................           1           9
    Regulatory Ombudsman........................  ..........           1
    Executive Secretariat.......................  ..........           4
    Civil Rights Office.........................  ..........           3
    Public and Consumer Affairs Office..........           2           3
    Chief Counsel Office \1\....................           2          26
    Fiscal & Budget Staff.......................           2           5
    Personnel Staff.............................           1           6
    Management Services Staff \2\...............           4           6
    Passenger Carrier & International Program...           8          4*
Additional Program Staff Priorities:
    Safety Investigators........................         220          42
    Border Inspectors...........................          40          20
    Crash Data Analyst..........................  ..........           1
    UCR Specialist..............................  ..........           1
    Technology Specialists......................           7           4
    Regulatory Staff............................           7           1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: 17.6 Motor Carrier Legal Positions to be transferred from the
  FHWA.
\2\ Note: Includes 3 existing FOIA positions.

    Question. Please provide additional justification for each of the 
positions requested. Please discuss each request in terms of workload, 
agency performance goals, impacts on not funding, ability to use 
existing field staff or attorneys, and number of personnel already 
conducting similar functions.
    Answer.
    New Administration positions.--The additional staff proposed to 
manage and administer the FMCSA is considered the minimum to deliver 
the critical motor carrier safety programs that have been legislatively 
established. The eight administrative positions that are now assigned 
these duties are presently complemented by the full administrative 
support of the FHWA. Without FHWA support in fiscal year 2001, the 
first 46 positions listed above are necessary to establish an FMCSA 
management structure and operate an Office of Administration for 
fiduciary responsibility, management services and human resources. It 
is planned that with the limited administrative staff requested, FMCSA 
will have to procure the majority of support services needed to 
operate. For example, FMCSA will procure from another DOT operating 
administration services for a financial management system. The impact 
of not funding these critical management and administrative positions 
includes the possibility that the operation of FMCSA will have adverse 
effects on program objectives. The remaining 6 positions are program 
positions that address Congressional priorities identified in MCSIA.
    Additional Program Positions.--FMCSA has prioritized the 
enforcement and compliance of federal motor carrier safety regulations 
through increased compliance reviews of motor carriers. To advance this 
initiative 42 additional safety investigator are proposed to be hired 
and assigned to locations that will be selected based on carrier 
performance and existing staffing levels. In addition, 20 new border 
inspectors are proposed to increase our ability to better inspect the 
border crossings. Adding these 62 field positions is considered the 
highest FMCSA staffing priority. The remaining 7 positions support 
selected program initiatives that will deliver legislated initiatives 
and high FMCSA priorities for meeting the goal to reduce motor carrier 
related fatalities by 50 percent in ten years. The four technology 
positions are particularly important since technological advances in 
motor carrier safety are necessary to reach the 50 percent fatality 
goal.
    FMCSA's highest priority is the effective and efficient operation 
of our ``front line'' field organization that delivers the program at 
the state level. Consideration is not being given to utilizing field 
staff to complement headquarters administrative or program operations. 
In addition, all motor carrier associated field legal support is 
obtained from the FHWA. On October 1st, FHWA will transfer 17.6 legal 
positions to the FMCSA comprised of FHWA staff that presently support 
motor carrier initiatives and vacant positions.
    All of the 118 positions that are proposed to be added to FMCSA are 
identified and discussed in the attached report, ``Justification for 
Additional Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Personnel.'' The 
comparison of existing and proposed positions is presented in the table 
provided in response to the previous question.
                                 ______
                                 

       Questions Submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

           LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE FOR TRANSFER OF MAGLEV FUNDS

    Question. Has legislative language been proposed in the fiscal year 
2001 Federal Highway Administration budget to authorize this transfer 
of maglev funds to FRA for non-maglev program purposes? Would such 
legislative authority be necessary to enable this transfer?
    Answer. The FHWA budget contains an obligation ceiling 
($25,000,000) for the maglev program and specific authority for FRA 
administrative expenses and technical assistance ($3,500,000 of the 
$25,000,000). Since Section 1218 of TEA-21, which authorized the maglev 
program, contains no specific authorization for highway trust funds to 
be spent for non-maglev purposes, specific legislative authority is 
required to enable the contemplated transfer of $1,500,000 to non-
maglev programs. FRA would be happy to assist the Committee in drafting 
such legislative authority, if requested.

            IMPACT OF NOT RECEIVING $1.5M IN MAGLEV FUNDING

    Question. Assuming that this proposed transfer is not enacted by 
the appropriation process, what budgeted programs would you cut in 
Safety and Operations to make up the $1,500,000 shortfall?
    Answer. If the $1.5 million was not provided to the Safety & 
Operations account, FRA would be forced to reduce safety staffing and 
travel, other administrative costs, the Operation Lifesaver grant and 
the ATIP contract. These reductions would have a detrimental impact on 
our mission.
    Therefore, it is critical that the $1.5 million be transferred to 
FRA from the maglev program.

                   ATIP FISCAL YEAR 1998-2001 FUNDING

    Question. In February 1999, FRA awarded a $3,700,000 grant to 
ENSCO, Inc. of Springfield, Virginia for the acquisition of a new track 
geometry measurement vehicle to replace the T-10 track geometry 
measurement car. Please provide a detailed breakout of the program 
costs for ATIP in the fiscal years 1998, 1999, and budgeted for 2000 
and 2001. How much of the program costs in each of these years have 
gone toward the procurement of the new track geometry vehicle? What is 
the status of this procurement. Will the T-10 track geometry 
measurement car be retired, or remain in use?
    Answer. The program costs for fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 
2001 follow:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Fiscal year
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1998 actual     1999 actual   2000 projected  2001 requested
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Costs.................................      $1,325,000      $2,061,000      $2,925,000      $3,169,000
Equipment.......................................         350,000       2,761,000         589,000  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................       1,675,000       4,822,000       3,514,000       3,169,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The acquisition of a new track geometry car was awarded to the 
lowest bidder. The purchase price, $3.7 million, was $700 thousand more 
than FRA's original estimate. To accommodate the shortfall, FRA reduced 
the number of miles inspected in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 
for savings of $111 thousand, and $589 thousand, respectively. The 
fiscal year 2001 request reflects the total funds needed to operate the 
new track geometry inspection vehicle over 25,000 miles of track per 
year, the bare minimum needed for an effective track inspection 
program.
    Currently, ENSCO's subcontractor is fabricating the host vehicle. 
Completion is scheduled for June 2000. Following the construction of 
the host vehicle, ENSCO will install the computer processing equipment. 
FRA anticipates the delivery of the new track geometry vehicle in the 
Fall of 2000.
    The continued operation of FRA's current T-10 track geometry car in 
tandem with the new car is anticipated for a brief period, to 
facilitate calibration of the new system. To date, no decision has been 
made on the final disposition of the current T-10 vehicle.

                     LIGHT DENSITY LINE RAIL STUDY
  
  Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the small 
railroad investment needs and financial options study that was funded 
at a level of $150,000 in the fiscal year 2000 conference report. Will 
FRA work with any other entities, such as the American Short Line and 
Regional Railroad Association, in conducting this study? When will the 
study be completed?
    Answer. FRA has met with the American Short Line and Regional 
Railroad Association to define the approach of the study, which is 
costing $150,000. The study will be completed by the North Dakota State 
University, the entity that manages the National Short Line Railroad 
Database for the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association. 
FRA anticipates that the study will be completed within a year.

                    STUDY ON 286,000-POUND RAIL CARS

    Question. Is FRA currently conducting a study regarding track and 
bridge requirements for handling 286,000-pound rail cars, as the agency 
was encouraged to do in the fiscal 2000 House report? Will the findings 
of the 286,000-pound railcar study be incorporated into the investment 
needs study?
    Answer. The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association 
(ASLRRA) has recently submitted its grant application to FRA, 
requesting funds to carry out the study of 286,000-pound cars on light 
density rail lines. FRA is processing the application now and expects 
to award the grant shortly. The ASLRRA has already selected a 
contractor and expects the study to be completed in mid-summer 2000.
    The findings of this study of track and bridge requirements for 
286,000-pound cars will be available in time for inclusion into the 
investment needs study.

                  REQUEST FOR 10 ADDITIONAL POSITIONS

    Question. FRA is requesting 10 new railroad safety field positions 
in fiscal year 2001 (5 FTEs), with an associated dollar increase of 
$564,000. Is the expected time in service in fiscal year 2001 an 
average of 6 months? Please detail the anticipated deployment of these 
ten positions--what will the job titles, GS ranking, and field office 
assignment be for each? What is the average personnel cost per FTE?
    Answer. FRA is requesting a total of $564 thousand for 10 
positions. Funding provides salaries and expenses for 6 months (5 
FTEs). Of the $564 thousand requested, $391 thousand is for PC&B and 
$173 thousand is for expenses such as travel, IT and office equipment, 
training, rent, and other support costs. Depending on the grade and 
work performed, costs for each position range from $42--$77 thousand.
    Exact titles have not been established for each position nor the 
field assignment. Grades range from GS-11-14. The ten positions will 
enable FRA to address several critical safety priorities, including 
grade crossing, rulemaking, safety enforcement, railroad security, and 
other RSAC/SACP related assignments.

               PRIORITY OF ADDITIONAL POSITIONS REQUESTED

    Question. Please prioritize the new positions requested, indicating 
which are most important in view of the most pressing demands on FRA.
    Answer. All of the positions are important and critical in meeting 
the demands placed upon FRA. FRA is committed to meeting each of its 
safety measures. FRA's ability to achieve these goals can be attained 
only through a commitment to a broad array of safety initiatives. The 
10 additional positions will enable FRA to keep its safety commitments.

                  FUNDING FOR FATIGUE COUNTERMEASURES

    Question. Is FRA currently funding any partnership work on fatigue 
countermeasures with the North American Rail Alertness Partnership or 
the National Sleep Foundation, or with other organizations such as rail 
labor unions? If so, please detail these contracts.
    Answer. Under Technical Support for Human Factor Issues, FRA's 
Office of Research and Development contracts the Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) to study a variety of topics, of 
which fatigue may be a component. Examples of current Volpe activities 
where fatigue may be a study component include 1-person crew operation 
of Amtrak locomotives, locomotive cab ergonomics, and rail yard and 
terminal safety.
    FRA founded and sponsors meetings of the North American Rail 
Alertness Partnership (NARAP) and agency representatives attend 
meetings with the National Sleep Foundation, where strategies for 
fatigue countermeasures are being discussed. The railroad industry has 
begun to implement innovative measures to combat the threat of fatigue 
based on the findings and recommendations of NARAP. Many of these 
efforts are still in the embryonic stages. In March 1999, an agreement 
between the carriers, the United Transportation Union, and the 
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers specifically deals with addressing 
fatigue.
    The $300 thousand requested in fiscal year 2001 in the Safety and 
Operations account, will allow FRA to develop implementation strategies 
and facilitate partnership efforts to further the adoption of fatigue 
mitigation programs throughout the railroad industry. The funding also 
will be used to help FRA obtain more accurate and complete data 
regarding the role of fatigue in rail related accidents. Currently, 
protocols for obtaining such documentation are unreliable. Delays in 
addressing fatigue-related accident analysis will result in the 
unnecessary loss of lives.

                NHTSA'S WORK ON FATIGUE COUNTERMEASURES

    Question. Is FRA aware of or involved with any of the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ongoing work on fatigue 
countermeasures? Please describe the level of involvement, if any, in 
these efforts.
    Answer. The Office of Safety has recently established informal 
partnerships with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA), at the regional level, to discuss the exchange of information 
regarding fatigue related issues. FRA is interested in using the 
results from NHTSA's drowsy driver initiative to address the fatigue 
concerns of the Brotherhood of Maintenance-of-Way Employees and the 
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen. Excessive travel requirements-and 
possible fatigue ramifications-constitute a significant safety concern 
for the members of these two rail labor organizations.
    Under Secretary Slater's ONE DOT Initiative, the entire Department 
coordinates its activities on fatigue and other human factors issues.

                      STAFFING FOR FATIGUE PROGRAM

    Question. What level of commitment does FRA envision being 
associated with this $300,000 program request?
    Answer. The Office of Safety has allocated 1.5 FTEs to fatigue-
related issues which includes the position, Transportation Fatigue 
Program Coordinator. FRA will use the initial funding for a systematic 
approach to assessing how fatigue affects the rail industry and the 
lives of its employees and customers. With continued annual support of 
this effort, cost effective approaches to fatigue issues can be 
developed and implemented.
    In addition, the funding will provide the stimulus for expanding 
the Administration's fatigue awareness initiatives within the railroad 
industry. Initiatives associated with education and training (including 
the development of innovative work/rest pilot projects) could also be 
significantly accelerated. This will result in a reduction in injuries 
and fatalities. Other initiatives that could be implemented or refined 
include: (a) initiating near-miss pilot programs, (b) sponsoring 
industry-wide conferences or executive roundtable discussions to 
expedite solutions, (c) identifying and expediting fatigue 
countermeasures for non-operating employees, and (d) contracting the 
services of recognized experts in fatigue countermeasures to help 
expand outreach/partnerships to rail and non-rail entities pertaining 
to fatigue countermeasures.
    The National Transportation Safety Board estimates that human 
factor-caused accidents (including those containing a fatigue 
component) constitute nearly 35 percent of all train accidents. An 
effective fatigue mitigation program could reduce human factor-caused 
train accidents by nearly a third.
    The fundamental mandate of the Office of Safety is to undertake 
whatever initiatives or measures are available to ensure the safest 
environment within the railroad industry for employees, customers 
(shippers/public), and all other stakeholders. The recognition and 
resolution of fatigue problems is an integral issue in current and 
future FRA initiatives. Under DOT's Safety Strategic Goal, fatigue 
issues are a Flagship Initiative.

                OPERATION LIFESAVER AND OUTREACH PROGRAM

    Question. In fiscal year 2000, the conferees increased funding for 
Operation Lifesaver from $600,000 to $950,000, and designated the 
$350,000 increase as seed money for a national public service campaign 
that has the financial and technical support of the railroad industry, 
FRA, and the law enforcement community. Have those contract funds been 
released to Operation Lifesaver? What is the current status of the 
national public service campaign effort?
    Answer. Operation Lifesaver, Incorporated (OLI) operates on a 
calendar year budget cycle. Upon completion of a required annual 
financial audit, OLI applies for the annual FRA grant. For fiscal year 
2000, FRA received OLI's grant request on February 28, 2000. FRA 
anticipates the first release of funds under the grant in April 2000.
    The national public service campaign effort is well underway. FRA, 
OLI, and the Association of American Railroads have met several times 
to discuss basic concepts and have agreed upon key campaign issues. Law 
enforcement interests are represented by the OLI Program Development 
Council's Law Enforcement Committee whose members represent various 
state and railroad police and a representative from the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police. Requests for proposals were received 
in January 2000, and a contractor and an advertising agency have been 
selected. Design of the public service announcements currently are 
underway. Upon completion, they will be tested on focus groups in at 
least four major cities across the nation before being implemented 
nationwide.

              REQUEST FOR GRADE CROSSING OUTREACH PROGRAM

    Question. In the fiscal year 2001 budget request, FRA is requesting 
$500,000 for a highway-rail grade crossing safety outreach program. Is 
this request a follow-on to the national public service campaign, with 
the funds provided to Operation Lifesaver through the normal contract 
process? Or is this a new, unique FRA outreach program, conducted 
separately from Operation Lifesaver's public awareness and education 
efforts? If it would be a separate new program, why is this necessary? 
What unique and value-added contributions can FRA make that could not 
be accomplished by Operation Lifesaver?
    Answer. The funds requested in fiscal year 2001 will be used to 
develop a new coordinated and branded public outreach program to 
promote crossing safety. This effort will build on the national public 
service campaign conducted by Operation Lifesaver, Incorporated (OLI). 
FRA's campaign will be a comprehensive, long term program, developed in 
coordination with OLI, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Highway Administration, Office of 
Motor Carrier Safety, the Federal Transit Administration, the 
Association of American Railroads, rail labor and others.
    The outreach program will explore the use of multiple messages 
targeted to specific audiences. It will utilize pilot programs and 
assessment tools to test the effectiveness of proposed slogans and 
campaigns before they are implemented on a widespread basis. Some of 
the funding will be used to broaden FRA's outreach to the law 
enforcement and judicial communities, and to develop materials to 
support these outreach efforts. Efforts also will be undertaken to 
develop outreach strategies that address initiatives that have not 
historically fallen within the purview of OLI. These include outreach 
to communities that will be impacted by the Federal Train Horn Rule, 
and development of educational materials concerning grade crossing 
safety on rail lines that are converted to shared light rail/freight 
rail operations. In addition, different partnerships will be developed 
that need unique outreach support. These include non-traditional 
partnerships with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's), national 
insurance institutes, car manufacturers, and truck manufacturers.

                      FRA VS OLI OUTREACH CAMPAIGN

    Question. How is it considered cost-effective for FRA to seek funds 
to hire another firm to develop and carry out a ``branded'' PSA 
campaign containing the same elements as the OLI/FRA/AAR campaign that 
was approved and funded in fiscal year 2000? Doesn't this duplicate 
FRA's ongoing support to Operation Lifesaver?
    Answer. The ``branding'' effort that FRA proposes does not contain 
the same elements as the OLI/AAR campaign approved and funded in fiscal 
year 2000. It would build on that existing work and involve close 
cooperation with OLI, the railroad industry, law enforcement, the 
judicial system and other non-traditional partners. The process will 
involve identification of a ``brand'' name and methods of assuring that 
the name recognition for grade crossing safety and trespass prevention 
messages resonate with the public. It would also identify and/or modify 
internal and external management and communication processes that 
facilitate delivery of a consistent message. In that sense, it focuses 
on the development of effective management and communication strategies 
that most effectively deliver that message.
    OLI/AAR development and promotion of the current Public Service 
Announcement (PSA) campaign will be a major component of FRA's 
initiative. However, the proposed initiative goes beyond delivery of a 
single message. It includes the development of an effective message 
delivery system and a set of analytical tools to determine the 
continued effectiveness of the message and the means for assuring the 
redevelopment of new messages that consistently promote the ``brand 
name'' associated with grade crossing safety and trespass prevention. 
The proposal will supplement, not duplicate PSA crossing safety work 
underway by OLI/AAR. It will be a comprehensive, long term program, 
developed in coordination with OLI, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Highway Administration, Office of 
Motor Carrier Safety, the Federal Transit Administration, the 
Association of American Railroads, rail labor, and others.
    The outreach program will explore the use of multiple messages 
targeted to specific audiences. FRA is already working with OLI and the 
rail industry to prepare a demographic study of trespassers. FRA also 
will ask NHTSA to update their 1994 demographic study of crossing-
related fatalities. The outreach program will utilize pilot programs 
and assessment tools to test the effectiveness of proposed slogans and 
campaigns before they are implemented on a widespread basis. Some of 
the funding will be used to broaden FRA's outreach to the law 
enforcement and judicial communities, and to develop materials to 
support these outreach efforts. Efforts will be undertaken to develop 
outreach strategies that address initiatives that have not historically 
fallen within the purview of OLI. These include outreach to communities 
that will be impacted by the Federal Train Horn Rule, and development 
of educational materials concerning grade crossing safety on rail lines 
that are converted to shared light rail/freight rail operations. In 
addition, different partnerships will be developed that need unique 
outreach support. These include non-traditional partnerships with 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, national insurance institutes, car 
manufacturers, and truck manufacturers.

                        INCREASE IN TRAVEL COSTS

    Question. In the object classification table for Safety and 
Operations, the request for ``travel and transportation of persons'' 
increased $630,000 above the enacted base of $7,126,000. Is the 
$500,000 increases in safety travel part of this increase? What type of 
travel is the remaining $130,000 in the request associated with?
    Answer. The $630 thousand increase reflects the following:

Safety travel.................................................  $500,000
Ten new positions travel......................................    27,000
Inflation and PCS-related increases...........................   103,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   630,000
              impact of no increase in fra's travel budget
    Question. What steps could be taken to reduce travel expenses if 
the $500,000 requested additional travel funds are not provided?
    Answer. With little discretionary spending authority, FRA will need 
to reduce planned community outreach and railroad partnership 
activities if the requested travel funds are not provided. This will 
occur at a time when FRA's safety responsibilities continue to grow, in 
large part due to fulfillment of statutory mandates to conduct 
rulemakings and special studies.
    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.
    As a result of increased public, congressional, and Administration 
expectations for the railroad safety program, FRA finds itself in a 
position of extreme vulnerability. Without sufficient travel funds FRA 
may find it necessary to curtail some SACP activities and random 
inspection activity. A travel fund shortfall would constrain FRA from 
assisting local communities that request FRA assistance in addressing 
adverse impacts of rail mergers (e.g., noise exposure, blocked highway-
rail crossings and rail congestion issues) and in implementing new 
rules for quiet zones. The current breakup of Conrail poses potential 
major safety issues and FRA continues to work with communities 
experiencing effects of the BNSF and UP/SP mergers.

                     TOTAL AND INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL

    Question. Please identify total agency travel expenses for each of 
the last five years, and list the purpose of each foreign trip and 
associated expenses taken by each SES and political appointee staff 
person in the last year.
    Answer. Total FRA travel obligations for the last five years are as 
follows:

        Fiscal year                                               Amount

1995....................................................      $5,978,000
1996....................................................       5,673,000
1997....................................................       6,273,000
1998....................................................       6,379,000
1999....................................................       6,868,000

    FRA SES and political appointees attended 10 foreign events in 
fiscal year 1999 as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Number of    Total
                   Trip purpose                     travelers     cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attend and participate in the Eurailspeed                   1     $1,538
 Conference (Berlin)..............................
Attend and participate in the American Public               3      4,242
 Transit Commuter Rail/Rapid Transit Conference
 (Toronto)........................................
Implement technical assistance provision of                 3      8,080
 Memorandum of Cooperation with the Polish Rail
 System (Warsaw)..................................
Attend and participate in the Border                        1      1,400
 Infrastructure Conference (Tijuana)..............
Assess policy and procedures for shared use of              1      1,471
 track (Karlsruhe)................................
Attend and participate in Safety Conference                 1        458
 (Buenos Aires)...................................
Attend and participate in Transport Canada meeting          1        776
 (Montreal).......................................
Attend and participate in Transport Canada meeting          1        885
 (Toronto)........................................
Attend and participate in Transport Canada meeting          1        818
 (Ottawa).........................................
Attend and participate in International Railway             1      1,690
 Safety Conference (Banff)........................
                                                   ---------------------
      Total.......................................         14     21,358
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      FUNDS FOR PROGRAM EVALUATION

    Question. Please prepare a table that outlines the current base 
level funding, if any, for each of the six initiatives outlined under 
this requested increase (highway-rail grade crossing closure study, 
highway-rail grade crossing warning device study, safety integration 
plan merger surveillance tracking, study to amend passenger car safety 
standards, switching operations fatality analysis study, and safety and 
health committee support). Indicate the amount of the fiscal year 2001 
request, and any planned outyear costs (if known).
    Answer. The information follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Current     Fiscal
                                                       base    year 2001
                                                     funding     request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway-rail grade crossing closure study.........  .........        100
Highway-rail grade crossing warning device........  .........        100
Safety integration plan surveillance of mergers     .........    \1\ 150
 tracking.........................................
Study to amend passenger car safety standards.....  .........        100
Switching operations fatality analysis study......  .........         35
Safety and health committee support...............  .........     \2\ 13
                                                   ---------------------
      Total--Program Evaluation...................  .........        500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This amount is required annually for five years (fiscal year 2001--
  fiscal year 2006).
\2\ This amount is required annually and would be adjusted to reflect
  inflationary costs and new OSHA Safety and Health requirements, as new
  regulations are issued.

                 FISCAL YEAR 2000 IT INITIATIVE FUNDING

    Question. What is the base level for the IT initiative? Please 
break out personnel related costs and program funding.
    Answer. In fiscal year 2000, FRA was appropriated $732,000 for the 
IT initiative--$689,000 in program costs and $43,000 in personnel 
related costs.

                 COST OF ANNUALIZED FTE FOR IT PROJECT

    Question. How much of the requested increase for the IT initiative 
supports annualization of the new position approved in fiscal year 
2000?
    Answer. A total of $35,000 is included in the fiscal year 2001 
request for the annualized FTE.

          IT INITIATIVE--IMPACT OF FIVE-YEAR VS FOUR-YEAR PLAN

    Question. As directed by the conferees in the fiscal year 2000 
conference report, FRA provided supplementary materials with the fiscal 
year 2001 budget request which detailed the agency's spending plan for 
the FRA-wide IT initiative. The total cost of this initiative is 
$9,946,000 over four years (fiscal year 2000-fiscal year 2003). If 
budgetary constraints forced the program implementation to be spread 
over five years, what adjustments would be made to the fiscal year 2001 
program budget?
    Answer. Specific adjustments cannot be determined without knowing 
if funding constraints would be imposed in fiscal year 2001 or 
outyears. If reductions were made to the fiscal year 2001 request, FRA 
would be forced to delay the start of the data mart initiative and 
possibly the detailed transition plan to an ATM backbone.

                   BASE FUNDING FOR WEB-SITE SUPPORT

    Question. What is the base level funding for web-site support? 
Please break out personnel related costs and program funding.
    Answer. There are no base funds for web-site support in fiscal year 
2000. Work has been absorbed by staff in various program offices. 
However, due to the increasing workload in this area and the need for 
technical expertise in enhancing and expanding FRA's web-site, FRA 
cannot continue to divert staff from program work to IT work, nor 
continue to lag behind other DOT agencies in providing up-to-date web-
site information. FRA needs dedicated staff or contract support, for 
this new IT tool. FRA is requesting $310 thousand in contract support 
in fiscal year 2001.

                  FRA SAFETY WEBSITE--NEW APPLICATIONS

    Question. Please detail the new applications that would be added to 
the safety portion of the FRA website with a funding increase of 
$300,000 (include associated costs for each).
    Answer. The FRA Safety Data web page provides both the FRA and 
outside users with charts, graphs, dynamic programs where users can 
build their own requests for information, and retrievable databases. 
The FRA also has a secure page for internal use, such as Complaint 
Investigations and individual inspections by inspector.
    There are a number of new Internet website applications which FRA 
would like to offer. First, FRA has started collecting information 
about railroad activity by county. This information could be displayed 
on the Internet website with the accident and inspection information. 
The addition of this information will provide FRA management with a 
better picture of railroad activities and resource considerations: 
approximate cost $145,000.
    The highway-rail grade crossing inventory data is already on the 
web site. However, many times the requestor does not know the crossing 
identification number. A new search application would allow the user to 
find any highway-rail crossing on a map with street names and railroad 
tracks. The user could then select that crossing and get pertinent 
information (i.e., accidents, if crossing has a hump, number of trains, 
etc.). One added benefit is that concerned citizens can be alerted to 
crossings that have high exposure to accidents: approximate cost 
$55,000.
    Finally, the current highway-rail crossing inventory is completed 
separately by states and railroads using FRA-supplied client software. 
This information is mailed into FRA for updating the inventory 
database. FRA would like to develop a new application that allows 
states and railroads to complete the highway-rail grade crossing 
inventory on FRA's Internet website. This would allow states and 
railroads to communicate quickly with each other on changes to highway-
rail crossing information: approximate cost $100,000.

                   INCREASE FOR EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT

    Question. What is currently spent annually on employee development 
(for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and budgeted for 2000 and 2001)? Why is 
an increase of $660,000 needed above the base funding for fiscal year 
2001?
    Answer. FRA obligated $384 thousand and $464 thousand for training 
or employee development in fiscal year 1998-1999 respectively. A total 
of $662 thousand is budgeted in fiscal year 2000.
    FRA is requesting a total of $1.34 million in fiscal year 2001, an 
increase of $678 thousand over fiscal year 2000. Of this amount, $9 
thousand is related to the requested ten new positions and $660 
thousand is needed to enhance FRA's employee development program and 
workforce planning activities.
    Currently, FRA's training budget reflects only 1 percent of its 
annual payroll as compared to 2.65 percent provided by private 
industries and other Federal entities. The requested increase will 
allow FRA to increase its training budget to approximately 2 percent of 
its payroll. More important, it will allow FRA to begin developing a 
comprehensive workforce planning strategy that addresses skills 
assessment and training, recruitment and retention of employees, 
diversity and other activities that support both organizational and 
individual goals. Due to the robust economy and resulting competition 
for skilled professionals, the aging workforce (more than 50 percent of 
FRA's employees are over 48) and the impact of technology on work 
conditions and skills, it is critical for FRA to begin planning for 
what the Comptroller General has described as the ``human capital 
crisis'' in the Federal Government.

            FISCAL YEAR 1999 EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

    Question. Please detail all employee development activities in 
fiscal year 1999, describing each conference, class, workshop or 
training session; number of FRA employees attending; and cost. What is 
the budgeted funding level for employee development in fiscal year 2000 
and requested for fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. The FRA offers and encourages annual participation in a 
variety of learning and development opportunities to its employees, 
e.g., off-the-shelf, in-house and technical training. FRA's employee 
development or training is for the most part, managed at the office 
level and there is no central source for detailed data. Actual total 
obligations for training in fiscal year 1999 were $384 thousand. The 
FRA also supports and provides for tuition reimbursement, as 
appropriate.
    A total of $662 thousand and $1.34 million is budgeted in fiscal 
year 2000 and 2001 respectively. The requested increase in fiscal year 
2001 will allow FRA to continue individual training and begin to 
coordinate agency-wide career development programs that will meet the 
needs of the organization.

               FEDERAL COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

    Question. Please list the number of enforcement actions, the amount 
of civil penalty assessments, the amounts collected or settled, and the 
number and types of violation reports submitted for each of the past 
three years and relate these measures to your continuing efforts 
proposed for fiscal year 2001. What percentage of these actions have 
come from federal inspectors and what percentage from state inspectors?
    Answer. The tables below reflect the number of cases in which FRA 
assessed an initial penalty for fiscal years 1997-1999, the aggregate 
penalty assessment in those cases, the number of cases closed, the 
amounts collected, and the number and types of violation reports 
received from inspectors, with a breakdown of the percentage of those 
reports received from state and Federal inspectors. Cases transmitted 
in a given year are often settled in a following year, so the amounts 
assessed in a given year do not correlate directly with the amounts 
collected in the same year. These tables demonstrate a substantial 
civil penalty program that will continue to be a major activity of FRA 
inspectors and attorneys in fiscal year 2001. These enforcement actions 
directly support achievement of the agency's safety goals.

                            CASES TRANSMITTED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Dollars
              Fiscal year                  No. of cases      assessed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997....................................           1,014      $7,531,250
1998....................................           1,022       9,991,250
1999....................................             958       8,741,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              CASES CLOSED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
               Fiscal year                 No. of cases      collected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997....................................             972      $3,792,380
1998....................................           1,482       5,213,595
1999....................................           1,122       6,046,050
------------------------------------------------------------------------


              NUMBER OF VIOLATION REPORTS SUBMITTED BY TYPE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year
                  Type                  --------------------------------
                                            1997       1998       1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AD.....................................         94         90         52
AR.....................................        128        142        286
BW.....................................          2          1          3
EP.....................................          5  .........  .........
EQ.....................................         29         37         21
FCS....................................        224        178        298
GC.....................................         24         44         37
GS.....................................  .........  .........          2
HMT....................................        358        406        291
HS.....................................        213        146        211
HSR....................................        370        453        106
LI.....................................        363        411        217
REM....................................         16          2          2
ROP....................................         25         38         17
ROR....................................          4          5          4
RSP....................................         13          3          3
RW.....................................          4         36         20
SA.....................................        358        836        297
SI.....................................         72         42         47
TS.....................................         66         82         93
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................      2,368      2,952      2,007
                                        ================================
Federal Inspectors (percent)...........         88         89         86
State Inspectors (percent).............         12         11         14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  FISCAL YEAR 1999 SAFETY INSPECTIONS

    Question. How many miles of track, freight cars, locomotives, and 
track miles with signals and train control systems were inspected last 
year? Please compare this level of inspection activity with that 
achieved during the two preceding years. What changes in emphasis are 
envisioned for fiscal year 2001 and how does the budget request 
demonstrate those changes?
    Answer. Below is a comparison of preliminary 1999 inspection data 
with that of the previous two years. FRA collects the number of signal 
and train control devices inspected each year, but not the number of 
track miles with signal and train control systems.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Percent    Percent
                                          1999 \1\    change     change
                                                    from 1998  from 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track Miles Inspected..................    227,915      -10.0       -8.3
Freight Cars Inspected.................    599,376       +5.8       +5.9
Locomotives Inspected..................     24,819      +10.2      +12.0
Signal Units Inspected.................     93,842      +25.7     +30.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.

    A total of 12,600 track inspections were performed in 1999, which 
represents a slight increase of 102 inspections above the number 
performed in 1998. Despite the 10 percent decline in track miles 
inspected, 73,000 defects were detected in 1999, which represents a 
15.7 percent increase in defects from the previous year. Finding more 
defects over less trackage is an indication that the ``Focused 
Enforcement'' policy of FRA's Safety Assurance and Compliance program 
is working. It is also an indication that the ever increasing amounts 
of freight traffic are taking a toll on the nation's track structure.
    The 10 percent decline in the number of track miles inspected can 
be attributed to two factors. First, with the increase in railroad 
traffic, it becomes increasingly difficult to secure inspection time on 
the track. Second, it takes longer to perform track inspections on a 
section of track with many defects than on a track section with few 
defects. The track inspector often is required to stop and examine a 
defect, recording pertinent information and assuring that proper 
remedial action occurs. Because FRA inspections have been successfully 
targeted on rail lines with a greater number of defects, fewer miles of 
track were inspected, despite a slight increase in the number of 
inspections.
    FRA will continue to leverage its inspector resources by 
coordinating the Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) and 
site-specific inspection duties in the most effective way. The goal of 
SACP and the site-specific inspection program is to improve rail safety 
by reducing systemic hazards in rail facilities, equipment, rolling 
stock, and operations. FRA believes that it has achieved the proper 
balance between the SACP and site-specific inspections.

                            SACP CHALLENGES

    Question. Under the SACP, how many Class I and Class II railroads 
have been analyzed to date? How many railroads have had two SACP 
reviews? How many additional railroads need to be reviewed for the 
first time under the SACP? What are the successes and remaining 
challenges associated with the SACP? How does the fiscal year 2001 
budget attempt to improve the SACP?
    Answer. Since the inception of the SACP in 1995, the process has 
been aggressively implemented throughout the railroad industry to 
include all Class I carriers, a substantial number of Class II 
carriers, commuter rail authorities (under FRA's jurisdiction), and 
switching and terminal operators. In recent years, efforts have been 
expanded to incorporate the hundreds of short line carriers under 
various SACP related initiatives. With the transformation of the SACP 
process from a strictly audit review (with specific time frames) to the 
present ongoing partnership approach, the principles of SACP have been 
integrated into the Office of Safety's compliance and enforcement 
procedures. Routine inspection activities and those inspections of a 
``SACP nature'' have now been merged together, for all practical 
purposes, on Class I railroads. As a result, SACP inspections are 
continuously underway on large rail carriers' properties. Consequently, 
a quantitative measurement of the number of SACP examinations or audits 
per carrier provides no indication of the effectiveness of the process. 
Effectiveness is measured by improvements to a carrier's and the 
railroad industry's safety record. For example, between 1993 and 1999, 
the railroad industry reported the following safety improvements: 
employee on duty fatalities declined 34 percent, employee-on-duty 
casualties fell 45 percent, highway-rail grade crossing fatalities 
dropped 36 percent, and rail-related fatalities declined more than 28 
percent.
    The success of SACP extends beyond the important safety indices of 
reductions in injuries and fatalities. Dramatic changes in the safety 
culture are occurring within the industry. As a consequence, changes 
are occurring in disciplinary procedures, measures to address fatigue, 
deadhead transportation issues, and staffing considerations.
    The challenges facing SACP are complex. These include: (1) 
furthering the culture change, a slow and laborious task but one 
essential to the future of the industry; (2) refining the SACP process 
to ensure the participation of all employees, from the executive level 
to the newly hired rank-and-file employee; and (3) addressing 
complicated issues such as work/rest schedules, train lineup 
predictability, etc.
    The fiscal year 2001 budget request will significantly help to 
expedite meeting the above challenges by providing: (1) additional 
travel funds to reach more short line carriers, (2) additional staff--
to address workload demands, (3) additional IT and contract support 
funds--to help develop more comprehensive SACP related data bases and 
program evaluation initiatives, and (4) additional support for special 
outreach programs such as grade crossings and fatigue.

                 IMPACT OF SACP--FISCAL YEAR 1997-1999

    Question. Please provide quantitative measures to indicate trends 
in railroad safety, using a variety of measures of safety performance 
for each of the last three years. What do you suggest is the role of 
the SACP in the improvement of safety statistics?
    Answer.

                    CASUALTIES IN ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total
                 Year                  Fatalities   Injuries  casualties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................       1,063     11,767      12,830
1998.................................       1,008     11,459      12,467
1999 \1\.............................         915     11,309      12,224
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.


                                               ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            HWY-rail     Total
                                Year                                   Train      Other       xing    accidents/
                                                                     accidents  incidents   impacts    incidents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997...............................................................      2,397     10,437      3,865      16,699
1998...............................................................      2,575     10,420      3,508      16,503
1999 \1\...........................................................      2,661     10,161      3,420      16,242
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.


                        ACCIDENTS/PROPERTY DAMAGE
                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Accident/
                                     Train      Total train     million
               Year                accidents     accidents      train-
                                                  damage         miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.............................      2,397        $225,723        3.54
1998.............................      2,575         248,292        3.77
1999 \1\.........................      2,661         260,660        3.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.


                         HIGHWAY-RAIL CASUALTIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total
                 Year                     Deaths    Injuries  casualties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997..................................        461      1,540       2,001
1998..................................        431      1,303       1,734
1999 \1\..............................        399      1,360      1,759
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.


                    HIGHWAY-RAIL ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Accidents/
                                                  Accidents/    million
                      Year                         incidents     train
                                                                 miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997............................................       3,865        5.71
1998............................................       3,508        5.14
1999 \1\........................................       3,420       4.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.


                  CASUALTY RATES FOR EMPLOYEES ON DUTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Casualties/
                                                               200,000
                      Year                          Total      employee
                                                 casualties   work-hours
                                                                 rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997...........................................       8,332         3.31
1998...........................................       8,425         3.27
1999 \1\.......................................       8,451         3.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.


     TOTAL TRESPASSER CASUALTIES (EXCLUDING HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSINGS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total
                   Year                     Deaths  Injuries  casualties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.....................................      533       516       1,049
1998.....................................      536       513       1,049
1999 \1\.................................      467       433         900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.

    Under SACP, examination of railroad compliance with Agency rules is 
more comprehensive than with site-specific inspections. SACP is a 
multi-discipline safety audit, whereas site-specific inspections 
usually involve only a single inspection discipline. In addition, 
compliance agreements under SACP safety audits usually apply across the 
entire railroad property. Compliance with a site-specific inspection 
may only apply to a particular point on the railroad property.
    FRA believes that comprehensive safety examinations under SACP are 
contributing to the improvement in railroad safety statistics. Railroad 
operations are becoming more complex as the industry strives to attract 
traffic from overcrowded highways. Advanced train-control systems are 
being developed and tested under operating conditions, and electronic 
braking is being tried on some equipment. New types of equipment are 
being introduced to handle various types of traffic or to conduct 
maintenance operations more efficiently. These have complex, 
computerized safety systems, some of which are themselves integral 
parts of safety systems composing the entire railroad.
    In addition, many of the issues affecting railroads over the next 
few years are systemic. For example, the recent Burlington Northern/
Santa Fe and Union Pacific/Southern Pacific mergers and the Surface 
Transportation Board's approval of the acquisition of Conrail by 
Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation (CSXT) all pose safety issues 
resulting from the blending of different corporate cultures and 
reconciliation of different operating rules and practices. Systems 
approaches to safety inspections are necessary to address these issues.

               FRA'S SACP EXPERIENCE WITH SMALL RAILROADS

    Question. What is FRA's experience with the SACP as applied to 
smaller railroads?
    Answer. SACP uses a rail labor/management/FRA partnership approach 
in identifying and solving safety concerns within the railroad 
industry. The essential components of this approach--issue 
identification, review of options for solution, implementation and 
monitoring techniques--are utilized regardless of the category (Class 
I, II, etc.) of a carrier. However, application of these components is 
modified in recognition of the specific operating characteristics of a 
small (short line) carrier versus that of a larger carrier.
    In expanding the SACP process to short line carriers, the Office of 
Safety has initiated a new approach. Various regional partnerships are 
being formed between small railroads, state DOT's, the American Short 
Line and Regional Railroad Association, and FRA to focus on the safety 
related concerns of these carriers. For example, the Northeast Short 
Line Railroad Council, which is comprised of representatives of the 
railroad related entities located in the territories of FRA's Region 
One and Two, is currently addressing the impact of hours of service, 
roadway worker, and locomotive horn issues on the operations of short 
line carriers. A similar council has been established in FRA Region 
Three. Other councils are in the process of being formulated throughout 
the remainder of FRA's regions.
    Attention to the safety concerns of short line carriers is an 
essential component of the Office of Safety's overall approach for 
ensuring that elements of the railroad industry are in compliance with 
Federal rules and regulations. The SACP process and its consensus 
approach to alleviating safety-related problems is significantly 
contributing to safer practices in the industry and to the safety of 
employees for all carriers.

                   RAILROAD SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    Question. Please break down all expenses associated with the RSAC, 
including facilities, mailings, equipment, contract support, and the 
``other'' support costs. Please further specify exactly how fiscal year 
2000 and fiscal year 2001 monies were or will be used for RSAC. How 
much is requested for fiscal year 2001.
    Answer. FRA is requesting $200,000 for RSAC in fiscal year 2001, 
the same level as in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. Funding 
supports the following:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

        Activity                                                  Amount

Travel............................................................     5
Facilitation......................................................    10
Contract Support..................................................    70
Training..........................................................     5
Space & Audio Visual..............................................    65
Supplies, Printing & Mailing Services.............................    44
Interpreter Services..............................................     1
                                                                  ______
      Total.......................................................   200

    The RSAC is comprised of voting representatives from 27 
organizations. Since RSAC was chartered on March 25, 1996, an estimated 
800 full Committee, Working Groups and Task Force members and 
alternates have participated in more than 175 meetings to address 15 
tasks. Given the magnitude of the resources dedicated to this 
successful process, the $200 thousand requested for Federal support is 
nominal.

                    RULEMAKING ACTIVITY IN PAST YEAR

    Question. Please list all final regulations, ANPRM's, NPRM's and 
any new regulatory projects issued or pursued since last year.
    Answer. The information follows.
Final rules issued in 1999
  --Passenger Equipment Safety Standards (5/12/99)
  --Steam Locomotive Inspection-general revision (11/7/99)
  --Locomotive Engineer Certification-general revision (11/8/99)
Proposed rules issued in 1999
  --FRA Policy Statement--Jurisdiction Over Railroad Passenger 
        Operations and Shared Use of the General system (5/25/99)
  --FRA Policy on Jurisdiction (11/1/99)
    FRA did not pursue any new major regulatory projects in 1999. 
However, FRA did continue work on a number of other important 
rulemakings, including
  --Train Horns (Whistle Bans)
  --PTC performance standards
  --Cab working conditions (sanitation, noise, temperature)
  --Event recorders--data survivability and other issues
  --Locomotive crashworthiness
  --Power Brakes

                           REGULATORY BACKLOG

    Question. What is the current regulatory backlog? What are the 
nature and status of each of those projects? Please identify which of 
those are statutorily mandated, and when those are due for final 
issuance.
    Answer. Enclosed is an April 2000 summary of FRA's pending 
regulatory workload, showing the nature and status of each of the 
regulatory projects. The projects that are statutorily mandated are:
  --Freight Power Brake Rules.--The statutory deadline for revision of 
        the power brake rules was December 31, 1993. FRA issued rules 
        on passenger train brakes as part of its passenger equipment 
        standards, issued in May 1999. One of the major mandates in the 
        statute concerned equipping trains with two-way end-of-train 
        devices. FRA issued a rule requiring those devices in January 
        1997, and railroads actually equipped trains with them prior to 
        the deadline for compliance stated in the statute. Remaining 
        freight power brake issues were dealt with in a proposed rule 
        issued in 1994. FRA withdrew that proposed rule and tasked RSAC 
        with developing rules in 1996. In June 1997, with RSAC 
        deadlocked on the rule, FRA withdrew the task from RSAC. FRA 
        published a proposed rule on September 9, 1998, and, after 
        public hearings and comment, is preparing a final rule. The 
        final rule is under review within the Administration.
  --Use of Train Horns at Grade Crossings.--The Swift Rail Development 
        Act of 1994 required FRA to issue regulations providing for the 
        use of train horns at highway-rail crossings. The final rule on 
        the most hazardous crossings was due on November 2, 1996, and a 
        final rule on other crossings was due on November 2, 1998. This 
        second final rule would require the sounding of the locomotive 
        horn at a crossing unless alternative safety measures are in 
        place to compensate for its value as a warning to motorists. 
        FRA released a report on the national impacts of local whistle 
        bans on June 1, 1995, and has conducted an extensive program of 
        public outreach to make communities aware of the forthcoming 
        rulemaking and to seek information on supplementary safety 
        measures that would support the allowance of quiet zones in 
        communities sensitive to train horn noise. Numerous 
        congressional offices encouraged FRA to continue outreach and 
        data collection. FRA advised the Congress that the deadline for 
        an initial final rule would not be met. Immediately prior to 
        adjournment, the 104th Congress enacted the FAA reauthorization 
        bill (PL 104-264; 10/9/96), which included amendments to the 
        original whistle ban legislation. In general, the legislation 
        affirms the latitude available to the Secretary to provide for 
        phase-in of regulations and focus on safety results. FRA issued 
        the proposed rule January 13, 2000. Written comments are due 
        May 26, 2000. Public hearings are being held to receive oral 
        comments. FRA published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
        (DEIS) for the proposed regulation in December 1999. FRA's 
        proposed rule strives to achieve the law's important safety 
        objective in a way that will provide communities maximum 
        flexibility and ample opportunity to maintain quiet.
    In addition to the statutorily mandated rules, among the most 
important pending rulemakings are:
  --Positive train control.
  --Locomotive cab working conditions.
  --Locomotive crashworthiness.
  --Event recorder revisions.
    FRA expects to issue proposed or final rules on each of these 
subjects in 2000. The enclosed overview contains specifics on each of 
these projects.

   Overview of the Railroad Safety Regulatory Program and Standards-
                      Related Partnership Efforts

    Legend:
    ANPRM--Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    Italics--Indicates project has been identified for development 
through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee or a similar forum for 
collaborative rulemaking
    NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    RSAC--Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
    SACP-- Safety Assurance and Compliance Program
          * * * * * * *

                                  NOTE

    Centralized Docket Management System.--Dockets established after 
October 7, 1998, are available on the DOT Centralized Docket Management 
System facility and can be accessed over the Internet (http:://
dms.dot.gov). Detailed information is available at the Web site to 
assist in viewing documents.
    Revised Docket Filing Procedures for FRA Rulemaking and 
Adjudicatory Dockets.--Final Rule (64 FR 70193)--This final rule amends 
certain FRA rules to provide accurate information to the public 
regarding filing requirements for FRA proceedings. The final rule is 
effective 2/14/00.
          * * * * * * *

                SUMMARY OF CONSENSUS RULEMAKING EFFORTS

    Roadway Worker Safety.--Consensus achieved in formal negotiated 
rulemaking; final rule published 12/16/96; effective 1/15/97. Denial of 
AAR and APTA petitions for reconsideration published 4/21/97.
    Passenger Equipment Safety Standards.--NPRM based on working group 
recommendations was published 9/23/97. Public hearing held 11/21/97. 
Written comments were due 11/24/97. Working group met 12/15-12/16/97 
(general issues) and 1/6/98 (intercity and high speed issues). Final 
rule published 5/12/99 (64 FR 25540).
    Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness.--NPRM based on working 
group recommendations was published 2/24/97 with significant additions, 
and a notice of public hearings was published 3/6/97. Public hearings 
were held in Chicago on 4/4/97 and in New York City on 4/7/97. Written 
comments were due by 4/25/97. Working group met 8/28/97 and reached 
agreement in principle on changes for incorporation into the final 
rule. Final rule published 5/4/98 (63 FR 24630).
    Railroad Safety Advisory Committee:
    Last full Committee meeting 1/28/1999.
    Last RSAC Working Group Activity Update published in Federal 
Register 12/17/99 (64 FR 707656).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Task
 No.            Subject                           Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 96-1 Power Brake              Working group charter extended to 1/15/
       Regulations, freight,    97 to produce NPRM; impasse reached at
       general revision         12/4/96 meeting, and subsequent
                                efforts to renew talks were not
                                successful. FRA withdrew task at 6/24/
                                97 meeting. FRA published second NPRM
                                9/9/98 (63 FR 48294) reflective of
                                what FRA has learned through the
                                collaborative process. Public hearings
                                10/26/98 and 11/13/98; technical
                                conference 11/23-24/98. Submission of
                                written comments date due extended to
                                3/1/99. Public meeting 5/27/99 on FRA
                                MPE database. FRA is preparing the
                                final rule.
 96-2 Track Safety Standards,  Consensus achieved; in balloting that
       general revision         concluded 11/21/96, RSAC voted to
                                accept working group report and
                                recommend NPRM. NPRM published 7/3/97;
                                public hearing held 9/4/97; comment
                                period closed 9/15/97. Final rule
                                published 6/22/98; effective 9/21/98.
                                FRA prepared final rule amendment on
                                Gage Restraint Measurement System
                                (GRMS) standards. Contingent upon
                                Working Group approval, the standards
                                will be forwarded to the full RSAC for
                                consideration.
 96-3 Railroad Communications  Final meeting of working group was held
       (including revision of   1/23/97. Working group provided
       Radio Standards and      consensus NPRM to RSAC at 3/24/97
       Procedures)              meeting. RSAC voted to accept the NPRM
                                and forward to the Administrator in
                                voting concluded 4/14/97. NPRM
                                published 6/26/97; comment period
                                closed 8/25/97. Final rule published 9/
                                4/98 (63 FR 47182).
 96-4 Tourist Railroads        Open task to address needs of tourist
                                and historic railroads; working group
                                monitored steam task.
 96-5 Steam-Powered            Tourist & Historic Working Group met
       Locomotives, revision    with task force representatives 9/3/
       of inspection            97. NPRM was approved by full
       standards                committee in voting that concluded 2/
                                17/98. NPRM published 9/25/98 (63 FR
                                51404). Public hearing held 2/4/99.
                                Task Force developed recommendations
                                in response to comments received;
                                Working Group consensus; approved by
                                full Committee voting ballot 9/29/99.
                                Final rule published 11/17/99 (64 FR
                                62828).
 96-6 Locomotive Engineer      Task accepted 10/31/96; first working
       Qualification and        group meeting held 1/7-9/97. NPRM
       Certification, general   approved by full committee 5/14/98.
       revision                 NPRM published 9/22/98 (63 FR 50625).
                                Final rule published 11/8/99 (64 FR
                                60966).
 96-7 Track Motor Vehicle and  Task accepted 10/31/96. Task Force of
       Roadway Worker           Track Safety Standards Working Group
       Equipment                is finalizing a proposed rule.
                                Contingent upon Working Group
                                approval, the proposed rule will be
                                forwarded to the full RSAC for
                                consideration.
 96-8 Locomotive               Planning task accepted 10/31/96;
       Crashworthiness and      planning group met 1/23/97; two task
       Working Conditions       statements were accepted by the full
       (planning task)          Committee at 6/24/97 meeting [see 97-
                                1, 97-2]. Planning task is COMPLETED.
 97-1 Locomotive               Task accepted 6/24/97; working group
       Crashworthiness          held initial meeting 9/8-9/9/97.
                                Established task force to review
                                collision history and design options.
                                Working group reviewed results of
                                research and is drafting standards for
                                freight and passenger locomotives.
 97-2 Locomotive Cab Working   Task accepted 6/24/97; working group
       Condi-  tions            held initial meeting 9/10-11/97. Noise
                                and Temperature task forces
                                established. Draft sanitation NPRM
                                under review by Working Group. Noise
                                Task Force preparing draft
                                recommendations for noise exposure
                                requirements.
 97-3 Event Recorders (data    Task accepted 6/24/97; working group
       survivability,           met 9/12/97. Task force established.
       inspection, etc.)        Working group and task force actively
                                meeting; draft proposed rule under
                                review.
97-4, Positive Train Control   Tasks accepted 9/30/97 and assigned to
97-5,                           single working group. Standards Task
 97-6                           Force is working on proposed NPRM for
                                positive train control performance
                                standards. Data and Implementation
                                Task Force completed report on the
                                future of PTC systems; report accepted
                                for forwarding to FRA by full
                                Committee vote at 9/8/99 meeting.
 97-7 Calculation of Damages   Task accepted with modification 9/30/
       for Reportable Train     97. Working group has been formed.
       Accidents                Initial meeting held 2/8/99.
 00-1 Blue Signal Protection   Task accepted 1/28/00; working group
       of Work-  men            being formed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   SAFETY RULES AND REPORTS--GENERAL

Accident/Incident Reporting
    Summary.--The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 barred 
FRA from adjusting the monetary threshold for reporting of train 
accident until the methodology was revised. In addition, FRA identified 
the need to comprehensively revise these regulations, which had not be 
revised since 1974.
    Deadline.--The report of the Committee of Conference on the 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 
1996, directed FRA to issue a final rule in this proceeding by 6/1/96.
    History.--An NPRM was issued 8/19/94, followed by public hearings 
and written comment. A public regulatory conference was convened 1/30-
2/3/95 in an effort to resolve outstanding issues. A notice of decision 
to issue a supplemental NPRM was published 7/3/95, but was withdrawn in 
a notice published on 1/24/96.
    Status.--Final rule was issued 5/30/96 and published 6/18/96 (61 FR 
30940). Stay requests were denied, and technical amendments were 
published 11/22/96 (61 FR 59368). A notice of availability of custom 
software was also published 11/22/96 (61 FR 59485). On 12/16/96, the 
Administrator signed final rule amendments, which were published 12/23/
96 (61 FR 67477). Final rule became effective 1/1/97. Industry training 
partnerships have been executed.
    Next steps.--FRA offered RSAC a task on 9/30/97 to review the 
definition of events required to be reported as train accidents, as 
requested by the Committee on 6/24/97. By request of the Committee, the 
task was limited to determination of damages qualifying an event as a 
reportable train accident. A working group has been formed and held its 
initial meeting 2/8/99.
Blue Signal Protection
    Summary.--On 8/16/93, FRA published a final rule permitting one or 
more utility employees to associate themselves with a train crew for 
the purpose of performing normal operating functions that require 
employees to go on, under or between rolling stock, without use of blue 
signal protection (which is ordinarily appropriate for mechanical 
duties). During the proceeding it was noted that rules for locomotive 
engineers working alone were not clearly defined. FRA published a final 
rule amendment governing single engineers working alone on 3/1/95, but 
granted a requested suspension of the amendment on 6/9/95 pending 
development of additional facts. Since that time, additional blue 
signal issues have continued to emerge, including application of the 
requirements to contractors performing the subject functions on 
railroad property.
    Status.--On 10/31/96, the RSAC advised FRA that this project should 
not be proposed for early tasking, given conflicting demands on the 
resources of member organizations. RSAC accepted task at the 1/28/00 
full Committee meeting.
Bridge Displacement Detection Systems (Report)
    Summary.--The Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994 
required FRA to submit a report on systems to detect bridge 
displacement of the type that caused the derailment of the Sunset 
Limited at Mobile, Alabama, 9/22/93.
    Statutory deadline.--5/2/96
    Status.--A technical evaluation report was published 6/23/94 and 
made available to the respective committees. A formal report to the 
Congress is in preparation.
Control of Alcohol and Drug Use; Application of Random Testing and 
        Other Requirements to Train Crews Based Outside the United 
        States Who Engage in Train Operations in the United States
    Summary.--FRA applies only part of its regulation on control of 
alcohol and drug use (49 CFR part 219) to a railroad's train operations 
in the United States that are performed by train crews whose home 
terminals are outside the United States (``extraterritorial train 
employees''). In this notice, FRA proposes to make all of part 219 
applicable to extraterritorial train employees who perform train 
operations in the United States.
    Status.--Drafting of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is in its 
final stages, and FRA plans to send it for review soon.
Event Recorder Next-Generation Performance Standards
    Summary.--The National Transportation Safety Board has noted the 
loss of data from event recorders in several accidents due to fire, 
water and mechanical damage. In issuing final rules for event recorders 
which became effective 5/5/95, FRA noted the need to provide more 
refined technical standards. NTSB proposed performance standard for 
data survivability.
    Background.--Conducted an initial meeting of an informal working 
group comprised of AAR, RPI, and labor, and co-chaired by NTSB and FRA 
experts, on 12/7/95 to consider development of technical standards. At 
the RSAC meeting on 7/24-7/25/96, the AAR agreed to continue this 
inquiry, and on 11/1/6, AAR reported to the RSAC the status of work on 
proposed industry standards. On March 5, 1997, NTSB issued 
recommendations regarding testing and maintenance of event recorders as 
a result of finding in the investigation of the BNSF accident of 2/1/96 
at Cajon Pass, California. On 3/24/97, the RSAC indicated its desire to 
receive a task to consider NTSB recommendations with respect to crash 
survivability, testing and maintenance.
    Status.--RSAC accepted task 6/24/97. Event Recorder working group 
first met 9/12/97. A task force was established. Draft proposed rule 
under review. (Task No. 97-3).
Florida Overland Express
    Summary.--FRA has received 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 had established a 
dedicated funding stream of $70 million per year towards creation of 
this new private/public partnership.
    Status.--Received petition for rule of particular applicability 2/
18/97. FRA issued NPRM 12/12/97 (62 FR 65478). Comment period closed. 
FRA reviewed comments received and held a public hearing on 11/23/98 to 
discuss a variety of issues. The State of Florida withdrew its support 
and funding for this project 1/99, suspending all activity on 
development. FRA is not currently working on the final rule.
Freight Car Safety Standards; Maintenance-of-Way Cars
    Summary.--Cars not in compliance with the Freight Car Safety 
Standards may be operated at track speed in revenue trains if they are 
company-owned, stenciled cars. FRA published an NPRM 3/10/94 to close 
this loophole. FRA requested the Association of American Railroads to 
amplify its comments by letter of 12/20/94.
    Status.--AAR response received 8/4/95 is under review. FRA offered 
a task to the RSAC to resolve final rule issues on 9/30/97, but 
objection from the AAR prevented the matter from coming to a vote. FRA 
will prepare final rule.
Locomotive Crashworthiness and Working Conditions
    Summary.--The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 
required FRA to conduct a proceeding regarding locomotive 
crashworthiness and working conditions and to issue regulations or 
submit a report. Areas for consideration included structural means of 
preventing harm to crew members in collisions (collision posts, 
anticlimbers, etc.) and matters related to safety, health and 
productivity (e.g., noise, sanitation).
    Statutory deadline.--3/2/95
    Background.--FRA conducted research, outreach, and a survey of 
locomotive conditions and finalized a report to the Congress 
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 the industry 
parties, either for voluntary or regulatory action. On 10/31/96, the 
RSAC accepted a preliminary planning task. The Locomotive Crew Safety 
Planning Group met 1/23/97, and subsequent consultations led to 
preparation of task statements.
    Status.--RSAC accepted two tasks 6/24/97. (RSAC Task 97-1, 
locomotive crashworthiness; and Task 97-2, locomotive cab working 
conditions).
    Locomotive Crashworthiness.--Working Group met 9/8-9/97 and 
established a task force on engineering issues that has been active in 
reviewing collision history and design options. The Working Group has 
reviewed results of research and is drafting standards for freight and 
passenger locomotives.
    Locomotive Cab Working Conditions.--Working Group met for the first 
time 9/10-11/97 and established task forces on noise and temperature, 
which have been working actively. A draft sanitation NPRM is under 
review by the Working Group. The Noise Task Force is preparing draft 
recommendations for noise exposure requirements.
Locomotive Engineer Certification; Miscellaneous Revisions
    Summary.--The final rule for locomotive engineer certification 
became effective in 1991, but certain issues were left unresolved. 
Experience under the rule has raised additional issues. Examples of 
issues under review include the status of operators of specialized 
maintenance of way equipment and types of conduct for which 
decertification is appropriate.
    Status.--An interim final rule amendment dealing with agency 
practice and procedure concerning engineer certification appeals was 
published 10/12/95. Issues related to procedures on the properties, 
offenses warranting decertification, periods of decertification, 
operation of specialized equipment, etc., are pending. The RSAC 
accepted this task on 10/31/96. The Working Group's initial meeting was 
held 1/7-1/9/97. Final meeting to review proposed rule language was 
held 10/7-10/9/97, and task force on hearing and vision met 10/21/97 to 
finalize language. The full committee voted 5/14/98 to recommend 
issuance of the NPRM forwarded by the Working Group. The NPRM was 
published 9/22/98 (63 FR 50625) (RSAC Task 96-6.) The Working Group met 
to resolve issues presented in public comments, and on 1/28/99 the RSAC 
voted to transmit recommendations regarding issues for which the 
Working Group had received comments. The final rule was published 11/8/
99 (64 FR 60966); effective date 1/7/00. (FRA Docket No. RSOR-9. Notice 
12).
Northeast Corridor (NEC) Signal & Train Control
    Summary.--Amtrak is planning operations to 150 mph on portions of 
the NEC and is implementing improvements to the automatic train control 
system that will provide positive stop and continuous speed control 
capabilities. FRA's Northeast Corridor Safety Committee (NCSC) met 9/
20/94 and approved a set of performance criteria for the new system.
    Status.--On 1/30/97, Amtrak provided to FRA a draft system concept 
for the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES), including 
conditions for operation on designated territories on the south and 
north ends of the NEC. Final details were received by FRA on 7/9/97. A 
notice of Proposed Order for the new signal and train control system 
authorizing speeds to 150 miles per hour (135 mph on the South End with 
only high-speed trains equipped under ``flanking protection'') was 
published 11/20/97 (62 FR 62097), and written comments were due by 12/
22/97. As a result of requests, a public hearing was set for 2/17/98 
(63 FR 3389), and the comment closing date was extended to 2/24/98. 
Final Order of Particular Applicability published 7/22/98 (63 FR 
39343); effective 8/21/98.
NEC System Safety
    Summary.--Mixed passenger and freight operations at speeds to 150 
mph have not previously been attempted in this country. Through the 
Northeast Corridor Safety Committee (or successor), FRA intends to 
develop system safety criteria for this service territory, integrating 
existing safety measures and identifying any areas of material risk not 
previously addressed.
    Status.--Timing of project initiation to be determined. Will focus 
on enhancement and integration of individual railroad system safety 
plans to address complex NEC operations.
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
    Summary.--The Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994 
(enacted 11/2/94) required FRA to issue initial passenger safety 
standards within 3 years and complete standards within 5 years. The 
agency was authorized to consult with industry parties outside the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, making it possible to conduct an 
informal negotiated rulemaking.
    Statutory deadline.--11/2/97 (initial); 11/2/99 (final).
    Status.--An initial meeting of the Passenger Equipment Safety 
Working Group (passenger railroads, operating employee organizations, 
mechanical employee organizations, and representatives of rail 
passengers) was held on 6/7/95, and the group met regularly to develop 
an NPRM. Manufacturer/supplier representatives served as associate 
members. FRA prepared an ANPRM indicating the issues under review by 
the working group, which was published 6/17/96 (61 FR 30672). The 
working group held its final meeting on the NPRM 9/30-10/2/96, having 
reached consensus on a portion of the issues presented. An NPRM was 
published 9/23/97 (62 FR 49728). The public hearing was held 11/21/97 
(see 62 FR 55204; 10/23/97). Comments were due 11/24/97. Final working 
group meeting on the initial standards was held 12/15-12/16/97, and an 
additional meeting on intercity and high speed issues was held 1/6/98. 
The final rule was published 5/12/99 (64 FR 25540). (FRA Docket No. 
PCSS-1, Notice No. 5). Following issuance of the ``initial'' final 
rule, work will begin on additional passenger equipment safety 
standards. FRA is reviewing several petitions for reconsideration.
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness
    Summary.--The Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994 
required FRA to issue emergency preparedness standards for passenger 
service. Initial standards were required within 3 years and complete 
standards within 5 years. The agency was authorized to consult with 
industry parties outside the Federal Advisory Committee Act, making it 
possible to conduct an informal negotiated rulemaking.
    Statutory deadline.--11/2/97 (initial); 11/2/99 (final)
    Background: An initial meeting of the working group for passenger 
train emergency preparedness standards was held on 8/8/95. The group 
met 2/6-7/96 to develop elements of an NPRM and met jointly with the 
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working Group on 3/26/96 to 
consider related issues, including the implications of Emergency Order 
No. 20 and recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board. 
The working group included representatives of passenger railroads, 
operating employee and dispatcher organizations, and rail passenger 
organizations, and an advisor from the National Transportation Safety 
Board. The working group approved draft rule text, which was 
incorporated in an NPRM forwarded for review and clearance. Changes 
requested during review and clearance were provided to the working 
group during the week of 12/16/96.
    Status.--The NPRM was published 2/24/97 (62 FR 8330), and a notice 
of public hearings was published 3/6/97 (62 FR 10248). Public hearings 
were held in Chicago on 4/4/97 and in New York City on 4/7/97. Written 
comments were due by 4/25/97. The working group met 8/28/97 and agreed 
in principle to revisions for inclusion in the final rule. The final 
rule was published 5/4/98 (63 FR 24630), and a correction notice was 
published 7/6/98 (63 FR 36376). (FRA Docket No. PTEP-1, Notice No. 3).

    NOTE.--The following order is closely associated with the two prior 
entries:
Emergency Order No. 20
    Summary.--This order deals with the safety of push/pull and 
electric multiple unit service. The order was issued 2/20/96 (61 FR 
6876; 2/22/96), and amended 2/29/96 (61 FR 8703; 3/5/96). Intercity and 
commuter passenger railroads were required to adopt operating rules 
providing for observance of reduced speed where delays are incurred in 
blocks between distant signals and signals at interlocking or 
controlled points. Marking of emergency exits and testing of emergency 
windows was required. Interim system safety plans were required to be 
filed.
    Status.--The order has been fully implemented. On 3/26/96, the 
Passenger Equipment Safety Working Group and the Emergency Preparedness 
Working Group met jointly to consider implementation issues and 
crossover issues with the two rulemaking proceedings and recent 
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board. The 
American Public Transit Association and it members have undertaken a 
number of actions in response to the emergency order, including 
development of comprehensive system safety plans. Codification, 
revision or termination of provisions will be considered during the 
second phase of passenger safety standards rulemaking.
Positive Train Control
            Evaluation of needs and feasibility (implementation)
    Summary.--These tasks involve defining PTC functionalities, 
describing available technologies, evaluating costs and benefit of 
potential systems, and considering implementation opportunities and 
challenges, including demonstration and deployment. (RSAC Tasks 97-4 
and 97-5).
    Status.--Accepted by RSAC 9/30/97. Please see entry on RSAC 
summary.
            Performance standards for PTC systems
    Summary.--Existing signal and train control regulations are built 
around relay-based controllers and traditional track circuits, but 
technology is rapidly advancing. This task requires revising various 
regulations, including 49 CFR Part 236, to address the safety 
implications of processor-based signal and train control technologies, 
including communication-based operating systems. The purpose of the 
effort is to encourage deployment of innovative technology by providing 
a predictable environment. (RSAC Task 97-6).
    Status.--Accepted by RSAC 9/30/97. Please see entry on RSAC 
summary.
            Progress Report to the Congress
    Summary.--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 7/94 Report entitled Railroad Communications and 
Train Control.
    Statutory deadline.--12/31/95
    Status.--FRA has provided testimony to the committees of 
jurisdiction reporting the status of efforts to promote implementation 
of positive train control. FRA plans to utilize the results of the RSAC 
PTC working group and task forces efforts to provide an appropriate 
status report.
Power Brakes
    Summary.--The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 
required FRA to revise the power brake regulations. The statute 
required adoption of requirements for 2-way end-of-train telemetry 
devices (EOTs) and ``standards for dynamic brakes.''
    Statutory deadlines.--Final rule by 12/31/93; 2-way EOTs to be used 
on trains operating greater than 30 miles per hour or in mountain grade 
territory to be equipped by 12/31/97.
    Status.--FRA published an NPRM 9/16/94 and conducted six days of 
public hearings ending 12/94. Due to strong objections to the NPRM, 
additional options were requested from passenger interests by 2/27/95 
and from freight interests by 4/3/95. Further action is as follows:
    (1) Passenger standards revision.--FRA requested the Passenger 
Equipment Safety Standards Working Group to incorporate new proposals 
for revisions of the power brake regulations in the NPRM for passenger 
equipment safety. Working group proceedings on the elements of the NPRM 
concluded 10/2/96 without full agreement on power brake elements. See 
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards for current status.
    (2) Freight standards revision.--On 4/1/96, the RSAC accepted the 
task of preparing a second NPRM. The working group initiated its 
efforts in May, and on 10/31/96 the RSAC extended the deadline for a 
final report until 1/15/97. At the working group meeting 12/4/96, an 
impasse was declared, and subsequent efforts to revive discussions were 
not successful. On May 29, FRA notified the working group by letter 
that the task will be formally terminated. FRA withdrew task at 6/24/97 
full Committee meeting. FRA prepared second NPRM reflective of what was 
learned through the collaborative process. NPRM published 9/9/98 (63 FR 
48294) (FRA Docket No. PB-9, Notice No. 13). (RSAC Task 96-1--
terminated). Public hearings were conducted on 10/26/98 and 11/13/98 
and a technical conference was held on 11/23-24/98. Final date for 
submission of comments extended until 3/1/99. FRA is preparing the 
final rule.
    (3) Two-way end-of-train devices.--FRA published notice on 2/21/96 
that this issue would be separated from the balance of the freight 
issues and expedited for completion of a final rule. A public 
regulatory conference was convened 3/5/96 to explore remaining issues, 
and written comments were due 4/15/96. (Railroads also agreed to an 
expedited schedule that will ensure application of this technology by 
12/15/96 on 2 percent or greater grades and by 7/1/97 for other 
trains.) The final rule was published 1/2/97 (62 FR 278), (FRA Docket 
No. PB-9, Notice No. 6), and it became effective 7/1/97. FRA received 
two petitions for reconsideration (``local train'' definition and 
implementation date for smaller railroads). A notice denying the 
request to delete the tonnage restriction for local trains and granting 
extension of the compliance date for railroads with fewer than two 
million work hours was published 6/4/97 (62 FR 30461). On 11/4/97, held 
technical conference on petition of American Short Line Railroad 
Association regarding operation of very light trains over grade 
territory (see 62 FR 52370; 10/7/97); subsequently granted limited 
relief and received petition for reconsideration of conditions, which 
is now under review.
    On 1/16/98, FRA published NPRM to clarify application of two-way 
EOT requirements to intercity passenger trains with express equipment 
at the rear (63 FR 195). Final rule was issued 5/1/98 (63 FR 24130). 
(FRA Docket No. PB-9, Notice No. 11).

    Note.--On 2/6/96, the Administrator issued Emergency Order No. 18, 
requiring use by the BNSF of 2-way EOTs or equivalent protection for 
heavy grade operations over the Cajon Pass (61 FR 505; 2/9/96).
Railroad Communications (including Radio Standards and Procedures)
    Summary.--In submitting the required report to the Congress on 
Railroad Communications and Train Control on 7/13/94, FRA noted the 
need to revise existing Federal standards for radio communications in 
concert with railroads and employee representatives.
    Status.--On 4/1/96, the RSAC accepted the task of preparing an 
NPRM, including consideration of communication capabilities required in 
railroad operations. The working group presented a consensus NPRM to 
the full Committee on 3/24/97, and the Committee voted to recommend 
issuance of the NPRM to the Administrator in balloting that ended 4/14/
97. NPRM issued 6/11/97 and published 6/26/97 (62 FR 34544) (FRA Docket 
No. RSOR-12, Notice No. 4). Comment period closed 8/25/97. Final rule 
published 9/4/98 (63 FR 47182). (FRA Docket No. RSOR-12, Notice No. 5). 
(RSAC Task 96-3).
Regulatory Reinvention
    Summary.--In response to the President's call for regulatory 
review, elimination and reinvention, FRA took several actions to repeal 
obsolete regulations and simplify agency processes that affect external 
customers. Major elements of this effort are included in regulatory 
revision efforts described under other headings.
    Status.--Interim final rule amendments reducing frequency of 
reporting regarding signal and train control systems (49 CFR Part 233), 
simplifying review requirements for certain modifications of signal 
systems (49 CFR Part 235), and making conforming changes regarding 
inspection of ATC/ATS/ACS (49 CFR Part 236) published 7/1/96 (61 FR 
33871). These changes should be finalized early in 1999. FRA is 
considering inclusion of a legislative proposal to permit flexibility 
for railroads to make accident/incident reports less frequently than 
monthly and to eliminate outdated requirements for notarization of 
reports in the Administration's proposed 1999 rail safety 
reauthorization legislation.
Roadway Worker Safety
    Summary.--In requiring the review of the Track Safety Standards, 
the Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 required FRA to 
evaluate the safety of maintenance of way employees. In addition, the 
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and the Brotherhood of 
Railroad Signalmen petitioned FRA to issue ``on-track safety'' rules.
    Background.--FRA published a notice 8/17/94 initiating a formal 
negotiated rulemaking. The negotiated rulemaking committee reported a 
statement of principles 5/17/95 and completed an NPRM draft 8/95. NPRM 
published 3/14/96 (61 FR 10528); initial written comments were due 5/
13/96. Public hearing held 7/11/96.
    Status.--The final rule was published 12/16/96 (61 FR 65959); 
effective 1/15/97. Petitions for reconsideration were denied in a 
notice published 4/21/97. A consolidated hearing on waiver petitions 
was held 5/22/97, and written comments were due by 6/9/97. FRA is 
issuing decisions on individual petitions as investigations and 
analysis were completed.
Safety Integration Plans
    Summary.--In response to the proposed acquisition of Conrail by 
Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation, FRA has suggested, and the 
Surface Transportation Board has required, that the petitioners file 
with the Board of Safety Integration Plans (SIPs). In coordination with 
the Board, FRA proposed regulations requiring preparation and FRA 
review of SIPs in connection with future railroad mergers.
    Status.--FRA and the STB jointly issued an NPRM 12/31/98 (63 FR 
72225) to institutionalize the SIP process to ensure that proper safety 
planning and safety investments are undertaken during a merger. The 
proposed rule spells out the types of transactions that will require 
SIPs and outlines the roles of FRA and the STB in overseeing the SIP 
process.
Small Railroads; Interim Policy Statement
    Summary.--The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act and required, among other 
things, that each agency establish small business communication and 
enforcement programs.
    Statutory deadline.--3/29/97
    Status.--Interim policy statement published 8/11/97 (62 FR 43024). 
FRA is reviewing comments received and developing a final policy 
statement. Public meeting to address definition of ``small entity'' was 
held on 9/28/99. FRA is preparing a final policy statement.
Steam Locomotives
    Summary.--A committee of steam locomotive experts from tourist and 
historic railroads has sought a partnership with FRA to revise the 
steam locomotive regulations. Proposed revisions would relieve 
regulatory burdens while updating and strengthening the technical 
requirements.
    Status.--Revision of the Steam Locomotive Inspection regulations 
was tasked to the RSAC on 7/24/96. A task force of the Tourist & 
Historic Railroads Working Group is actively working toward 
finalization of a final rule. NPRM rule text agreed upon within the 
task force was approved by the Tourist and Historic Working Group on 9/
3/97 and provided to the RSAC on 9/30/97. The full RSAC approved the 
consensus NPRM by mail ballot 2/17/98. NPRM published 9/25/98 (63 FR 
51404) (FRA Docket No. RSSL 98-1, Notice No. 1). (RSAC Task 96-5). 
Public hearing held 2/4/99. Task Force formulated recommendations in 
response to comments received. The recommendations were accepted by the 
working group and the full Committee voted to incorporate the 
recommendations in the final rule. The final rule was published 11/17/
99 (64 FR 62828) (FRA Docket No. RSSL 98-1, Notice No. 3); effective 
date 1/18/00.
Track Motor Vehicle and Roadway Equipment Safety
    Summary.--A 1990 petition to FRA from the Brotherhood of 
Maintenance of Way Employes asked FRA, among other requests, to propose 
standards for MOW equipment related to the safety of persons riding or 
operating that equipment. FRA elected not to pursue that issue at that 
time given other pending workload. However, this issue was renewed 
during the deliberations of the RSAC Track Safety Standards Working 
Group.
    Status.--On 10/31/96, the RSAC accepted a task of drafting proposed 
rules for the safety of this equipment. A task force of the Track 
Safety Standards Working Group was formed to address this issue. The 
task force has met several times. The task force is finalizing a 
proposed rule. Contingent upon the approval of the working group, the 
proposed rule will be presented to the full RSAC for consideration at 
the 1/28/00 meeting. (RSAC Task 96-7).
Tourist Railroad Report/Review of Regulatory Applicability
    Summary.--The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 required FRA to 
submit a report to the Congress regarding FRA's actions to recognize 
the unique factors associated with these generally small passenger 
operations that often utilize historic equipment.
    Statutory deadline.--9/30/95
    Status.--Report submitted to the Congress 6/10/96. The RSAC 
authorized formation of a Tourist and Historic Railroads Working Group 
4/1/96. The working group held its initial meeting 6/17-6/18/96 and has 
monitored completion of the steam task. (RSAC Task 96-4).
Track Safety Standards
    Summary.--The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 
required FRA to revise the Track Safety Standards, taking into 
consideration, among other things, the ``excepted track'' provision. 
Other prominent issues include updating the standards to take advantage 
of research findings for internal rail flaw detection and gage 
restraint measurement. FRA also proposes to adopt track standards for 
high-speed service.
    Statutory deadline.--Final rule by 9/1/95.
    Background.--FRA published an ANPRM 11/6/92 and conducted workshops 
in the period 1/93-3/93. The Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 
accepted task of preparing an (NPRM) on 4/2/96. The Track Safety 
Standards Working Group reported a draft NPRM to the full committee on 
10/31/96. In balloting that concluded 11/21/96, RSAC voted to accept 
the working group report and recommend issuance of the NPRM.
    Status.--NPRM signed 6/19/97 and published 7/3/97 (62 FR 36138) 
(FRA Docket No. RST-90-1, Notice No. 5). Hearing held 9/4/97; comment 
period closed 9/15/97. Additional comment was invited regarding certain 
high-speed track geometry issues by notice of 12/12/97 (62 FR 65401) 
not later than 12/22/97. Final rule published 6/22/98 (63 FR 33991) 
(FRA Docket No. RST-90-1, Notice No. 8); effective 9/21/98. FRA 
prepared final rule amendment on Gage Restraint Measurement System 
(GRMS) standards. (RSAC Task 96-2). Contingent upon approval of the 
Track Safety Standards Working Group, the standards will be forwarded 
to the full RSAC for consideration at the 1/28/00 meeting.
U.S. Locational Requirement for Dispatching of U.S. Rail Operations
    Summary.--New 49 CFR Part 241 would require all dispatching of 
railroad operation that occur in the United States to be performed in 
the United States, with exceptions for emergency situations and for the 
few limited track segments that were being dispatched from foreign 
countries as of December 1999.
    Status.--Drafting of the Interim Final Rule has been completed, and 
FRA has sent it for review.
                      highway-rail crossing safety
Commercial Driver Disqualification--Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing 
        Violation
    Summary.--To enhance the safety of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) 
operations on our nation's highways and complete action initiated in 
response to the requirements specificed in section 403 of the ICC 
Termination Act of 1995, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
revised its regulations (49 CFR Parts 383 and 384) to require that CMV 
drivers who are convicted of violating Federal, State, or local laws or 
regulations pertaining to railroad-highway grade crossings be 
disqualified from operating a CMV.
    Status.--Final rule published on 09/02/99 (64 FR 48104).
Grade Crossing Signals (Inspection, Testing and Maintenance)
    Summary.--FRA issued a final rule for inspection, testing and 
maintenance of automated warning devices 9/30/94, and the rule went 
into effect 1/1/95 (49 CFR Part 234). During the initial year, FRA 
worked with railroads and signal employees to disseminate information, 
conduct training, and identify any areas of ambiguity or weakness in 
the standards. At a technical resolution committee (TRC) meeting during 
the week of 3/13/95 that included participation by railroads, the 
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, and States, several issues were 
identified that require clarification or refinement. An interim manual 
dated 4/14/95 incorporated the findings of the TRC.
    Status.--Interim final rule amendments published 6/20/96 (61 FR 
31802). FRA is preparing a notice to make the changes final which is 
expected to be published in the near future.
Locomotive Visibility /Auxiliary Alerting Lights
    Summary.--In 1991, FRA initiated a new phase of research on 
locomotive conspicuity in relation to safety at highway-rail crossings. 
The Amtrak Authorization and Development Act of 1992 mandated that the 
research be completed and that a regulation be issued to apply alerting 
lights to locomotives.
    Statutory deadline.--Final rule by 6/30/95.
    Background.--FRA published a ``grandfathering rule'' on 2/3/93 and 
amendments on 5/13/94. After the research was substantially completed 
in early summer of 1995, FRA briefed the industry parties on the 
results, discussed options for regulatory action, and elicited 
additional information concerning railroads' progress in equipping 
their fleets. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on 8/25/95. 
The AAR and the ASLRA requested a technical conference to perfect the 
rule for final issuance, and that conference was held 11/28/95. Written 
comments were due by 12/12/95.
    Status.--Final rule was published 3/6/96 (61 FR 31802). Equipping 
of locomotives used as lead units at speeds exceeding 20 mph was 
required to be completed by 12/31/97, as provided by law.
Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
    Summary.--The Secretary's Action Plan for Grade Crossing Safety (6/
94) commits FRA to conducting a special safety inquiry on private 
crossings.
    Status.--Conducted workshop on possible guidelines 7/93; timing of 
further action to be determined.
Selection of Grade Crossing Automated Warning Devices
    Summary.--FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 3/2/95 (60 
FR 11649) and received over 3,000 written comments through 6/14/95.
    Status.--Termination notice published 8/8/97 (62 FR 42733).
Use of Locomotive Horns (Whistle Bans)
    Summary.--The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 required FRA to 
issue regulations providing for the use of train horns at highway-rail 
crossings.
    Statutory deadline.--Final rule 11/2/96 (most hazardous crossings), 
11/2/98 (other crossings).
    Background.--This legislative mandate anticipated FRA follow up to 
Emergency Order No. 15, which addressed local whistle bans on the 
Florida East Coast Railroad between Jacksonville and Miami. FRA 
released a report on the national impacts of local whistle bans on 6/1/
95 and has conducted an extensive program of public outreach to make 
communities aware of the forthcoming rulemaking and to seek information 
on supplementary safety measures that would support allowance of quiet 
zones in communities sensitive to train horn noise. Contacts have been 
made with 160+ jurisdictions known to have whistle bans in place. FRA 
representatives have met with or addressed forums of state and local 
officials and community groups. Met with AAR/BRS/AAHSTO/FHWA 12/13/95 
to address technical specifications for 4-quadrant gates.
    Numerous congressional offices encouraged FRA to continue outreach 
and data collection. FRA advised the Congress that the deadline for an 
initial final rule would not be met as a result. Immediately prior to 
adjournment, the 104th Congress enacted the FAA reauthorization bill 
(PL 104-264; 10/9/96), which included amendments to the original 
whistle ban legislation. In general, the legislation affirms the 
latitude available to the Secretary to provide for phase-in of 
regulations and focus on safety results.
    Status.-- NPRM published 1/13/00 (65 FR 2230) (Docket No. FRA-1999-
6439, Notice No. 1). Written comments due 5/26/00. FRA is holding 
public hearings to receive oral comments.

                          HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

New Directions for Rail Hazardous Materials Safety
    Summary.--FRA and RSPA have recently completed the two major 
pending rulemakings addressing hazardous materials tank car safety 
(crashworthiness and tank retests). With completion of these tasks, it 
is now possible to turn attention to recommendations of the 
Transportation Research Board regarding the tank car design and 
construction process. In order to further this work, FRA is joining 
with its public and private sector partners to define and prioritize 
short and long-range research programs, identify needs for rulemaking, 
and assist in development of improved industry standards.
    Status.--A public workshop was conducted 2/13/96-2/14/96 in 
Houston, with participation by labor, railroads, tank car owners, and 
shippers. FRA is seeking means of advancing public/private partnerships 
for North American tank car safety.
Tank Car Crashworthiness and Retest
    Summary.--Research and Special Program Administration Dockets HM-
175A and HM-201 addressed further improvements in tank car 
crashworthiness, and adoption of advanced non-destructive testing to 
improve tank retest procedures, respectively.
    Status.--Final rules published 9/21/95 (60 FR 49048).
Train Placement
    Summary.--FRA is evaluating whether to recommend that the Research 
and Special Programs Administration publish proposed amendments to the 
in-train placement requirements for handling rail cars transporting 
hazardous materials. FRA is reviewing accident/incident data to 
determine whether the current non-hazardous materials buffer car 
requirements are still necessary and whether (as recommended by the 
National Transportation Safety Board) a buffer car should be required 
at the rear of each train.
    Status.--FRA is studying the feasibility of a proposed amendment.
             other safety projects and partnership efforts
Bridge Structural Safety
    Summary.--Following a survey of bridge conditions and railroad 
inspection practices, FRA determined that regulatory action is not 
necessary, but that FRA should continue to exercise an oversight role 
regarding bridge structural safety programs. FRA issued an interim 
statement of policy 4/27/95, with comments due 6/26/95.
    Status.--Comments support continued FRA partnership role. Final 
statement of policy is in review and clearance within the Executive 
Branch.
    Note.--On 2/12/96, the Administrator issued Emergency Order No. 19, 
which removed from service a bridge on the Tonawanda Island Railroad in 
New York State pending necessary structural repairs (61 FR 628; 2/16/
96).
Discolored Wheels
    FRA has granted a master waiver of the Freight Car Safety Standards 
permitting continued use of discolored heat-treated, curved plate 
wheels, which have superior resistance to thermal abuse. Data gathered 
under the waiver, together with results of analysis already provided, 
may support a permanent change in the regulation.
Environmental Impacts
    FRA revised its Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts to 
update or eliminate outdated references to programs or statutory 
authorities that no longer exist and to correct inconsistencies with 
the Council on Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy 
Act implementing regulations. The revised procedures were published in 
the Federal Register on 5/26/99 (64 FR 28545).
Hours of Service Electronic Recordkeeping
    Current hours of service record keeping uses paper and ink, but a 
major railroad has been given relief to keep electronic records. Other 
railroads have expressed interest, and similar waivers will involve 
similar issues. At FRA's invitation, the AAR submitted a petition 
seeking a master waiver for use of electronic record keeping. However, 
individual railroads have elected to proceed separately, and FRA is 
processing each on its merits. Permanent amendments to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements may be proposed. FRA is 
assisting railroads in developing electronic systems by providing 
guidance materials.
Remote Control Locomotives
    Current regulations contemplate operation of a locomotive 
exclusively from within the cab, and provision for the safety of the 
operation is made within that context. FRA has previously proposed a 
test program to gather more data on various types of operations. FRA 
has also held an informal safety inquiry regarding use of one-person 
crews and remote control locomotives on the Wisconsin Central (see 61 
FR 58736; 11/18/96). Further action expected.
Shared Use of General Railroad System--Joint Statement of Agency Policy
    FRA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have been working 
together to develop a policy concerning safety issues related to light 
rail transit operations on the general railroad system, how the two 
agencies intend to coordinate use of their respective safety 
authorities and the waiver process related to shared use operations. A 
proposed joint statement of policy was published 5/25/99 (64 FR 28238) 
with comments due on 7/30/99. Comment period extended on 7/28/99 to 10/
29/99 (64 FR 40931). Additional extension on 10/28/99 to 1/14/00 (64 FR 
58124) (FRA Docket No. FRA-1999-5685, Notice No. 3).
Shared Use of General Railroad System--FRA Jurisdiction Policy 
        Statement
    FRA issued a proposed statement of agency policy on 11/1/99 (64 FR 
59046) (FRA Docket No. FRA-1999-5685, Notice No. 4) describing the 
extent of its statutory jurisdiction over railroad passenger operations 
(which covers all railroads except urban rapid transit systems not 
connected to the general railroads system) and to explain how it will 
exercise that jurisdiction. Comments are due by 1/14/00.
TOFC/COFC Securement
    Summary.--Following a serious accident at Smithfield, N.C., on 5/
16/94, FRA formed a partnership with major railroads and labor 
organizations to evaluate and improve securement of intermodal loads. A 
report to the Secretary dated 9/15/94 documented the initial results of 
that effort.
    Status.--FRA held a meeting on 2/22/95 that focused on an item-by-
item discussion of the status and progress made within the industry 
with respect to the seven recommendations identified in the report to 
the Secretary. The AAR has established an Intermodal Equipment Handling 
Task Force that has developed a number of training aids. A follow-up 
TOFC/COFC loading and securement safety survey was conducted during 
1996. FRA conducted additional loading and securement field evaluations 
during July-August 1997. Joint training activity brought together 
railroads, TTX and FRA to maintain strong emphasis on compliance with 
AAR loading requirements. FRA continues to monitor securement of 
trailers and trucks in transportation and to work on this issue through 
SACP's on individual railroads.
Train Dispatcher Training
    FRA submitted a report to the Congress on 1/5/95 regarding the 
functions of contemporary train dispatching offices. The report noted 
that traditional pools of candidates for recruitment of train 
dispatchers are no longer adequate to the need. In partnership with the 
American Train Dispatchers Department/BLE (ATDD), FRA identified the 
need for a model train dispatcher training program.
    Experts from Amtrak, the ATDD, the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe 
Railroad and FRA developed a list of elements for dispatcher training 
programs. Required competencies and training program elements have been 
abstracted from this effort for a model program. The RSAC was be 
briefed on this effort on 3/24/97, with participants in the training 
task force indicating reluctance to attempt a ``one size fits all'' 
regulatory approach. Development of curricula continues with FRA 
support. Initial products of this effort were presented by an FRA 
contractor.
Wisconsin Central R.R.; Informal Safety Inquiry
    Summary.--FRA sought to gather information regarding plans by the 
railroad to expand use of one-person crews and remote control 
operations.
    Status.--A notice of special safety inquiry was published 11/18/96 
(61 FR 58736). A public hearing was held 12/4-12/5/96 in Appleton, 
Wisconsin. Written submissions were requested by 12/2/96. FRA entered 
into an agreement with the railroad providing for a moratorium on new 
single person crew and remote control operations, together with other 
undertakings related to compliance with FRA regulations. The railroad 
has completed its responsibilities under the agreement.
   safety advisories/directives/bulletins (federal register notices)
Advisories
99-3--Securement of floor beam cross-members on RoadRailer trailers: 
            Safety practices to prevent the highway tandem wheel on 
            RoadRailer trailers from falling onto the rails on moving 
            trains. Published 11/10/99 (64 FR 61377).
99-2--Not issued.
99-1--Lifting or jacking of railroad equipment: Safety practices 
            related to lifting or jacking of railroad equipment in 
            order to remove trucks or repair other components on a 
            piece of railroad equipment which requires individuals to 
            work beneath railroad equipment while it is raised. 
            Published 6/16/99 (64 FR 32300).
98-3--Safe Use of Prescription and Over-the-Counter Drugs: Safety 
            practices for the safe use of prescription and over-the-
            counter drugs by safety-sensitive railroad employees. 
            Published 12/24/99 (63 FR 71334)
98-2--Emergency application of airbrakes: Safety practices to reduce 
            the risk of casualties caused by failure to activate the 
            available two-way end-of-train telemetry device (two-way 
            EOT) to initiate an emergency brake application beginning 
            at the rear of the train when circumstances require an 
            emergency application of the train airbrakes. Published 6/
            5/98 (63 FR 30808).
98-1--Vision standards of certified locomotive engineers: Addresses the 
            vision standards of certified locomotive engineers in order 
            to reduce the risk of accidents arising from vision 
            impaired engineers. Published 5/28/98 (63 FR 29297).
97-3--Authorization of train movements past stop indications of 
            absolute signals: Safety practices to reduce the risk of 
            accidents arising from conflicting train movements when 
            train dispatchers and control operators authorize movements 
            past a stop indication of an absolute signal. Published 9/
            18/97 (62 FR 49047).
97-2--Failure to property secure unattended rolling equipment: Safety 
            practices to reduce the risk of casualties from runaway 
            locomotives, cars, and trains caused by failure to properly 
            secure unattended rolling equipment left on sidings or 
            other tracks. Published 9/18/97 (62 FR 49046)
97-1--Protection of trains and personnel from hazards caused by severe 
            weather conditions: Safety practices to reduce the risk of 
            casualties from train derailments caused by damage to 
            tracks, roadbed and bridges resulting from uncontrolled 
            flows of water and similar weather-related phenomena. Note: 
            This was amended on November 12, 1997, by revising the 
            recommendations concerning the transmission of flash flood 
            warning to train dispatchers or other employees controlling 
            the movement of trains. Published 9/4/97 (62 FR 46794).
Directives
97-1--Review of operational tests and inspection programs and review of 
            train dispatching procedures in non-signaled territory: 
            Safety practices to evaluate the integrity of all 
            railroads' programs of operational tests and inspections to 
            ensure that safety-critical information is accurately 
            conveyed and acknowledged for operations in non-signaled 
            Direct Train Control (DTC) territory. Published 6/30/97 (62 
            FR 35331).
Bulletins
97-2--Initiating emergency application of train airbrakes descending 
            heavy grades: Safety practice to prevent run-away trains on 
            heavy grades of 2 percent or greater by initiating 
            emergency application of airbrakes whenever train speed 
            exceeds maximum authorized speed by five miles or more. 
            Published 2/27/97 (62 FR 9014).
97-1--Loss of dynamic braking due to unintentional activation of 
            emergency MU fuel-line cut-off device: Safety practices for 
            certain locomotives equipped with emergency MU fuel-line 
            cut-off devices located inside the locomotive control 
            compartment at a location which enables the cut-off device 
            to be activated unintentionally. Published 1/30/97 (62 FR 
            4569).

       FISCAL YEAR 1999 HAZMAT ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS TRANSPORTATION

    Question. Please chronicle all major hazmat-related accidents/
incidents during calendar year 1999, 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 hazmat-related accidents/incidents 
occurred during calendar year 1999 (January 1-December 31, 1999):

    Date.--January 9, 1999
    Location.--Milford, Nebraska
    Railroad.--Burlington Northern Santa Fe
    Type of hazmat.--Unknown
    Fatalities/injuries.--None
    Evacuations.--None
    Other complications.--None
    Estimated cost.--$885,000
    Probable cause.--Turnout front (spring) worn or broken

    Date.--January 21, 1999
    Location.--Fort Plain, New York
    Railroad.--Consolidated Rail Corporation
    Type of hazmat.--Propane
    Fatalities/injuries.--None
    Evacuations.--150 people
    Other complications.--None
    Estimated cost.--$1,039,000
    Probable cause.--Coupler or draft system failure

    Date.--February 11, 1999
    Location.--Woods Cross, Utah
    Railroad.--Union Pacific Railroad
    Type of hazmat.--Toluene
    Fatalities/injuries.--None
    Evacuations.--None
    Other complications.--None
    Estimated cost.--$140,000
    Probable cause.--Wide gage due to worn rails

    Date.--March 24, 1999
    Location.--Wartrace, Tennessee
    Railroad.--CSX Transportation
    Type of hazmat.--Cartridges for weapons and incendiary ammunition
    Fatalities/injuries.--None
    Evacuations.--Unknown
    Other complications.--None
    Estimated cost.--$223,000
    Probable cause.--Journal (roller) bearing failure

    Date.--July 2, 1999
    Location.--Hamlet, North Carolina
    Railroad/--CSX Transportation
    Type of hazmat.--Methanol
    Fatalities/injuries.--None
    Evacuations.--None
    Other complications.--None
    Estimated cost.--$249,000
    Probable cause.--Compound fissure (track failure)

    Date.--July 10, 1999
    Location.--Riverfront, Louisiana
    Railroad.--Union Pacific
    Type of hazmat: 2-ethyl hexanol
    Fatalities/injuries: None
    Evacuations: None
    Other complications: None
    Estimated cost: $11,300
    Probable cause: By-passed couplers due to crew switching failure

    Date: July 11, 1999
    Location: Paradise, Montana
    Railroad: Montana Rail Link
    Type of hazmat: Asphalt
    Fatalities/injuries: None
    Evacuations: None
    Other complications: None
    Estimated cost: $1,442,000
    Probable cause: Irregular track alignment (sun kink)

    Date: July 24, 1999
    Location: Katka, Idaho
    Railroad: Burlington Northern Santa Fe
    Type of hazmat: Anhydrous ammonia
    Fatalities/injuries: None
    Evacuations: None
    Other complications: None
    Estimated cost: $525,000
    Probable cause: Journal (roller) bearing failure

    Date: August 7, 1999
    Location: Judd, Texas
    Railroad: Union Pacific
    Type of hazmat: Petroleum Distillate
    Fatalities/injuries: None
    Evacuations: None
    Other complications: None
    Estimated cost: $392,000
    Probable cause: Irregular track alignment (sun kink)

    Date: September, 30, 1999
    Location: Jens/Drummond Station, Montana
    Railroad: I & M Rail Link/Montana Rail Link
    Type of hazmat: Denatured alcohol
    Fatalities/injuries: None
    Evacuations: None
    Other complications: None
    Estimated cost: $1,088,000
    Probable cause: Equipment failure

    Date: October 7, 1999
    Location: Orpha, Wyoming
    Railroad: Burlington Northern Santa Fe
    Type of hazmat: Unknown
    Fatalities/Injuries: None
    Evacuations: None
    Other complications: None
    Estimated cost: $134,300
    Probable cause: Track failure

    Date: October 31, 1999
    Location: Canyon, Alaska
    Railroad: Alaska Railroad
    Type of hazmat: Aviation, turbine engine
    Fatalities/Injuries: None
    Evacuations: None
    Other complications: None
    Estimated cost: $700,000
    Probable cause: Improper train make-up

                         GRADE CROSSING FUNDING

    Question. Please update the table found on pages 421-425 of Senate 
Hearing 106-221, which outlines on a project-by-project basis how 
fiscal year 1999 and 2000 monies for grade crossing efforts were spent, 
who the recipients of the funds were, and what the expected results of 
these efforts are. Please add a column which delineates in a similar 
manner the funds requested in fiscal year 2001 (adding lines for new 
initiatives as necessary)?
    Answer. See table below.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year
                                        --------------------------------
                Activity                    1999       2000       2001
                                         obligated   funding    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research & Development.................        830      1,085      1,435
Next Generation High-Speed Rail........      4,738      3,897      4,000
Safety & Operations....................      2,850      3,487      3,217
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................      8,418      8,469      8,652
------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year
                                         -----------------------------------------
          Appropriation/Project              1999         2000                              Recipient                       Expected results
                                          Pobligated    funding     2001 funding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight Car Reflectorization............      $6,260      $15,000         $15,000  Volpe Ctr..................  Freight cars will be more visible to
                                                                                                                 drivers, helping them avoid striking
                                                                                                                 the train. Report published.
Eval Wayside Horns Optimal Acoustic           26,138       15,000          15,000  Volpe Ctr..................  Locomotive horns will be optimized for
 Warning.                                                                                                        sound quality and effectiveness while
                                                                                                                 reducing noise pollution in surrounding
                                                                                                                 communities.
Driver Behavior Accident Causation           307,668      225,000         250,000  Volpe Ctr..................  To gain a better understanding of how
 Driver Educa-  tion.                                    (Eq 50K)       (Eq 140K)                                drivers react to grade crossings and
                                                       (HSR 175K)      (Trk 110K)                                why accidents happen in order to
                                                                                                                 educate drivers.
Compendium of Grade Crossing Findings...     161,310       40,000          50,000  Volpe Ctr..................  Develop a compendium of findings from
                                                                                                                 research conducted on grade crossings.
Train Detection.........................      71,905       75,000         100,000  Assoc. of American           Examine causes for loss of contact
                                                                                    Railroads.                   between rail and wheels, resulting in
                                                                                                                 intermittent operation of grade
                                                                                                                 crossing warning device (gate bobble).
Illumination Guidelines.................       9,931       15,000          15,000  Volpe Ctr..................  The use of street lights to illuminate
                                                                                                                 trains at night so drivers can see and
                                                                                                                 avoid running into the train.
Photo Enforcement.......................       6,521       50,000          50,000  Volpe Ctr..................  Assess the Ohio crossbuck and traffic
                                                                                                                 signals at crossings to improve warning
                                                                                                                 to drivers.
Obstacle/Intrusion Detection............      38,489       75,000          75,000  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.
GIS support to HSR Corridors............      10,044  ...........  ..............  Volpe Ctr..................  Develop GIS system to support
                                                                                                                 communication between grade crossing
                                                                                                                 signals and Positive Train Control
                                                                                                                 systems.
Volpe Center............................  ..........       75,000          75,000  Volpe Ctr..................  Support for assessing hazard elimination
                                                             (Eq)            (Eq)                                projects
                                          ..........       50,000          50,000  Volpe Ctr..................  Expand Corridor Risk Analysis for high-
                                                                                                                 speed corridors to additional
                                                                                                                 corridors.
Support.................................      14,963        (HSR)           (TRK)
ITS Architecture & Support to ITS PO....      24,706       25,000  ..............  ITS JPO....................  The ITS Architecture is gaining a new
                                                                                                                 User Service--User Service #30--which
                                                                                                                 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. Standards development.
Passive & Private Crossings (new).......  ..........  ...........          50,000  Volpe Ctr..................  Examine demonstrations at passive
                                                                                                                 crossings and develop the groundwork
                                                                                                                 for a more extensive future program
                                                                                                                 involving other modes.
Review Available Data Sources (new).....  ..........  ...........          75,000  Volpe Ctr..................  Examine data elements and data bases to
                                                                                                                 determine additional information that
                                                                                                                 should be collected to analyze the
                                                                                                                 causes of accidents at grade crossings.
National Warrants (new).................  ..........  ...........          50,000  Volpe Ctr..................  Develop criteria or warrants for
                                                                                                                 analyzing grade crossings and
                                                                                                                 determining the types of warning
                                                                                                                 devices that should be installed.
Criteria & overall evaluation             ..........  ...........         125,000  Volpe Ctr..................  Determine criteria for developing an
 methodology.                                                                                                    evaluation methodology usable for all
                                                                                                                 grade crossing R&D projects.
Test Interoperability of VPAS Systems...  ..........      250,000  ..............  Univ. of Alabama...........  To test the interoperability of vehicle
                                                            (TRK)                                                proximity alert systems and examine
                                                                                                                 potential for standards.
State-of-the art planning tools for       ..........  ...........         100,000  Volpe Ctr..................  To develop new cost/benefit planning
 crossing consolidation.                                                                                         tools for rationalizing the planning
                                                                                                                 process to enable crossings to be
                                                                                                                 closed and consolidated while making
                                                                                                                 improvements to highways and transit
                                                                                                                 systems.
Assess 1010 & 1036 Demos and NGHSR BAA..     127,776      150,000         175,000  Volpe Ctr..................  Evaluate the technology demonstration
                                                            (HSR)           (TRK)                                projects funded under the Section 1010
                                                                                                                 & 1036 program in ISTEA (4-quad gate
                                                                                                                 with obstruction detection in CT and
                                                                                                                 Vehicle Arrestor Barrier in IL), and
                                                                                                                 assess BAA submittals.
Standardized before/after evaluations...  ..........  ...........         115,000  Volpe Ctr..................  Develop standardized before/after
                                                                                                                 evaluation techniques to measure safety
                                                                                                                 effectiveness of research projects.
Crossing Ranking Capability.............  ..........  ...........          25,000  Volpe Ctr..................  Building upon the risk assessment
                                                                                                                 techniques for analyzing grade
                                                                                                                 crossings, develop a user-friendly
                                                                                                                 technique for evaluating and ranking
                                                                                                                 grade crossings to improve allocation
                                                                                                                 of funding resources.
HSR Crossing Tech.......................      24,181       25,000          25,000  Volpe Ctr/Battelle.........  To examine signaling and train control,
                                                            (HSR)           (TRK)  Labs.......................   obstruction detection and warning
                                                                                                                 devices and barrier system technologies
                                                                                                                 available for use in high-speed
                                                                                                                 corridors. Develop methodology to
                                                                                                                 evaluate improved safety provided by
                                                                                                                 additional devices.
                                         -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal Research & Development...     829,892    1,085,000       1,435,000                               ........................................
                                         =========================================
Mitigating Grade Crossing Hazards.......   1,370,000    1,500,000       1,500,000  BAA Awardees...............  BAA awards to date will include radar
                                                                                                                 vehicle detection systems/computer
                                                                                                                 video traffic recording systems.
ITS Architecture & Support to ITS PO....      20,000  ...........  ..............  ITS JPO....................  The ITS Architecture is gaining a new
                                                                                                                 User Service--User Service #30--which
                                                                                                                 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. Standards development.
TRB HSR IDEA Program....................     500,000      500,000         500,000  TRB........................  The TRB IDEA Program, supported by FRA,
TRB ITS IDEA Program....................     500,000      500,000         500,000  TRB                           FHWA, NHTSA, and FTA, competitively
                                                                                                                 solicits concepts, conducts peer
                                                                                                                 review, and awards innovative
                                                                                                                 technology projects nationwide to
                                                                                                                 support development of High-Speed Rail
                                                                                                                 and Intelligent Transportation Systems.
                                                                                                                 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.
Low Cost Innovative Technologies........   1,100,000      947,000       1,050,000  BAA Awardees...............  Awards under the latest BAA program have
                                                                                                                 not been announced.
Four Quadrant Gate Deployment Assessment  ..........       50,000          50,000  Volpe Ctr..................  Analyze the 4-quadrant gates deployed in
 (new).                                                                                                          Florida and North Carolina and develop
                                                                                                                 standardized criteria for their use.
NC Sealed Corridor......................   1,000,000      400,000         400,000  NCDOT......................  The North Carolina Sealed Corridor
                                                                                                                 Initiative will treat every crossing in
                                                                                                                 the 174-mile Charlotte to Raleigh
                                                                                                                 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..........................      25,000  ...........  ..............  NYSDOT.....................  To design, fabricate, test and evaluate
                                                                                                                 a low-cost grade crossing gate system
                                                                                                                 suitable for low volume traffic
                                                                                                                 crossings on high-speed corridors.
Volpe Center Support....................     223,301  ...........  ..............  Volpe Ctr..................  Support of assessing hazard elimination
                                                                                                                 projects. Corridor Risk Analysis for
                                                                                                                 Empire Corridor.
                                         -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal next generation high-       4,738,301    3,897,000       4,000,000
       speed rail.......................
                                         =========================================
Operation Lifesaver.....................     600,000      950,000         ( \1\ )  Operation Lifesaver, Inc...  Public education about the laws
                                                                                                                 regarding grade crossings and
                                                                                                                 trespassing, the dangers at grade
                                                                                                                 crossings and on rail rights-of-way and
                                                                                                                 the importance to obey traffic and
                                                                                                                 trespass laws.
Public Awareness and Outreach...........      33,700       37,000          50,000  Various printing             Promotional and audio-visual materials,
                                                                                    contractors, packing and     conference registrations and display
                                                                                    shipping firms, equipment    booth space and supplies. Materials are
                                                                                    rental firms, conference     used or distributed when making
                                                                                    organizers, OL suppliers,    presentations to schools, community
                                                                                    etc..                        groups, workshops, conventions, etc.
Police Officer Detail...................     114,444      165,000         165,000  Erie County, NY............  The police officer detail is an outreach
                                                                                   Selection of regional         program with the law enforcement
                                                                                    officers is pending.         community to raise awareness of
                                                                                                                 crossing safety and trespass
                                                                                                                 prevention. One officer is detailed
                                                                                                                 full time to Washington, and one each
                                                                                                                 will be detailed part-time to four FRA
                                                                                                                 regions.
Outreach to Law Enforcement and Trespass      51,700       50,000          50,000  IACP, NSA, NFOP, etc. for    Outreach to judges, prosecutors and law
 Prevention.                                                                        conference display booth     enforcement to enhance their knowledge
                                                                                    space, registration fees,    of crossing safety and trespass
                                                                                    and GPO printing for         prevention issues, and materials to
                                                                                    pamphlets, brochures, and    support FRA's regional manager
                                                                                    for other promotional        promotions of highway-rail crossing
                                                                                    items.                       safety and trespass prevention
                                                                                                                 programs.
Analysis of High-Profile Crossings......      14,600       15,000          15,000  Univ of West Virginia and    Research and analysis of problems
                                                                                    local survey firms.          associated with and alternatives for,
                                                                                                                 high-profile crossings and low-
                                                                                                                 clearance vehicles.
Airborne survey of crossing elevations..     289,000       85,000         100,000  US Army Corp of Engineers..  For airborne measurement of ground
                                                                                                                 elevation and collection of data to be
                                                                                                                 used in analysis of high-profile
                                                                                                                 crossings on high exposure rail
                                                                                                                 corridors.
Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory & Data        50,000       80,000          50,000  AMB........................  Simplify and refine the Highway-Rail
 Bases.                                                                                                          Crossing Inventory and collision data
                                                                                                                 bases reporting and report production
                                                                                                                 and accident prediction procedures.
Information Processing..................     285,000      285,000         296,400  AMB........................  Supports Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory
                                                                                                                 and crossing module of the Accident/
                                                                                                                 Incident Report Processing.
Develop new outreach campaign...........  ..........  ...........         500,000  To be determined...........  Creative phase of new public awareness
                                                                                                                 campaign development with focus
                                                                                                                 primarily on trespass prevention,
                                                                                                                 secondarily on crossing safety.
Regulatory Support......................      25,000  ...........  ..............  Auburn University..........  Conduct literature search of warrants,
                                                                                                                 guidelines and best-practices for
                                                                                                                 determining appropriate warning
                                                                                                                 device(s) or grade separation for
                                                                                                                 highway-rail crossings.
Regulatory Support......................      38,000       40,000          40,000  DeLeuw Cather..............  Assistance in preparation of EIS for
                                                                                                                 train horn NPRM.
Rail-with-Trails........................      50,000       10,000          10,000  Reimbursable agreement with  Best-practices for design and operation
                                                                                    FHWA to fund development     of rails-with-trails projects.
                                                                                    of best-practices for
                                                                                    rails-with-trails,
                                                                                    contractor not yet
                                                                                    selected.
PC&B (Approximate)......................   1,298,492    1,770,000       1,941,000                               Supports staff dedicated to the crossing
                                                                                                                 and trespasser program.
                                         -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal Safety & Operations......   2,849,936    3,487,000       3,217,400
                                         =========================================
      Total FRA.........................   8,418,129    8,469,000       8,652,400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $600,000--Funded under Maglev funds.

           top ten states with most grade crossing accidents
    Question. Please list the ``top ten'' states that have the highest 
number of highway-rail crossing accidents and fatalities, for calendar 
years 1997, 1998 and 1999.
    Answer. See the table below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Collisions                  Deaths
                          State \1\                          ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               1997    1998   1999 \2\   1997    1998   1999 \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas.......................................................     421     320      364       54      45       41
Illinois....................................................     213     198      198       27      30       53
Indiana.....................................................     227     195      191       23      25       26
California..................................................     159     187      190       22      32       24
Louisiana...................................................     203     214      176       30      25       20
Ohio........................................................     178     154      144       26      15       21
Georgia.....................................................     138     140      134       12      13        7
Mississippi.................................................     148     133      131       19      24       17
Alabama.....................................................     135     146      122       19      11       12
Michigan....................................................     152     104      114       14      11       14
Wisconsin...................................................     117     105      110        6       7        7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ranking is based on total number of reported collisions at highway-rail crossings, both public and private
  during 1997-1999.
\2\ 1999 data is preliminary.

                 IG AND NTSB REPORTS ON GRADE CROSSING

    Question. Please discuss FRA's response to the recent Inspector 
General and NTSB reports regarding grade crossing safety and how this 
response is reflected in the fiscal year 2001 budget request.
    Answer. The Office of Inspector's General report on the 
Department's Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan included five 
specific recommendations. These recommendation are: implement cost-
effective strategies to reduce highway-rail grade crossing collisions, 
develop a trespass prevention action plan, incorporate rail transit 
crossing and trespassing incidents into the Action Plan's statistics, 
periodically reconcile FRA's crossing collision database with the 
National Response Center's rail accident reports, and update the grade 
crossing inventory by states and railroads.
    In 1998, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) published 
Safety at Passive Grade Crossings (NTSB/SS-98-02). One of the 
recommendations (H-98-028) to the Department of Transportation in the 
report was the installation of STOP signs at all passive crossings 
unless an engineering study found otherwise. While recognizing the 
importance of STOP signs under many circumstances, the Department 
responded to the NTSB with the recommendation that a system of 
guidelines (or warrants) be created to provide guidance for the 
selection of the appropriate safety treatment for all types of 
crossings. Treatments would range from standard crossbucks to including 
crossing closures and grade separations. The Board has classified the 
Department's response as ``Open-Acceptable.''
    FRA addresses the recommendations of the OIG as follows. FRA has 
been actively promoting the use of traffic channelization, photo 
enforcement and stricter penalties for crossing violations for a number 
of years. Both traffic channelization and photo enforcement are 
included in the proposed train horn rule, and FRA is developing a model 
photo enforcement legislative package to help interested states 
implement legislation. A specific trespass prevention action plan is 
currently being developed within FRA and will be in place by May 1, 
2000. FRA and FTA are working together to ensure that transit rail data 
is available for Action Plan statistics. Ways to reconcile the 
different reporting formats and requirements between transit agencies 
and conventional railroads are being explored as well. FRA has already 
begun the process of reconciling its database with the information in 
the National Response Center's rail accident reports. FRA has committed 
to reconciling the two databases on a quarterly basis. FRA has proposed 
in its re-authorization legislation that the states and railroads be 
required to update the crossing inventory database. FRA and FTA are 
exploring methods to provide a complete and accurate database of the 
nation's crossings.
    To address the recommendation of NTSB, a ONEDOT Working Group has 
been formed. Chaired by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Transportation Policy Development, the Working Group includes 
representatives from the FRA, FHWA, NHTSA, FTA, and the ITS Joint 
Program Office. The Working Group has developed a comprehensive project 
plan for guidance to state and local traffic engineers regarding 
highway/rail grade crossing traffic control devices and grade 
separation. The Office of Secretary of Transportation (OST) has 
approved the formation of a technical working group (TWG) to develop 
the guidelines. The TWG includes representatives from the Department, 
NTSB, state and local highway authorities, rail labor and management, 
and other interested parties. A literature review funded by FRA has 
been completed by Auburn University in Alabama. The review documents 
existing guidelines, warrants, or best practices in use by recognized 
organizations. There have been two meetings of the TWG and a final 
meeting is scheduled in June 2000. A draft document containing the 
guidelines will be provided by October 2000.

          STATUS OF MODEL STATE LAWS PROMOTING GRADE CROSSING

    Question. What progress have you made on developing model state 
laws to promote grade crossing safety? How much is being allocated for 
this activity in fiscal year 2000? How much is requested in fiscal year 
2001?
    Answer. FRA has drafted a model state bill defining various grade 
crossing safety violations, setting penalties for each violation, and a 
model state bill regarding photographic enforcement of grade crossing 
safety laws. The documents are being reviewed within FRA. No specific 
funds are dedicated to this project in fiscal year 2000-2001.

           IMPACT OF ACTION PLAN ON GRADE CROSSING CHALLENGES

    Question. Is it time for the Department to prepare an updated 
action plan to promote grade crossing safety? How might such a plan 
help manage and expedite the DOT approach to grade crossing challenges? 
Is a separate plan needed to address trespasser challenges?
    Answer. DOT's Intermodal Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Team has plans 
to revise the 1994 Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan. The Team 
will complete the revision this fiscal year. The ``new action plan'' 
can be expected to help expedite the DOT approach to the following 
grade crossing challenges: development of strategic outreach efforts 
(as contemplated by the FRA budget item for outreach), expanding 
partnerships to include work with Metropolitan Planning Organizations 
(these will help combat the proliferation of grade crossings with the 
coming of new/expanded transit operations that result from shared use 
of railroad rights-of-way for light rail/freight operations), 
continued/expanded Intelligent Transportation System applications for 
grade crossing safety, and focus on new technology. Trespass challenges 
will be addressed in a separate plan. While some of the methods of 
addressing trespass abatement are similar to crossing safety, i.e., 
education, enforcement, and engineering, they are not the same. 
Different targeting methodologies and strategies need to be developed 
for delivering the message about trespass prevention.

                          TRESPASS PREVENTION

    Question. Please update the response to last year's question 
regarding trespass prevention found on pages 426-427 of Senate Hearing 
106-221. What ongoing and new initiatives were undertaken in fiscal 
years 1999 and 2000? What initiatives are planned in fiscal year 2001? 
Are there specific funding requests in the budget associated with these 
ongoing or new trespass prevention initiatives?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1999, FRA and Transport Canada developed 
pilot projects to test the effectiveness of the jointly-produced 
Community Trespassing Prevention Guide in Oshawa, Ontario, and 
Whistler, British Columbia. Both projects were very successful, with 
anticipated implementation of the Oshawa project by surrounding cities. 
A report on this project was presented at the April 2000 meeting of the 
American Public Transit Association. The Whistler project, which 
involved the British Columbia Railroad working with the community to 
build walkways and paths away from the tracks, was so successful that 
the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railroad will try to 
implement it system-wide. In addition, a Salem, Oregon, project using 
the new OLI trespass prevention presentation is ongoing.
    In order to reduce potential trespass problems associated with 
recreational trails on or adjacent to active rail rights-of-way, FRA 
has led a ONE DOT effort to produce a Rails-with-Trails (RWT) Best 
Practices Report. Requests for proposals were received late spring 1999 
and a 30-month contract was awarded in August to produce the report. 
The study has three sections: Literature Review, State-of-the-Practice 
Review, and Best Practices Report. To date, the Literature Review is 
nearly complete, and the State-of-the-Practice Review is underway. The 
final report is anticipated in late 2001, following review for comment 
by the identified stakeholders: local, State, and Federal government 
agencies; railroad management, labor, and advocacy groups; and trail 
proponents, planners, engineers, and advocacy groups.
    One of the major problems facing FRA is the lack of demographic 
data regarding the individuals who trespass. This data is needed to 
focus outreach campaigns to specific ``at-risk'' groups. To address 
this problem, FRA has ongoing partnership efforts with Operation 
Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI), and the railroad industry to obtain better 
demographic information on railroad trespassers. In May 2000, FRA will 
meet with OLI and the railroad industry to finalize what demographic 
information will be collected. After the data is collected from arrest/
eviction/contact reports currently recorded by railroad special agents, 
the information will be processed using demographic descriptor software 
to obtain ``profiles'' of railroad trespassers. This information will 
enable outreach efforts to reach the targeted groups.
    Another major FRA initiative is to make law enforcement and 
judicial communities aware of the trespass problem. FRA has begun to 
supplement its full-time law enforcement liaison officer in 
Headquarters with part-time regional law enforcement liaison officers 
in its eight regions. These officers will work five days each month to 
reach out to local law enforcement agencies and judges with messages 
about the dangers of trespassing on railroad property. In addition, FRA 
continues to encourage states to pass railroad-specific trespassing 
laws using the model legislation developed by FRA. Another effort for 
more effective enforcement of trespassing laws in known high-trespass 
areas is the use of remote video monitoring. FRA will sponsor a 
demonstration project in Pittsford, New York, where video cameras and 
video imaging computer software will be used to capture trespassing 
activity. An alarm and live video image will be sent to a local 
dispatch center for appropriate law enforcement response. FRA expects 
this project to start in the spring of 2000 and to continue for one 
year.
    Funding for FRA's trespass prevention efforts are included under 
FRA's highway-rail grade crossing safety and trespass prevention 
program. For fiscal year 2001, FRA is requesting $500,000 for an 
outreach program that will help reduce highway-rail grade crossing 
collisions and trespass casualties. The proposed cost-effective 
outreach program will educate communities and highway users of the 
dangers that exist on railroad property and at highway-rail crossings. 
Fiscal year 2000-2001 funds will continue to support Police Officer 
Details and Outreach to Judges. These efforts will contribute 
significantly to the trespass prevention programs. In addition, FRA is 
providing about 48 percent of the funding for the contract for the RWT 
Best Practices Report, with the Federal Highway Administration funding 
47 percent and the National Highway Traffic Safety and Federal Transit 
Administration contributing 5 percent. Finally, OLI will use a portion 
of FRA's annual grant to support trespass prevention efforts.

                    TRESPASS DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

    Question. It has been agreed that better demographic information 
regarding who trespasses and where would be helpful in targeting 
educational efforts to reduce trespassing incidents. Please update the 
Committee on the trespass prevention demographic information gathering 
process. What resources is FRA dedicating to this research? What is its 
status?
    Answer. One of the major problems facing FRA is the lack of 
demographic data regarding the individuals who trespass. This data is 
needed to focus outreach campaigns to specific ``at-risk'' groups. To 
address this problem, FRA has ongoing partnership efforts with 
Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI), and the railroad industry to obtain 
better demographic information on railroad trespassers. In May 2000, 
FRA will meet with OLI and the railroad industry to finalize what 
demographic information will be collected. After the data is collected 
from arrest/eviction/contact reports currently recorded by railroad 
special agents, the information will be processed using demographic 
descriptor software to obtain ``profiles'' of railroad trespassers. 
This information will enable outreach efforts to reach the targeted 
groups.

                FISCAL YEAR 1997-2001 SECTION 130 FUNDS

    Question. Please confer with the Federal Highway Administration, 
and report on available section 130 surface transportation program 
safety funds, on a state-by-state basis, for fiscal years 1997 through 
2001. Please indicate unobligated balances for each state's total 
available section 130 funds.
    Answer. The attached table shows the amount of funds available for 
Section 130 programs for the fiscal years 1997 through 2000 on a state-
by-state basis. The funds available for fiscal year 2001 will not be 
calculated until later this year. It is not expected that there will be 
any major changes in the way funds are allocated to states. The 
unobligated balance under TEA-21 includes fiscal year 2000 funds.

  SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM SAFETY SET-ASIDE FUNDS, HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSINGS (23 U.S.C. 130, YEARLY APPROPRIATIONS AND UNOBLIGATED FUNDS AS OF 2/29/
                                                                          2000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year
                          State                          ----------------------------------------------------------------   ISTEA funds    TEA-21 funds
                                                            1997 approp    1998 approp.    1999 approp.    2000 approp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................      $3,220,384      $3,220,384      $3,220,384      $3,220,384     $435,408.99   $6,608,920.00
Alaska..................................................       2,439,186       2,439,186       2,439,186       2,439,186  ..............    6,265,503.00
Arizona.................................................       1,576,081       1,576,081       1,576,081       1,576,081    1,470,930.44    4,728,243.00
Arkansas................................................       2,457,429       2,457,429       2,457,429       2,457,429      584,602.00    4,280,137.00
California..............................................      10,182,716      10,182,716      10,182,716      10,182,716      437,192.65    5,713,426.16
Colorado................................................       2,202,728       2,202,728       2,202,728       2,202,728      631,402.47    3,895,433.84
Connecticut.............................................       1,047,610       1,047,610       1,047,610       1,047,610      121,641.22    1,042,555.00
Delaware................................................         504,776         504,776         504,776         504,776      364,869.79      835,717.20
District of Columbia....................................         210,728         210,728         210,728         210,728      421,456.00      632,184.00
Florida.................................................       4,686,707       4,686,707       4,686,707       4,686,707    1,572,750.00    6,519,470.00
Georgia.................................................       4,696,264       4,696,264       4,696,264       4,696,264    3,897,484.93   10,082,116.71
Hawaii..................................................         391,793         391,793         391,793         391,793  ..............    1,175,379.00
Idaho...................................................       1,429,320       1,429,320       1,429,320       1,429,320            0.25    2,358,256.00
Illinois................................................       7,926,261       7,926,261       7,926,261       7,926,261      584,973.93   13,359,926.00
Indiana.................................................       4,962,375       4,962,375       4,962,375       4,962,375      105,939.98    7,192,472.14
Iowa....................................................       3,795,673       3,795,673       3,795,673       3,795,673      129,344.28    2,742,497.10
Kansas..................................................       3,286,936       4,870,650       4,870,650       4,870,650       84,378.92    1,945,620.00
Kentucky................................................       2,535,034       2,535,034       2,535,034       2,535,034      650,319.52    7,051,062.00
Louisiana...............................................       3,176,113       3,176,113       3,176,113       3,176,113      453,959.42    1,862,618.41
Maine...................................................         938,057         938,057         938,057         938,057      827,384.48    2,699,571.00
Maryland................................................       1,427,286       1,427,286       1,427,286       1,427,286    1,024,927.00    4,228,983.00
Massachusetts...........................................       2,011,267       2,011,267       2,011,267       2,011,267      153,571.00    6,647,022.00
Michigan................................................       5,352,187       5,352,187       5,352,187       5,352,187    1,504,804.00    9,128,676.46
Minnesota...............................................       4,041,936       4,041,936       4,041,936       4,041,936      150,021.45    4,880,649.00
Mississippi.............................................       2,240,007       2,240,007       2,240,007       2,240,007       71,121.00       94,081.00
Missouri................................................       3,998,022       3,998,022       3,998,022       3,998,022       91,000.00      449,048.11
Montana.................................................       1,613,367       1,613,367       1,613,367       1,613,367      120,161.23    3,491,197.00
Nebraska................................................       2,661,323       2,661,323       2,661,323       2,661,323    1,234,915.21    3,775,169.00
Nevada..................................................         783,990         783,990         783,990         783,990       60,388.00      921,733.00
New Hampshire...........................................         612,960         612,960         612,960         612,960      101,005.43      699,759.83
New Jersey..............................................       2,691,259       2,691,259       2,691,259       2,691,259      287,187.38    4,946,367.00
New Mexico..............................................       1,205,846       1,205,846       1,205,846       1,205,846        1,457.61    2,460,353.72
New York................................................       6,020,444       6,020,444       6,020,444       6,020,444      197,141.00    6,333,322.00
North Carolina..........................................       3,981,325       3,981,325       3,981,325       3,981,325      319,856.00    9,650,525.00
North Dakota............................................       2,809,183       2,242,521       2,646,743       2,809,183      299,675.37    3,179,601.04
Ohio....................................................       6,301,744       6,301,744       6,301,744       6,301,744  ..............    2,863,477.82
Oklahoma................................................       3,300,832       3,300,832       3,300,832       3,300,832        4,395.63    3,325,266.00
Oregon..................................................       2,194,099       2,194,099       2,194,099       2,194,099      639,030.96    6,582,297.00
Pennsylvania............................................       5,117,791       5,804,391       5,804,391       5,804,391      348,802.57    5,081,603.91
Rhode Island............................................         445,013         445,013         445,013         445,013      248,626.89    1,159,804.00
South Carolina..........................................       2,584,926       2,584,926       2,584,926       2,584,926      205,139.58    2,749,828.83
South Dakota............................................       1,654,832       1,654,832       1,654,832       1,654,832       65,555.08    3,873,795.00
Tennessee...............................................       3,267,384       3,267,384       3,267,384       3,267,384      386,320.82    2,911,250.53
Texas...................................................      10,906,280      10,906,280      10,906,280      10,906,280      163,840.00   11,901,540.00
Utah....................................................       1,152,999       1,152,999       1,152,999       1,152,999      118,977.41      409,172.31
Vermont.................................................         618,632         618,631         618,632         618,632    1,927,777.25    1,855,893.00
Virginia................................................       2,731,204       2,731,204       2,731,204       2,731,204    2,663,197.38    4,966,853.00
Washington..............................................       2,717,360       2,717,360       2,717,360       2,717,360    1,856,426.98    3,818.151.20
West Virginia...........................................       1,708,309       1,708,309       1,708,309       1,708,309      412,885.00    1,932,078.00
Wisconsin...............................................       3,929,021       3,929,021       3,929,021       3,929,021    1,295,134.45    3,997,800.56
Wyoming.................................................         912,318         912,318         912,318         912,318       93,671.00    1,011,191.00
Puerto Rico.............................................         740,370  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals............................................     153,399,687     154,362,968     154,767,191     154,929,631   28,821,051.95   10,317,596.88
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  1-800 EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

    Question. Section 301 of the 1994 Railroad Safety Act requires the 
Secretary to conduct a pilot program to demonstrate an emergency 
notification system using a toll-free telephone number for the public 
to report any malfunctions or other safety problems at railroad-highway 
grade crossings. Please bring us up to date on FRA's response to this 
requirement. How is FRA promoting railroad investment in this area and 
how does the FY-2001 budget contribute towards this goal?
    Answer. The 1994 Swift Rail Development Act directs 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. However, the Congress did not appropriate 
funds for this program. In 1995, a preliminary design concept and 
implementation plan was completed and preliminary discussions were held 
with the States of Illinois and Minnesota for a two-State pilot test 
project. FRA's goal was to involve two States representative of both 
urban and rural areas.
    In 1996, $625,000 was appropriated by Congress for the development 
of system hardware and software. No funds were appropriated for the 
installation of signs at crossings, the public education and awareness 
program, nor the final Report to Congress. FRA has reached an agreement 
with FHWA to use Surface Transportation Program Funds from the safety 
set-aside (Section 130) for the required signage part of this project. 
Meanwhile in 1996, several major railroads, at their own expense, 
started to install their own 1-800 Emergency Telephone Number signs at 
crossings to report malfunctions and/or emergencies. Some railroads are 
installing these at all of their public and private crossings, while 
others are installing them at only the public crossings, and yet others 
at only the active crossings (those with gates and/or flashing lights). 
Preliminary discussions were held with Union Pacific (UPRR) and 
Norfolk-Southern (NS) Railroads to evaluate methods for incorporating 
the railroads' 1-800 Number Systems into the overall system planned for 
the two pilot states.
    In 1997, the FRA Administrator sent a letter to all States inviting 
them to participate in the two-State pilot test program. FRA received 
expressions of interest from only four states, California, Illinois, 
New Mexico, and Minnesota.
    In 1998, FRA awarded a 3-year contract to design, develop, and test 
a 1-800 Toll-Free Emergency Notification System (ENS), capable of 
reporting problems at highway-rail intersections to a centralized state 
police emergency response communication center or railroad train 
dispatch center. This 1-800 ENS will be designed for, and first tested 
in, the State of Texas where emergency response communication center 
personnel are familiar and knowledgeable with how such a system should 
properly operate. This will also upgrade that State's currently 
installed system. Subsequently, the 1-800 ENS Software Package will be 
made available to two or more pilot States. The software package will 
then be modified to operate from a railroad's perspective and offered 
to and installed on a medium size (or larger) railroad. In October 
1999, FRA delivered and installed a prototype version of the 1-800 ENS 
Software Package at the State of Texas Department of Public Safety 
(DPS), Division of Emergency Management (DEM). The State DEM has been 
using this software successfully to record incoming calls at the rate 
of about 1,000 calls per month, preferring it to their former system. 
The final refinements are being completed and it is anticipated that 
the final software package will be delivered to the State by the end of 
April 2000.
    FRA has conducted a poll of the major railroads and found that, 
after completion of the Conrail merger, more than 55 percent of all 
public at-grade crossings will contain a posted 1-800 ENS Number, and 
an additional 10 percent are on railroads where an emergency telephone 
number has been provided to local emergency service organizations 
(police, fire, medical, etc.). Of the 158,784 public at-grade crossings 
nationwide, a 1-800 ENS Sign has been installed at approximately 84,357 
(53 percent) of the public at-grade crossings on the Burlington 
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), UPRR, NS, CSX Transportation and IC 
Railroads. This represents 78 percent of all the active crossings 
(those with flashing lights and/or gates) in the nation.
    Since Texas and Connecticut have state-wide systems which include 
some of the above crossings, FRA estimates about 56 percent of all 
public at-grade crossings in the nation will soon be equipped. Some 
railroads, for example, UPRR, NS and BNSF, are voluntarily considering 
an expansion of their programs to include additional crossings (1) not 
currently equipped with automatic warning devices and (2) private 
crossings.
    An effective emergency notification system will have a centralized 
manned center to receive calls. This requires a telephone system for 
receiving calls and a computerized system (software and hardware) for 
fast, efficient, and accurate identification of the crossing location 
on a highway-railroad grid. The 1-800 ENS Software Package will have 
the ability for logging calls and accessing Inventory Files based on 
the U.S. DOT/AAR National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Number and 
Inventory. It will also have supplemental files, incorporate a display 
on a map, and the capability to forward the incoming call and 
information to the appropriate railroad or highway authorities.
    FRA is evaluating the possibility of having the railroads assume 
responsibility for incoming 1-800 ENS calls since they are already 
moving in that direction. Using this approach, FRA believes that it may 
be possible to implement a 1-800 ENS on a national scale rather than in 
just two pilot states, thereby achieving more coverage with the 
appropriated funds.
    FRA is currently focusing on railroad-centered programs. With the 
developed ENS software for the State of Texas almost completed, FRA 
plans to modify the software for use by other state and railroad 
centered systems to support emergency management personnel in receiving 
calls by logging the problem being reported, accessing inventory files 
and assisting in forwarding the incoming calls to the correct control 
center. The 1-800 ENS Software Package will have the ability for 
logging calls and accessing Inventory Files for quick crossing look-up 
based on the U.S. DOT/AAR National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory 
Number. It will also have supplemental files, incorporate a GIS 
capability (display on a map) and forwarding the incoming call and 
information to the appropriate railroad and highway authorities to 
correct the situation. FRA also plans to encourage railroads and States 
with 1-800 systems to keep their Inventory up-to-date (a key component 
of a 1-800 system is to correctly identify the crossing number posted 
on-site).
    Since the original funds appropriated by Congress appear to be 
sufficient to develop the software packages for both state and railroad 
oriented systems, no additional funding was requested by FRA in the 
fiscal year 2001 budget.

            FUNDING FOR 1-800 EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

    Question. Have you already used the money appropriated several 
years ago for this purpose? Are any of these funds still available?
    Answer. Of the $625,000 appropriated, $618,000 has been obligated 
for the development of the necessary software package to operate a 
state system, and for the conversion of this package to a railroad 
oriented system by regional and shortline railroads. The remaining 
balance of $7,000 may be used for computer hardware for a demonstration 
with a regional or shortline railroad.

        ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR 1-800 EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

    Question. Are seed monies necessary to advance regional emergency 
call centers to assist small railroads which have not invested in toll-
free emergency systems? How much would be required for this effort? 
What are the expected benefits and costs? Does your fiscal year 2001 
budget provide such funds?
    Answer. In January 2000, FRA received a presentation for a proposed 
National Transportation Emergency Call Center (NTECC) which would 
establish a 24-hour 1-800 number emergency notification system center 
for all shortline and even medium-sized railroads patterned from the 
system used by BNSF. While the concept is in its infancy, the proposed 
center would provide national coverage for the medium (regional) and 
shortline railroads at a lower cost if each railroad established this 
service themselves. This concept is in the process of being developed 
and several railroads are being approached with the concept. It is 
estimated that approximately $350,000 may be needed to help establish 
such national and regional centers and possibly $150,000 per year to 
initially keep operational until they can be self-sufficient through 
payments from participating railroads.
    FRA is evaluating the feasibility of providing seed funding or cost 
sharing for a national or one or more regional contract arrangements 
whereby smaller railroads (shortlines) could use the services of a 
national/regional Emergency Notification & Command Center to receive 
and respond to calls, and/or encourage American Shortline and Regional 
Railroad Association participation in establishing a national/regional 
emergency notification contract services.
    In addition, FRA has established a partnership with the State of 
Pennsylvania, a group of eight shortline railroads within the State, 
and a County Emergency Management Authority (EMA) to create an 
emergency and problem notification system for the eight shortline 
railroads. The State of Pennsylvania is very supportive and desirous of 
expanding the system state-wide after the original establishment. FRA 
will supply the 1-800 Emergency Notification System software developed 
for the State of Texas (after modifications to make it applicable for 
railroad use) and possibly computer hardware. The State can provide 
funding for installation of the signs (Sec. 130 money) and it is 
anticipated that FRA would provide some seed money to help establish 
the demonstration and center. The involved railroads are currently 
preparing a plan for the establishment and operation of the proposed 
center, determining the cost elements, and identifying the funding 
needed. If successful, FRA will meet Congress' mandate for implementing 
a 1-800 number program in two pilot States. This will also initiate the 
effort to implement this program for crossings that do not belong to 
the Class 1 railroads.
    No funds have been included in the fiscal year 2001 budget for 
regional emergency call centers.

           FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND FISCAL YEAR 2001 R&D PROJECTS

    Question. Please reproduce the research and development project 
breakout table on page 75 of the budget justification. After each 
subaccount (e.g. ``Train Occupant Protection''), list each research 
project in that category, and delineate the fiscal year 2000 enacted, 
current services level, new/expanded funding, and total fiscal year 
2001 request for each project.
    Answer.

                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal year
                                               -------------------------
           Program activity/project                 2000         2001
                                                  enacted      request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EQUIPMENT, OPERATIONS, & HAZMAT

Train Occupant Protection:
    Locomotive Safety.........................        1,800        2,950
       Develop model to evaluate, test, and
      validate locomotive crashworthiness
      features for oblique and raking
      collisions; conduct full-scale tests to
      validate; models; analyze fuel tanks;
      conduct laboratory and full-scale
      testing of upgraded locomotive nose
      configuration...........................
    Passenger Rail Car Safety/Performance.....        1,800        2,400
       Test passenger rail car crashworthiness
      features; conduct full-scale testing of
      multi-car models; assess safety
      performance of light-weight commuter
      rail vehicles...........................
Rolling Stock Safety Assurance & Performance:
    On-Board Monitoring Systems...............          480          480
       Evaluate brake system safety; evaluate
      on-board monitoring system via ECP brake
      lines; evaluate train-health monitoring;
      develop additional sensors for on-board
      application.............................
    Wayside Monitoring Systems................          532          532
       Evaluate NDE techniques for wheels;
      evaluate improved wayside inspection/
      detection methods for bearings and
      suspension components; evaluate
      prototype wayside inspection station....
    Material & Design Improvements............          275          275
       Evaluate advanced braking subsystems,
      including a fully automatic coupler and
      cushioning devices......................
Human Factors:
    Train Operations..........................        2,178        3,028
       Evaluate napping strategies and
      vigilance monitoring techniques for
      locomotive engineers; evaluate new
      technologies for information management
      in regular and high-speed operations;
      evaluate the use of digital
      communications in high-speed operations;
      evaluate post-accident stress in
      locomotive engineers; study teaming of
      operating personnel; initiate research
      on the application of behavior-based
      safety to the railroad environment;
      evaluate high-speed rail simulator......
    Yard & Terminal...........................          550          550
       Evaluate yard and terminal accidents to
      reduce injuries to railroad operating
      personnel, including maintenance-of-way
      workers and ergonomic issues............
Hazardous Materials Transportation:
    Hazmat Transportation Safety..............          400          600
       Evaluate low temperature impacts on
      tank cars; evaluate the tank car service
      environment, including accident forces;
      study tank car reliability engineering..
    Damage Assessment & Inspection............          300          300
       Evaluate new non-destructive techniques
      for inspecting tank car welds and the
      tank car shell for cracks and flaws;
      evaluate techniques to replace the
      periodic hydrostatic test; evaluate tank
      car fatigue and critical flaw size;
      develop and evaluate overload impact
      sensors.................................
    Tank Car Safety...........................          300          300
       Evaluate new tank car steels; evaluate
      proposed 286,000GRL tank car designs....
Grade Crossings Human Factors: Grade Crossings          435          835
    Evaluate optimal acoustic warning systems;
   evaluate driver behavior at highway-rail
   grade crossings for freight, commuter rail
   and high-speed operations; analyze accident
   causes; evaluate innovative grade crossing
   warning devices............................
Montana University Project: Real Time                   250  ...........
 Diagnostic Monitoring........................
    Development of a Locomotive Health
   Monitoring System to determine the
   operating condition of the locomotive and
   to provide the information to maintenance
   professionals via a remote communications
   link.......................................
                                               -------------------------
      Subtotal, Equipment, Operations & Hazmat        9,300       12,250
                                               =========================
       TRACK & VEHICLE TRACK INTERACTION

Track & Components Safety:
    Material & Rail Inspection................        1,600        1,850
       Prevent and improve the detection of
      material and structural defects in track
      and its components; develop new methods
      for reducing occurrence of fatigue
      cracks and other failure modes in rail
      and for improving inspection and
      monitoring protocols; assess the safety
      of new track materials and components;
      develop technologies for detecting track
      hazards such as broken, misaligned,
      obstructed, or weakened rails ahead of a
      moving train............................
    Track Strength............................        1,900        1,900
       Deploy FRA track-testing vehicle to
      assess performance-based method of
      inspecting track gage strength along
      mainline and shortline railroads;
      develop risk-assessment methods to
      prevent lateral buckling of track due to
      thermal and vehicle-induced stresses;
      develop and demonstrate methods for the
      detection and prevention of weak
      vertical track support..................
    Bridge Safety.............................          250          400
       Develop non-destructive evaluation
      techniques for safety inspection of
      steel and timber railroad bridges;
      investigate the use of composite
      materials in railroad bridge repair.....
Track--Train Interaction Safety:
    Track Geometry............................          700          700
       Assess vehicle performance safety due
      to anomalies in track geometry and
      overall track geometry degradation;
      assess vehicle/track interaction safety
      due to commutative track panel shift....
    Wheel/Rail Interaction....................          800          800
       Assess vehicle/track interaction safety
      due to variations in wheel to rail
      forces, wheel/rail profile and contact
      conditions, as well as wheel climb and
      other related derailment modes..........
    Special Trackwork.........................          500          500
       Assess vehicle/track interaction safety
      in turnouts and other special trackwork;
      examine safety performance of flange
      bearing frogs; foster the development of
      field retrofits to reduce high forces
      generated in turnouts...................
    Electrification Safety....................          100          100
       Foster the development of a prototype
      non-destructive inspection systems for
      catenary wire and third rail
      installations...........................
    Interaction under Heavy Axle Loads........          300          300
       Assess vehicle/track interaction under
      heavy axle loads........................
    Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Standards          500          650
       Provide research and other technical
      services for the development and
      implementation of performance-based
      vehicle/track interaction, track
      geometry, and track strength safety
      standards...............................
Grade Crossings--Infrastructure:
    Grade Crossings, Infrastructure...........  ...........          600
       Develop methods to mitigate potential
      safety failures in commonly used signal
      systems; investigate alternate
      technologies for train presence
      detection...............................
Train Control:
    Advanced Train Control....................          464          500
       Foster the development and
      implementation of advanced but cost-
      effective train control technologies to
      reduce the risk of train collisions.....
University of Alabama Project: Vehicle                  250  ...........
 Proximity Alert System.......................
University of Nebraska Project: Track                   250  ...........
 Subsurface Stability.........................
University of Missouri Project: Advanced                250  ...........
 Composites for Bridge Repair.................
                                               -------------------------
      Subtotal: Track and Vehicle Track               7,864        8,300
       Interaction............................
                                               =========================
            RAILROAD SYSTEMS SAFETY

Grade Crossings:
    High-Speed Rail Safety Support............          200          200
       Evaluate the reliability, safety
      record, and maintenance costs of high-
      speed rail systems and disseminate this
      information.............................
    Environmental Impact Analysis.............          200          200
       Evaluate effect of noise in HSR
      operations and develop a facility to
      evaluate mitigation measures; evaluate
      EMF effects.............................
Safety of HSGT:
    Accident Avoidance........................        1,800        1,800
       Assess the safety of prototype high-
      speed rail positive train control
      demonstrations; evaluate migration paths
      for existing train control to commuter
      rail and advanced systems; assess the
      corridor risk; assess system safety
      support; develop fire safety analysis
      program.................................
    Grade Crossing & Infrastructure...........          700          300
       Evaluate driver behavior at high-speed
      grade crossings; evaluate innovative
      grade crossing warning devices; support
      development of track safety standards
      for high-speed operations...............
    Accident Survivability....................        1,400        1,400
       Model crash energy management for
      occupant protection; test new fire
      safety standards for seats and other
      materials; assess system safety and
      emergency preparedness evaluations;
      evaluate of glazing and platform safety
      issues associated with high-speed
      operations; analyze vehicle track
      interaction.............................
    High-Speed Test Support Equipment.........          500          500
       Acquire advanced test support equipment
      to maintain the safety of the high-speed
      test track structure and to ensure safe
      testing at the FRA's Transportation
      Technology Center.......................
    Performance-Based Regulations.............  ...........          500
       Evaluate methods for developing
      performance-based regulations for their
      applicability to FRA's regulatory safety
      process.................................
                                               -------------------------
          Subtotal, Railroad Systems Safety...        4,800        4,900
                                               =========================
       R&D FACILITIES AND TEST EQUIPMENT

T-6 Vehicle...................................          500          500
    Upgrade or replace as necessary the
   Government's current track research
   vehicle, T-6, used to assess and develop
   new technologies for automated track
   inspection.................................
TTC Support...................................  ...........          850
    Perform timely refurbishment or
   replacement of facilities and equipment at
   the Transportation Technology Center.......
                                               -------------------------
      Subtotal, R&D Facilities................          500        1,350
                                               =========================
      Total R&D...............................       22,464       26,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           R&D FIVE-YEAR PLAN

    Question. The fiscal year 1997 Senate report (S. Rpt. 104-117) 
directed FRA to prepare and submit a 5-year strategic research plan 
that also incorporated next generation high speed rail research 
initiatives. This plan has never been formally submitted to the 
Committee. Why not? Will the plan, when it is submitted, reflect the 
ongoing review of FRA's research program by the Transportation Research 
Board?
    Answer. FRA undertook the development of a 5-year plan for research 
and development and for the next generation high-speed rail program 
following the direction of the fiscal year 1997 Senate report and has 
been updating it annually in draft form ever since. The R&D and next 
generation staff have benefitted from the discipline of preparing these 
drafts, and our budget requests reflect the updated plans. These drafts 
have never reached final form in a time frame useful to the Committee, 
since the R&D budget has changed during this time, and would have been 
obsolete if submitted. FRA staff is working on another updated draft, 
which we plan to submit to Congress this summer.

                         FUNDING OF TRB REVIEW

    Question. What is the funding status and outlook for continued 
support of the TRB review of the R&D and next generation programs? Will 
you continue that activity during fiscal year 2001? Are there 
sufficient funds?
    Answer. The TRB review of FRA's R&D and Next Generation programs is 
funded through fiscal year 2000, and FRA intends to continue the 
activity in fiscal year 2001 even though no funding is explicitly 
requested in the fiscal year 2001 budget request. FRA will fund this 
support by using project funds from each area of its R&D and Next 
Generation programs. The TRB activity is important in the project 
selection and program evaluation process.

                 FRA RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    Question. Please update the Committee on FRA's responses to each of 
the recommendations issued by the Transportation Research Board 
Committee for Review of the FRA R&D and High Speed Rail Program. In 
your answer please be certain to show how changes are reflected in the 
fiscal year 2001 budget request.
    Answer. Following are FRA's responses to the most recent 
recommendations issued by the TRB Review Committee:
    Recommendation 1.--The committee recommends that the FRA 
Administrator, in coordination with the Office of Safety and the Office 
of R&D, take the necessary steps to improve FRA's data collection so 
that the multiple contributing factors involved in an accident can be 
correctly identified and analyzed and the sequence of events 
characterized. One of the numerous benefits of more accurate and 
complete accident data would be the ability to conduct R&D in closer 
balance with actual safety risks. This effort could be initiated with a 
research project that would define the need for improved safety data 
and develop a taxonomy of causes. (A random sample of actual accidents 
could be analyzed to provide a basis for identifying root causes. For 
example, in conjunction with the American Public Transit Association, 
FRA is conducting a full causal analysis of a sample of low-speed 
commuter rail accidents.) Consideration should be given to collecting 
data on incidents (near-misses), in addition to accidents, that could 
indicate areas in which accidents might be avoided or prevented 
(recognizing the limitations of voluntarily reported data). To the 
extent that they are not fully exploited now, additional data sources 
that could be used to determine accident causes include National 
Transportation Safety Board reports, Office of Safety railroad audits, 
and FRA dossiers on individual accidents. [Analysis of incidents can be 
useful in determining mechanisms that helped prevent an incident from 
becoming an accident, as well as in identifying new trends and 
developing countermeasures. Companies have such information, but 
generally do not share it with government agencies. It might be 
possible for a neutral third party to serve as a repository for this 
information, with company and individual identifiers being removed 
(similar to the Aviation Safety Reporting System, administered for the 
Federal Aviation Administration by the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration through its contractor Battelle Memorial Institute).]
    FRA's Response.--While FRA recognizes that better accident data 
would be helpful, FRA does not intend to undertake a rulemaking in the 
near future to change the reporting of accidents and incidents. The 
most recent rule on data collection was issued only three years ago. 
There are a number of regulatory topics that are of higher priority at 
the present.
    Current reporting thresholds for Railroad Accident and Incident 
Reporting System of $6,500 in equipment damage allows for collection of 
accident data on many incidents that have no fatalities or injuries. 
From a safety perspective, these are indeed near misses. Collecting 
additional information on the sequence of events that result in harm 
should be focused on events that result in injuries or fatalities. This 
is already the case since, between FRA and NTSB, investigations are 
conducted in all incidents which result in an employee fatality and 
many others involving passenger and highway fatalities.
    FRA R&D managers review FRA and NTSB accident reports on a regular 
basis. That is, the R&D program is conducted with an understanding of 
the sequence of events that result in accidents and harm. Also, 
railroads often share data with the FRA to support focused research 
objectives. FRA does not believe that a neutral third party information 
repository is necessary.
    Recommendation 2.--[The harm index for grade crossings was reduced, 
and losses associated with trespassers were excluded, even though each 
of these represents a large proportion of railroad-related fatalities 
and injuries.] The correlation between budget allocation and total risk 
should be improved by including all sources of loss (or harm).
    FRA's Response.--Property damage, trespassers, and highway user 
fatalities are included in the updated analysis. In fact, trespassers 
and highway user harm was included in the previous analysis. Research 
has been conducted on many of grade crossing-related topics, including 
lowering the cost of improvements for grade crossings. FRA has 
satisfied the TRB committee that, taken together with other things the 
Department is doing, FRA is investing an appropriate amount in R&D 
related to grade crossing.
    Recommendation 3.--As the next step, FRA should assess how to 
connect the separate approaches used for risk assessment of the program 
areas and for project evaluation.
    FRA's Response.--Project evaluations were intended as a tool for 
individual project selection, not as a way to aggregate risk to the 
program areas. In the current process, specific risk attributes are 
connected with each project. A specific accident may result or be 
connected to a number of projects, such as engineman vigilance, train 
control, crashworthiness, and emergency preparedness. When aggregating 
the risk to the program level, there will inevitably be some level of 
double counting. The real value in the process is in assuring that all 
understood risk is considered in developing research plans.
    Recommendation 4.--Once the above improvements to the risk 
assessment process have been made, the committee recommends that FRA 
begin using this process to assess the R&D projects slated for the 
fiscal year 2001 budget.
    FRA's Response.--The Volpe Center will attempt to complete a 
failure analysis for FRA for all accident types during the summer of 
2000, in time for the fiscal year 2002 budget proposal. The analysis 
was not available to assess projects slated for the fiscal year 2001 
budget.
    Recommendation 5.--The committee recommends that FRA continue to 
use the regulatory analysis outlined by the R&D staff at the meeting to 
encourage R&D efforts in support of the move toward performance-based 
standards and procedures. With respect to Recommendation 1 above, 
accurate safety data are also critical to the development of metrics 
and measurements needed to support performance-based standards. (For 
example, in the commuter rail analysis mentioned above, most of the 
accidents have been attributed to wheel/rail causes. The data generated 
by this analysis could be used to support the development of 
performance-based standards.)
    FRA's Response.--FRA recognizes the need to use more performance-
based standards and procedures and has begun working with the FAA to 
get their insight on the issue of performance-based regulations. FRA 
has requested funding for performance based regulations research in its 
fiscal year 2001 budget. In the meantime, we expect to continue with 
meetings and in-house staff analyses.
    Recommendation 6.--The committee recommends that FRA engage in 
discussions with researchers in these other fields (e.g., aviation) to 
a greater extent than is currently the case in order to utilize 
existing knowledge and avoid replication of available research.
    FRA's Response.--The process presented will identify multiple 
causes of harm. Consequently, human factors issues will receive proper 
emphasis. FRA will consider human factors research from other domains 
when addressing incidents with human factors components. FRA has been 
an active participant in the Department's Human Factors Coordinating 
Committee (HFCC) and the Fatigue Working Group. Both of these groups, 
which are made up of representatives from all of the DOT Operating 
Administrations including FAA, share research ideas and results. Dr. 
Thomas Raslear, of FRA's Office of R&D, is the current HFCC Chair. FRA 
has worked closely with the highway mode in particular in the fatigue 
vigilance monitoring effort.
    Recommendation 7.--The committee recommends that the FRA 
Administrator, in coordination with the Office of R&D and the Office of 
Policy and the appropriate offices within FHWA, should develop a plan 
for policy research related to grade crossings and aggressively press 
for research related to standardization of grade separations and 
crossing elimination. This research should draw on successful practices 
in individual states, as well as other countries. These efforts would 
not necessarily be costly, and should involve both state officials and 
researchers exploring new concepts and approaches. The committee 
encourages the initiation of such research as soon as possible, with a 
project proposal being included at least in the fiscal year 2001 
budget.
    FRA's Response.--The FRA Administrator takes the recommendation 
very seriously and FRA is coordinating efforts of the Offices of 
Policy, R&D, and Safety with other Federal agencies and the states to 
aggressively reduce hazards presented by grade crossings. In 
particular, FRA will be working closely with the ITS Joint Program 
Office to develop a strategic plan for the development, demonstration, 
and deployment of ITS technologies at highway-railroad grade crossings. 
The development of standards for ITS and grade crossings was initiated 
at a well-attended workshop this summer. FRA has included $500 thousand 
in its fiscal year 2001 budget for a national grade crossing outreach 
program.
    Recommendation 8.--The committee urges that in the future, the 
staff of the Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program provide the 
committee with more complete reports on program developments, including 
technical progress reports.
    FRA's Response.--The Next Generation High Speed Rail Program staff 
made a detailed presentation to the Committee at its most recent 
meeting to keep it apprized of all developments.

                 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COST SHARING

    Question. Please prepare for each of the R&D categories and 
subaccounts the amount of cost sharing and the amount of federal 
funding for each of the last three years.
    Answer. The amounts of cost-sharing include estimated values of 
services, equipment, and materials contributed in-kind to the FRA R&D 
projects. The following tables list the estimated R&D cost-sharing (in 
thousands of dollars) with non-Federal entities for fiscal years 1998 
through 2000:

                  TRACK, AND VEHICLE TRACK INTERACTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Non-
                      Fiscal year                       Federal  Federal
                                                         funds    funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998..................................................   $6,950   $5,750
1999..................................................    6,950    4,640
2000..................................................    7,864    3,849
------------------------------------------------------------------------


             EQUIPMENT, OPERATIONS, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Non-
                      Fiscal year                       Federal  Federal
                                                         funds    funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998..................................................   $5,659   $2,296
1999..................................................    7,468    1,300
2000..................................................    9,300      676
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         RAILROAD SYSTEMS SAFETY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Non-
                      Fiscal year                       Federal  Federal
                                                         funds    funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998..................................................   $4,650      $60
1999..................................................    4,800      246
2000..................................................    4,800      236
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       R&D FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Non-
                      Fiscal year                       Federal  Federal
                                                         funds    funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998..................................................     $770   $1,040
1999..................................................      500      901
2000..................................................      500    1,000
                                                                   (est)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

          RATIONALE FOR LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY RESEARCH INITIATIVE

    Question. What is the needs-based rationale for the locomotive 
safety research initiative? Will there be a regulatory follow-on 
reflecting the findings of this project?
    Answer. An examination of railroad accident reports shows the need 
to protect locomotive crews against the full range of collision 
scenarios including oblique/raking collisions, rear end collisions, and 
grade crossing collisions in addition to head on collisions. Hence most 
of the work involves simulation modeling and testing of locomotive 
structures in these different types of collisions. The Office of Safety 
has a concurrent RSAC Working Group on crashworthiness with the 
objective of developing regulatory requirements for locomotive 
crashworthiness. Technical support is also being provided to this 
working group through the locomotive safety research initiative. FRA 
anticipates taking regulatory action, if necessary, based on the 
findings of this research.

         FUNDING FOR THE LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY RESEARCH INITIATIVE

    Question. Is the locomotive safety research initiative an ongoing 
or new research project? If it is ongoing, what prior research efforts 
and funding have been committed? What is the anticipated fiscal year 
2002 cost of the project?
    Answer. The locomotive safety initiative is an ongoing research 
effort. FRA's prior research efforts have focused on head-on-collisions 
with finite element analyses of the force and crush resulting from the 
collision. The force and crush indicates the extent to which the crew 
cab space is invaded and the severity of the collision. FRA's more 
recent efforts have focused on developing a new, dynamic collision 
modeling approach suitable for oblique/raking collisions and rear end 
collisions. This effort is continuing with comparisons of modeling 
results with actual collisions. Also, parametric evaluation of improved 
locomotive structures is anticipated. In addition, the FRA R&D supports 
an ongoing Railroad Safety Advisory Committee Working Group's efforts 
on Locomotive Crashworthiness, with research for model development, 
design improvements, and fuel tank crashworthiness evaluation. The 
funding for these efforts was $600,000 in fiscal year 1996, $300,000 in 
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, and $600,000 in fiscal year 
1999. The current fiscal year 2000 budget is $1,800,000. Fiscal year 
2000 funds are committed to planning a locomotive component test 
program, designing the testing fixtures, and planning one or more full 
scale train to train collision tests at TTCI in Pueblo, Colorado. 
Simulations of the proposed tests, to be conducted, will be used to 
select the train consists and precisely predict the outcome.
    In fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002, the full-scale locomotive 
structural components crashworthiness tests and one or more full-scale 
train-to-train collision tests would be conducted and the results 
evaluated. The findings will complete the development of 
crashworthiness regulatory requirements. In addition, some efforts 
would be devoted to emergency egress and fire safety. For fiscal year 
2001, $2,950,000 in funding is requested.

                        FULL-SCALE CRASH TESTING

    Question. What is the status of your full-scale crash testing of 
rail passenger and locomotive equipment? What is the anticipated 
schedule for implementing this project? Please detail the funding 
history for this program, and outline what follow-on cost will be 
required to complete the project.
    Answer. On November 16, 1999, FRA conducted a test of a single 
passenger rail car crash into a rigid barrier at the Transportation 
Technology Center (TTC). On April 4, 2000, a second test was conducted 
with two coupled passenger cars crashing into the barrier. Before the 
end of fiscal year 2001, two more impact tests are planned in which 
passenger cars will strike locomotives. In addition, collision tests of 
modified equipment and tests of oblique collisions will be conducted 
are planned in future years.
    In fiscal year 1999, the impact testing for passenger rail cars was 
funded at $2 million. In fiscal year 2000, passenger car and locomotive 
impact testing is continuing, utilizing $3.6 million in funding. In 
fiscal year 2001, a total of $5.4 million is included for this project. 
This project will continue into fiscal year 2004.

              GRANT TO MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT BOZEMAN

    Question. In the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, Congress 
directed that $250,000 be provided to Montana State University at 
Bozeman to pilot real-time diagnostic monitoring of rail rolling stock. 
Has this contract been awarded? How does this contract complement FRA's 
ongoing work with on-board freight car condition monitoring systems?
    Answer. The FRA is currently reviewing the grant application from 
Montana State University. The grant award has not been made. The draft 
Statement of Work describes their effort to develop a locomotive health 
monitoring system as an add-on device for older locomotives or as 
original equipment for new locomotives. The system would determine the 
operating condition of locomotive electrical, mechanical, and air brake 
systems and be able to provide the information to shop forces over a 
digital communications link. The initial components of this system will 
be an on-board intelligent lubrication prognostics system and a 
communication system capable of sending the information from the 
locomotive to control centers and maintenance facilities. The 
locomotive health monitoring system will provide for improved equipment 
operation and reliability for the railroads and may improve safety.
    FRA's on-board freight car condition monitoring system is aimed at 
collecting information on safety-related parameters such as brake 
piston travel, bearing temperatures, vibrations, and the like. The 
information will be sent from the freight cars to the locomotive cab 
over the communications channel of new electronically-controlled 
pneumatic (ECP) brake systems. The information can then be sent to 
control centers and maintenance facilities over the same radio channels 
used by the locomotive health monitoring system.

        FISCAL YEAR 1998-2000 FUNDING FOR HUMAN FACTORS PROGRAM

    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 1998, 1999, and 2000 allocated funds have been spent, and 
for which purposes?
    Answer. Following is a summary of the progress on projects during 
fiscal year 2000, project objectives, and funding for fiscal years 1998 
and 1999 and 2000. New phases or extensions of on-going research are 
identified where applicable.

Train Operations
    1. A study design for Engineer Napping Strategies was finalized in 
June 1999. A pilot test of the study design was scheduled to follow 
immediately, resulting in refinements to test and analysis approaches 
by the end of the year. This work has been put on hold due to a 
catastrophic failure of the RALES simulator, where a majority of the 
work was to be conducted. The primary purpose of this research is to 
determine to what extent and what types of on-duty napping can improve 
locomotive engineer performance and safety. Realistic guidelines can 
then be developed for the implementation of strategic napping policies 
in the industry. Future year funding will be needed to complete this 
project.

Fiscal year:
    1998......................................................  $400,000
    1999......................................................   100,000
    2000......................................................   150,000

    2. A preliminary catalogue of Vigilance Monitoring devices, 
suitable to non-obtrusively measure alertness in on-duty locomotive 
engineers, was completed in January 1999. Three devices have been 
selected for testing and efforts continue to identify other promising 
technologies. Suitable devices will be used in simulated and revenue 
operations to gather data and test their usefulness in the railroad-
operating environment. The purpose of these tests is to provide 
information on the validity and reliability of such devices, for the 
use on railroads, which may wish to use this technology to manage 
employee fatigue.

Fiscal year:
    1998......................................................  $300,000
    1999......................................................   200,000
    2000......................................................   250,000

    3. The Dispatcher Workload, Stress and Fatigue, Phase III project, 
to determine the factors that affect workload, stress and fatigue, has 
been completed and the final report is expected in June 2000. Phase IV, 
to study staffing and scheduling issues, has begun and will be 
completed in September 2000.

Fiscal year:
    1998......................................................  $225,000
    1999......................................................   200,000
    2000......................................................    50,000

    4. New technology in the form of communications and computerization 
is changing the way the railroads operate. Previously, the effects of 
new technology, such as automation, and information-mediated fatigue on 
locomotive engineer vigilance (High-Speed Operator Stress and Fatigue), 
were only considered in high-speed operations. Two reports on high-
speed operations and technology were completed by the Volpe Center and 
will be revised per FRA comments. These studies evaluated situational 
awareness and the monitoring of equipment failures under three 
operational conditions: manual control, cruise control, and full 
automation, and examined the role of preview displays in operator 
workload and performance. The project focus was expanded to include all 
railroad operations because of the rapid introduction of technology 
throughout the industry, and the project was renamed (Information 
Management and Control in Railroad Operations). The project will 
determine the safety implications of increased information flow and new 
information management technology in normal and high-speed operations 
for locomotive engineers and dispatchers. Out year funding will be 
needed to evaluate related issues.

Fiscal year:
    1998......................................................  $200,000
    1999......................................................   200,000
    2000......................................................   308,000

    5. The final report on Dispatcher Training Evaluation was published 
in 1998, and a workshop on the findings of the report was held in 
Chicago in October 1998. Workshop participants expressed a need for 
information concerning the selection of personnel for dispatcher 
training, and this issue is currently being addressed in Phase III, 
which will develop selection criteria for dispatchers and also develop 
training materials for readback/hearback, based on an FAA program for 
air traffic controllers.

Fiscal year:
    1998......................................................   $57,000
    1999......................................................   200,000
    2000................................................................

    6. A new initiative, Evaluation of Human Factors Safety Issues in 
Digital Communications, was begun in 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. A report on datalink party line communications between 
dispatchers and locomotive crews is in preparation, and work began on a 
datalink tool for maintenance-of-way crews.

Fiscal year:
    1998................................................................
    1999......................................................  $100,000
    2000......................................................   300,000

    7. The Advanced Display Interface project develops innovative 
information displays to improve information management by locomotive 
engineers, dispatchers, and traffic managers. Virtual reality displays 
and associated software were developed and completed in January 1998. A 
video demonstration of the displays was completed in September 1998. 
Software, which was previously developed under this project, is being 
converted to a Windows operating system, and a stringline interface and 
planning tool is under development. Future work will explore a test 
site in which to demonstrate the applicability of the display to 
revenue service.

Fiscal year:
    1998......................................................  $200,000
    1999......................................................    78,000
    2000......................................................   400,000

    8. A new initiative, Post-Accident Stress in Locomotive Engineers, 
began in fiscal year 1999. The first phase, which will be competed in 
December 2000, will determine the descriptive epidemiology (incidence 
and prevalence) of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in locomotive 
engineers resulting from on-duty crashes. PTSD is debilitating and may 
compromise safety, so the magnitude of the problem is important to 
determine for future resource allocation. The second phase will develop 
a model treatment intervention for locomotive engineers immediately 
following crashes that result in traumatic injuries or loss of life.

Fiscal year:
    1998................................................................
    1999......................................................  $100,000
    2000......................................................    50,000

    9. Operating rules form the basis of safe operations in the 
railroad industry. Previous work on the Operating Rules Evaluation and 
Safety Rules Consolidation project has focused on the influence of 
railroad corporate culture on compliance with operating rules. A final 
report on rules compliance and corporate culture was published in 
October 1999. All safety procedures, including operating rules, 
continuously expand and increase in numbers to avoid past accidents and 
incidents. These additions to the rule books become increasingly 
restrictive over time and reduce the range of permitted actions to far 
less than what is necessary to complete a job under normal conditions. 
As a result, compliance with rules decreases, and the rules no longer 
function to promote safety. A major railroad has requested assistance 
to consolidate all their safety rule books currently in use (8) into a 
single book. The consolidation should enhance safety and provide a 
model for other railroads. This effort will also serve as a platform 
from which to launch projects on teaming and behavior-based safety. 
This work was begun in fiscal year 1999 and is expected to continue 
into fiscal year 2001.

Fiscal year:
    1998......................................................   $50,000
    1999......................................................    50,000
    2000......................................................    70,000

    10. The Switching Operations Fatality Analysis project in 
conjunction with FRA's Office of Safety, rail labor and rail 
management, completed a review and evaluation of the causes of fatal 
accidents involving switching operations. A final report was produced 
and follow-on work will continue.

Fiscal year:
    1998................................................................
    1999......................................................  $200,000
    2000......................................................   200,000

    11. The Teaming of Operating Personnel project will define crew 
resource management for the railroad industry. This project, which will 
begin in fiscal year 2000, will use the base of labor-management 
cooperation established in the Safety Rules Consolidation project to 
develop group dynamics that enhance the safety of railroad operations.

Fiscal year:
    1998................................................................
    1999................................................................
    2000......................................................  $300,000

    12. The High-Speed Rail Simulator project will begin in fiscal year 
2000. The project will evaluate the Amtrak High-Speed Training 
Simulator to determine its usefulness as a research tool for future 
research projects. In out years, the project will fund changes to the 
simulator to allow its use as a research tool (if necessary) and to 
conduct studies on human factors in high-speed operations.

Fiscal year:
    1998................................................................
    1999................................................................
    2000......................................................  $100,000
Yard and Terminal
    13. A final report on the multi-phase Yard and Terminal Safety 
study is expected by the end of fiscal year 2000. The report will 
characterize the practices and conditions that contribute to yard and 
terminal injuries so that remedial actions can be investigated. For 
instance, slips, trips, and muscles strains were determined to 
constitute almost 50 percent of injuries in the yard and terminal 
environment, and this information will serve as the basis for a new 
project focused on ergonomic issues.

Fiscal year:
    1998......................................................  $150,000
    1999......................................................   100,000
    2000......................................................   150,000

    14. The Ergonomic Issues project will build on the results of the 
Yard & Terminal Safety project to focus on ergonomic means to avoid the 
slips, trips, and muscle strains that constitute almost 50 percent of 
all yard and terminal injuries. The project will start in late fiscal 
year 2000.

Fiscal year:
    1998................................................................
    1999................................................................
    2000......................................................  $200,000

    15. The Maintenance-of-Way Safety project will begin late in fiscal 
year 2000. The project will focus on fatigue issues for maintenance-of-
way workers and will be conducted cooperatively with the industry 
through the auspices of the North American Rail Alertness Partnership.

Fiscal year:
    1998................................................................
    1999................................................................
    2000......................................................  $200,000

                RAILROAD FATIGUE COUNTERMEASURE PROGRAMS

    Question. What is FRA doing to either monitor or evaluate working 
schedule pilot programs or other fatigue countermeasures now being 
implemented by various railroads? What is the relationship between this 
work and the $300,000 requested for the fatigue countermeasures 
campaign under the ``Safety and Operations'' account?
    Answer. Staff from the Human Factors program regularly attend 
meetings of the North American Rail Partnership (NARAP) and serve on 
several of its standing committees. NARAP has monitored programs for 
fatigue management since its inception and publishes a report, 
``Current Status of Fatigue Countermeasures in the Railroad Industry'', 
on a regular basis. The evaluation of working schedule pilot programs, 
however, has not yet begun, although NARAP recognizes the necessity of 
this process. The Human Factors program has facilitated the start of an 
evaluation program at NARAP by providing a one-day seminar on program 
evaluation, complete with materials, and taught by a nationally 
recognized expert on program evaluation. The ``Safety and Operations'' 
funding request for $300,000 would, in part, assist NARAP to implement 
a systematic program evaluation of its various fatigue countermeasures. 
The Human Factors program staff would serve as consultants to this 
effort, but the Human Factors program would not provide funds.

                 GRADE CROSSING SAFETY RESEARCH FUNDING

    Question. Please provide a break down of how the $835,000 requested 
for grade crossing safety research will be allocated.
    Answer. The requested $835,000 for grade crossing safety research 
will be allocated as follows:

Compendium of Grade Crossing Research.........................   $70,000
Evaluation of Driver Education Programs.......................   155,000
Freight Car Reflectorization..................................    30,000
Railroad Horns................................................    30,000
Optimal Acoustic Warning......................................    70,000
Causal Analysis of Accidents..................................   110,000
Evaluation of Driver Behavior.................................    90,000
High Speed Rail Crossing Technologies.........................    35,000
Review of Data Sources........................................    60,000
Evaluation of School St 4-Quad Gates..........................   100,000
CRAMCAT \1\...................................................    60,000
Technology Transfer with Other Research Organizations (UIC, 
    ERRI, etc.)...............................................    25,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   835,000

\1\ Corridor Risk Assessment Methodology Crossing Analysis Tool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   EVALUATION OF PTC AND ITS SYSTEMS

    Question. The budget justification states that research support is 
needed in fiscal year 2001 to continue evaluating PTC and ITS for use 
in grade crossing safety. Please discuss the scope and nature of this 
research and relate this activity to that conducted during fiscal year 
1999 and thus far during fiscal year 2000. What are the initial results 
of this investment?
    Answer. Implementation of PTC on high-speed corridors in Michigan 
and Illinois and on the Alaska Railroad is behind schedule and no 
evaluations were conducted in fiscal year 1999. Now that revenue 
service testing of the Incremental Train Control System, which 
incorporates monitoring and advanced activation of grade crossings, has 
begun in Michigan, FRA will soon be able to initiate evaluation 
activities.
    FRA has worked with DOT's ITS Joint Program Office to develop an 
architecture for ITS at highway-rail intersections and to initiate work 
on standards. FRA has been meeting with Standards Development 
Organizations, who are being instructed to incorporate PTC systems into 
the standards they develop.

                       VOLPE GRADE CROSSING PLAN

    Question. What is the status of the work of the Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center on a research plan regarding the safety 
of highway-railroad grade crossings? Was the plan ever published? How 
is the Volpe work different from Operation Lifesaver activities?
    Answer. The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC) 
assists the FRA's Office of Research and Development with all programs 
in developing a process for project selection and program development 
with a strategic focus on safety. For the grade crossing safety 
program, this process is approximately 75 percent complete. The process 
involves five steps: a review of historical and potential sources of 
accidents and incidents; a failure analysis; a determination of 
countermeasures requiring research and development; the development and 
prioritization of individual projects; and the selection of projects 
for funding. The process results in an on-going, internal working 
document that is not intended for publication.
    Operation Lifesaver is primarily a public awareness and driver 
education program related to grade crossing safety, whereas the VNTSC 
program addresses all aspects of grade crossing safety, including human 
factors, grade-crossing technology, and accident causation.

                IMPACT OF TRACK RESEARCH ON REGULATIONS

    Question. How is your proposed track research related to the 
development of new regulations at the FRA? What track-related 
regulations have been recently issued or are being considered for 
future issuance?
    Answer. All FRA proposed research on track and vehicle/track 
interaction is related to the development of new performance-based 
safety regulations as well as the implementation of newly issued or 
revised rules. During the past two years, revised track safety 
standards were issued for conventional classes of track supporting 
speeds of up to 80 mph. In addition, new rules were developed and 
published for tracks supporting speeds up to 200 mph.
    Below are some proposed research activities and their relationship 
with newly issued standards and/or future rulemaking activities:
    Rail Defect Replacement Time.--In the fiscal year 2001 budget, 
research is proposed to continue work on factors that influence the 
formation and growth of internal rail defects. This research would 
allow FRA to better predict the growth of rail defects. Based on this 
research, regulations are likely to be modified to reflect rail defect 
removal based on a prioritized schedule.
    Gauge Widening.--In the fiscal year 2001 budget, research is 
proposed to develop data for inspection frequency and to monitor the 
implementation of new standards on gauge widening inspection. In fiscal 
year 1999, safety standards for high-speed rail were issued that 
require a yearly inspection using a gauge restraint measurement device, 
along with twice weekly visual inspections. Safety rules for lower 
class tracks are being developed now to provide an alternate tie 
inspection requirement that combines gauge restraint measurement with 
less frequent visual inspection.
    Track Degradation Model.--In the fiscal year 2001 budget, the 
proposed research would focus on the development of a comprehensive 
track surface degradation model. Safety rules and potential waivers for 
inspection frequencies could be developed with results from this model. 
Rail Wear Limits: In the fiscal year 2001 budget, the proposed research 
will investigate actual or potential problems associated with worn 
rails to determine whether there should be wear limit standards. If 
standards are required, the rail wear limits also would be determined.
    Passenger Wheel and Rail Profile Standards.--In the fiscal year 
2001 budget, the proposed research would continue to support the 
development of safety standards and guidelines for passenger car 
wheels, rail profiles, and surface conditions with APTA. From the past 
work of this joint research, a recommendation was produced for a 
minimum flange angle on passenger wheels to prevent and reduce wheel 
climb derailments. Future research would develop profile measurement 
standards and investigate the feasibility of a way-side monitoring 
system.
    Buckling of Continuously Welded Rail.--In the fiscal year 2001, the 
proposed research would continue to support the development of safety 
standards and guidelines for maintaining and repairing continuously 
welded rail tracks to prevent buckling.

                     TRACK AND COMPONENTS RESEARCH

    Question. What track and components research would be deferred if 
FRA did not receive the requested $500,000 increase for the vertical 
support assessment project, and the agency was directed to follow its 
own priorities within the current services funding level?
    Answer. If FRA did not receive the requested $500,000, the vertical 
support assessment project would be deferred. Deferring this work would 
adversely impact other related track structure and subsurface condition 
assessment research currently in progress. The most significant is the 
development of a comprehensive track degradation model which would be 
delayed due to the lack of adequate data for the vertical modulus, a 
key parameter. Also, the completion and validation of complementary 
work currently in progress under FRA's university research grants 
program would be seriously impacted. This work includes subsurface 
evaluation of track using ground penetrating radar and vibratory rail 
tomography to detect weak locations.
    It should be noted that FRA's past research produced a family of 
instrumented railcars which are capable, at normal track speeds, of 
measuring track geometry parameters against Federal Track Safety 
Standards, and produced the GRMS which measures the ability of track to 
maintain gage to preclude wide gag derailment. New developments in 
technology in the areas of both data acquisition and processing make it 
now possible to consider the inclusion of track vertical deflection 
measurements. In this regard, the proposed project is in consonance 
with FRA R&D's efforts to apply/adapt existing or emerging technologies 
to specifically address track related accidents.

                RESEARCH ON ADVANCED COMPOSITE MATERIALS

    Question. What is the status of the contract for research on 
advanced composite materials for use in repairing and rehabilitating 
aging railroad bridges, for which the conferees provided $250,000 to 
the University of Missouri-Rolla in fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. FRA staff is working with University of Missouri-Rolla 
staff to define the project scope and objective. The University 
developed a cooperative research package that includes significant non-
FRA resources, both cash and in-kind donations over $100,000. On March 
14, 2000, FRA received a draft technical proposal from the University. 
The grant currently is being reviewed by FRA staff and is expected to 
be awarded by July 2000. This deadline is at the suggestion of the 
University to coincide with the start of their fiscal year.

                        PROXIMITY ALERT SYSTEMS

    Question. What is the status of the contract for vehicle proximity 
alert systems interoperability for which the conferees provided 
$250,000 to the University of Alabama in fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. The scope of work for the contract is under development. A 
white paper prepared by the principle investigators at the University 
of Alabama on potential railroad crash avoidance technologies was 
reviewed, and information regarding vehicle proximity alert systems 
(VPAS) and the Intelligent Transportation System architecture was sent 
to the University. The development of VPAs system is difficult because 
none of the vehicle proximity alert systems tested at the 
Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado, several 
years ago worked well enough to continue with field testing in an 
actual railroad environment.
    Two VPAS systems are being tested now. The system developed by 
Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems (DVSS) is testing a warning system in 
school buses and other priority vehicles as part of the Minnesota 
Guidestar system (the State's overall Intelligent Transportation System 
program). However, this system does not conform to the architecture of 
Intelligent Transportation System User Service #30 developed for 
highway-rail grade crossings. The testing of the University of Alabama 
system recently started in the Chicago area, but it is too soon to 
determine if the system will work as designed. FRA will continue to 
work with the principal investigators at the University of Alabama to 
develop a suitable scope of work from the interoperability contract.

                       INTEGRATED TRACK STABILITY

    Question. What is the status of the contract for the development of 
integrated track stability assessment and monitoring systems using 
site-specific geo-technical/spatial parameter and remote sensing 
technologies, for which the conferees provided $250,000 to Marshall 
University and the University of Nebraska in fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. On December 13, 1999, FRA met with representatives from 
Marshall University and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to develop a 
research grant framework and implementation plan. FRA staff agreed to 
assist in the development of a statement of work. The contract will 
serve as a basis for a single R&D cooperative agreement to be awarded 
to the two Universities. The railroads, the railroad suppliers' 
industry, and agencies in both states are to be encouraged to 
participate and contribute resources, in-cash and/or in-kind. The 
formal grant application is expected in April 2000, with the grant to 
be awarded by May 31, 2000.

              GRADE GROSSING HAZARD REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES

    Question. Please detail the grade crossing hazard reduction 
technologies and the associated program costs funded by the $500,000 
request for grade crossing infrastructure. Please list these projects 
in priority order.
    Answer.

                                                             Fiscal year
        Project                                             2001 funding

Four-Quadrant Gate Assessment Model...........................  $150,000
        This research fosters development of appropriate and 
      useful analytic tools for future use by State agencies. 
      These funds will support a study to be conducted by the 
      University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana to develop a 
      theoretical model of safety issues related to the use of 
      four-quadrant gate systems. A four-quadrant gate 
      roundtable discussion is proposed as the initial phase 
      of this work to provide a focused approach to the 
      model's development and possible enhancements.
Detection of Trains and Vehicles within the Highway Rail 
    Intersection Limits.......................................   175,000
        This initiative supports the deployment of ``off-the-
      shelf'' technologies in the highway-rail grade crossings 
      environment. The current funds support actual 
      operational testing activities at the Transportation 
      Technology Center (TTC), in Pueblo, Colorado, of 
      prototype systems that utilize technologies new to the 
      grade crossing application, yet proven in other fields.
Photo Enforcement.............................................    75,000
        Fiscal year 2000 funding will provide a synthesis of 
      techniques, results, and effectiveness of photo 
      enforcement at crossings. The synergies of work by NHTSA 
      and/or FTA will be explored, along with the possibility 
      of joint funding. The fiscal year 2001 budget request 
      would support the development of guidelines for use of 
      photo enforcement at highway-rail grade crossings.
Guidelines for Obstacle/Intrusion Detection...................   100,000
        This initiative is an overview of system requirements 
      and ongoing work in the area of obstacle/intrusion 
      detection, and will involve the railroad right-of-way in 
      general, as well as grade crossings. The fiscal year 
      2001 budget request would support the development of 
      systems requirements for obstacle/intrusion detection 
      devices.

          IMPACT OF NO FUNDS FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATIONS

    Question. What railroad systems safety research would be deferred 
if FRA did not receive the requested $500,000 increase for performance-
based regulations, and the agency was directed to follow its own 
priorities within the current services funding level?
    Answer. If FRA did not receive the requested $500,000 for 
performance-based regulations, FRA would delay this activity until 
fiscal year 2002. This, in turn, would delay the application of 
performance-based concepts in FRA's rulemaking processes and might also 
impede FRA's ability to facilitate the introduction of new and more 
effective technology.

                    FUNDING FOR TAMPER/LINER MACHINE

    Question. How much of this new funding program request of $850,000 
will be used to purchase a tamper/liner machine to maintain the TTC's 
high speed test track?
    Answer. FRA had originally planned to spend $430 thousand for a 
tamper in fiscal year 2001. However, because the need for a tamper 
became critical at the end of fiscal year 1999, FRA purchased a new 
tamper using funds generated from the sale of the aluminum reaction 
rail at TTC. FRA had planned to spend the funds from the sale of the 
aluminum reaction rail on other TTC needs, however, the purchase of the 
tamper was accelerated because (1) the old tamper was becoming 
increasingly unreliable and was inadequate for the precision required 
on the high-speed test track, and (2) the test track was essential for 
testing Amtrak's new high-speed trains for service from Washington to 
Boston. In fiscal year 2001, FRA plans to spend the $430 thousand on 
the items delayed from fiscal year 1999 including:

Repairs to roofs (some of which are currently leaking)........  $180,000
Upgrading the fire alarm systems to eliminate deteriorating 
    components and to meet current code requirements..........   150,000
Engineering and update of facility drawings and site master 
    plan, including facilities, utilities, environmental 
    compliance systems, and communication lines...............   100,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   430,000

                TESTING USING THE HIGH-SPEED TEST TRACK

    Question. What publicly-owned passenger railroads have performed 
testing on the high-speed test track over the past two years? What 
tests are scheduled for the next year?
    Answer. Passenger equipment test programs conducted on the high-
speed test track by publicly-owned railroads over the past several 
years include:


Long Island Railroad--Tests of  7-1-97 through 9-1-97
 EMD dual-mode locomotive and
 single-deck Kawasaki commuter
 cars.........................
MARC (Maryland Mass             5-28-97 through 8-1-97
 Transportation
 Administration)--Tests of
 double-deck Kawasaki commuter
 cars.........................
Amtrak Talgo Trainset.........  11-98 one week
Amtrak High-Horsepower          11-16-98 through 2-28-00
 Locomotive.
Amtrak Acela High-Speed         3-15-99 through 2-28-00
 Trainset.
Amtrak Advanced Civil Speed     11-30-98 through 12-18-98
 Enforcement system tests.....
Japanese RTRI Gauge-Change      6-01-99 through 3-31-01
 Trainset.


    Proposed Passenger Equipment test programs on the high-speed test 
track for 2000:

Amtrak Surfliner.........................  April 2000
FRA/Bombardier Gas Turbine Locomotive      Late 2000
 (for service on Amtrak).................


                      NGHSR OST/OMB BUDGET REQUEST

    Question. Please present the Next Generation High-Speed Rail 
Program budget request as it was submitted by FRA to OST and OMB.
    Answer. FRA's fiscal year 2001 Budget Request for the Next 
Generation High-Speed Rail Program was the same at each stage of the 
budget process, including the OST/OMB budget submissions.

                TOTAL NEED FOR DESIGNATED HSR CORRIDORS

    Question. What level of funding does the FRA estimate will be 
needed to develop high-speed rail systems in each of the 12 FRA 
designated corridors in the U.S.? How much has already been spent and 
what is the source of those funds? What is FRA's role in developing, 
promoting or funding these corridors?
    Answer. Only eight corridors have been designated thus far: five in 
1992, under the ISTEA legislation, and three in 1998, as directed by 
Congress in TEA-21. The FRA has developed preliminary estimates for 
implementing high-speed rail at various service levels in the initial 
five designated corridors.
    For the three recently designated corridors, the FRA has 
preliminary estimates for the Empire Corridor (New York-Albany-Buffalo) 
and is well along in developing such estimates for the Keystone 
Corridor (Philadelphia-Harrisburg). For the Gulf Coast Corridor 
(Houston-New Orleans-Mobile with a branch linking New Orleans and 
Birmingham), feasibility studies are still ongoing and no comprehensive 
estimate exists. Table 1 summarizes the known cost estimates for future 
development of high-speed rail at various service levels in the 
designated corridors. Except where noted, the source is FRA's 
commercial feasibility study report, High-Speed Ground Transportation 
for America (1997).

                        TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED FUTURE INVESTMENTS TO ATTAIN HIGH-SPEED RAIL
                           [Cost Estimate--Dollars in millions unless otherwise noted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Year
                Corridor                  designated  90  mph  110 mph  125 mph              Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Northwest.......................        1992     $598     $859   $1,233  Corridor links Eugene-Portland,
                                                                                  Ore., Seattle, Wash., and
                                                                                  Vancouver, B.C.
California North-South..................        1992  $25 billion (State         The State of California (High-
                                                      estimate) for a new, 200    Speed Rail Authority) is
                                                      mph system. (Source: High-  actively pursuing a possible
                                                      Speed Rail Authority,       new high-speed rail (200 mph)
                                                      Building a High-Speed       system, for which their most
                                                      Rail System for             recent published estimate is
                                                      California, Draft           shown. Maglev (300 mph) is
                                                      Business Plan, January      also being considered; the
                                                      2000.)                      technology selection would be
                                                                                  made as part of pending
                                                                                  environmental work.
Chicago Hub Network.....................        1992    1,062    1,487    2,438  Estimate covers three spokes
                                                                                  radiating from Chicago to:
                                                                                  Detroit, Milwaukee, and St.
                                                                                  Louis. (The recent extensions
                                                                                  from Milwaukee to the Twin
                                                                                  Cities, and from Chicago to
                                                                                  Cincinnati, are not included
                                                                                  in the estimate.)
Florida.................................        1992    1,235    1,305    1,494  Corridor links Tampa, Orlando,
                                                                                  West Palm Beach, and Miami.
Southeast Corridor......................        1992  ( \1\ )    1,047  ( \1\ )  Estimate covers line between
                                                                                  Washington, D.C., Richmond,
                                                                                  Va., and Raleigh-Greensboro-
                                                                                  Charlotte, N.C. (Subsequently
                                                                                  designated extensions to
                                                                                  Hampton Roads, Va., Atlanta-
                                                                                  Macon, Ga., and Columbia, S.C.-
                                                                                  Savannah, Ga.-Jacksonville,
                                                                                  Fla. are not included in the
                                                                                  estimate.)
Empire Corridor.........................        1998  ( \1\ )  ( \1\ )    1,932  Estimate covers entire route
                                                                                  between New York City, Albany,
                                                                                  and Buffalo, N.Y.
Keystone Corridor.......................        1998  ( \1\ )  ( \1\ )  ( \1\ )  Estimate will be available
                                                                                  later in calendar 2000.
Gulf Coast Corridor.....................        1998  ( \1\ )  ( \1\ )  ( \1\ )  Preliminary studies are
                                                                                  ongoing; estimates not yet
                                                                                  available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Not available.

    Table 2 presents actual investments in improved rail passenger 
service, by State, corridor, and funding source, in the decade of the 
1990s.

              TABLE 2.--PAST INVESTMENTS TO IMPROVE RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE IN DESIGNATED CORRIDORS
                               [Funding by source (dollars in millions) in 1990s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State                      Corridor         State    Local    Amtrak  Federal  Railroads   Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington........................  Pacific Northwest...   $120.0     $6.4    $80.0     $3.7     $225.0   $435.1
California........................  California Corridor   1,215.1    161.0    390.1     69.2       95.2  1,930.6
                                     and connecting
                                     lines: improvements
                                     to existing
                                     conventional rail
                                     segments.
Illinois..........................  Chicago Hub Network.     34.0      1.0  .......     37.3  .........     72.3
Michigan..........................  Chicago Hub Network.     42.0      3.0  .......     19.4  .........     64.4
North Carolina....................  Southeast Corridor..    112.7      1.5  .......     52.4  .........    166.6
Virginia..........................  Southeast Corridor..      3.9      6.5  .......     41.7        5.0     57.1
New York..........................  Empire Corridor.....    153.4     10.0     70.6     55.2  .........    289.2
Pennsylvania......................  Keystone Corridor...  .......      0.5     30.0  .......  .........     30.5
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
      Totals............................................  1,681.1    189.9    570.7    278.9      325.2  3,045.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FRA has endeavored to assist the States, with both appropriated 
funding and technical support, in developing and promoting these 
corridors. In recent years, the Congress has made available $5.25 
million annually in highway-rail grade crossing improvement funds under 
Section 1103(c) of TEA-21. In each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997, $1 
million was made available to the FRA, and allocated to the States, for 
corridor planning. For fiscal year 2001, the FRA has requested $468 
million to increase train speeds on track nationwide, which would be 
matched on at least a 50/50 basis by the States and/or Amtrak. Some of 
these funds might be used on these corridors.
    Independent of funding levels, however, the FRA has served as a 
catalyst for high-speed rail development nationwide. The FRA has 
considerable expertise in high-speed rail planning as a result of its 
over three decades' experience in Northeast Corridor planning, 
engineering, and implementation, and in its capacity as the Federal 
agency concerned with railroad safety. As a result, FRA has been able 
to provide expert advice to the States and Amtrak on the design and 
prioritization of corridor investments; on the environmental processes 
as they relate to high-speed rail; on the evaluation of alternatives; 
and on the safety aspects of infrastructure and equipment improvements.
    For example, the FRA applied this expertise to its commercial 
feasibility study of high-speed ground transportation, which continues 
to provide both Amtrak and the States with a blueprint they can use for 
the future development plans. FRA successfully completed the 
environmental process for the electrification extension in the 
Northeast Corridor, thus making possible this quantum leap forward in 
Amtrak's performance. More recently, FRA has assisted Amtrak and the 
States with focused staff assistance in the preparation of detailed 
planning reports on specific corridors. The FRA stands ready to 
continue its critical role of catalyst in response to the expressed 
interest of the States and Amtrak.

               CORRIDORS WITH HIGH BENEFIT-TO-COST RATIOS

    Question. Which high-speed rail corridors offer the highest 
benefit-to-cost ratios? What factors would FRA use to judge the 
benefits and costs of high-speed rail projects? Will FRA develop a list 
of funding priorities for high-speed rail projects, and how will this 
list be tied to the projects' benefits and costs? If not, how can FRA 
target limited funding to the corridors that offer the most benefits?
    Answer. The Administration believes that Federal investments should 
be justified by examining public benefits versus public costs. The 
designated high-speed rail corridors produce highly favorable ratios 
under this test. A list of the highest-performing designated corridors 
in order of decreasing benefit-to-cost ratios follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Ratio of
                                                    Top       public
           Corridor                  Portion       speed    benefits to
                                                   (mph)   public costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast Corridor............  Washington, DC--     110      207.0 to 1
                                 Charlotte, NC.
Empire Corridor...............  New York--           125        3.7 to 1
                                 Albany--Buffalo.
California....................  Los Angeles--San      90        3.3 to 1
                                 Diego only.
Chicago Hub Network...........  Chicago to:          110        2.8 to 1
                                 Detroit,
                                 Milwaukee, St.
                                 Louis only.
California....................  Bay Area--Los         90        2.0 to 1
                                 Angeles (via
                                 Coast Line)--
                                 San Diego.
Pacific Northwest.............  Eugene, OR--          90        1.6 to 1
                                 Portland--Seatt
                                 le, WA--
                                 Vancouver, BC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The extremely high ratio for the Southeast Corridor (Washington-
Charlotte) reflects the fact that the denominator of the ratio 
approaches zero when revenues very nearly approach costs. This occurs 
here because of connecting traffic to the Northeast Corridor. FRA does 
not have benefit/cost projections for the recently-designated Keystone 
and Gulf Coast corridors.
    The Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service Program is not 
targeted towards the 8 high-speed rail corridors. It is available for 
improved rail services nationwide, including increasing speeds at 
levels below high-speed.
    Since the funding program will require at least a 50 percent 
contribution from State or other Amtrak funds, the FRA anticipates that 
much of the project screening will occur at the level of State/Amtrak 
partnership negotiations. States will only apply for projects that 
justify significant State involvement, and Amtrak will need to manage 
its corporate funds so as to secure the maximum return from its own 
high-speed rail investments. Furthermore, as FRA's commercial 
feasibility report indicates, the States are uniquely positioned to 
consider localized benefits and costs (such as economic, job, and land-
use impacts) in evaluating whether to proceed with high-speed rail. For 
all these reasons, the FRA anticipates that the States and Amtrak will 
have significant input into the Secretary's decisions regarding grants 
under the proposed program.
    FRA would use a combination of factors, as described in the 
commercial feasibility study report, to judge the benefits and costs of 
high-speed rail projects. These factors would include but not be 
limited to:
  --Projected passengers, passenger-miles, and efficiency factors;
  --Percentage of initial investment covered by operating surpluses;
  --User benefits as measured by projected system revenues and consumer 
        surpluses;
  --Airport congestion delay savings (from reductions in operational 
        delays and passenger delays);
  --Highway congestion delay savings;
  --Emission savings;
  --Energy impacts; and
  --Quality and realism of the State/Amtrak project schedule and 
        financial plan for each project, including the amount of 
        overmatch beyond the minimum 50 percent share.

              FISCAL YEAR 2001 FUNDING FOR RADIO SPECTRUM
 
   Question. Radio spectrum must be available for many PTC. How does 
your fiscal year 2001 budget request address this challenge?
    Answer. FRA is working closely with the railroad industry to 
address this need, as well as other issues related to radio spectrum 
availability. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) sponsors a 
Wireless Communications Task Force (WCTF) which has representation from 
all major railroads, Amtrak, and communications suppliers. The FRA and 
WCTF are working in partnership with the State of Oregon to install 
state of the art digital radio communications in the Portland area, as 
well as along both Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe 
railroad routes between Eugene, OR, and Vancouver, B.C. This project 
addresses new spectrum-efficiency requirements recently imposed by the 
Federal Communications Commission, assures spectrum availability for 
railroad operations in general, and also will be used to test digital 
communications technologies to assure spectrum availability for future 
PTC systems.
    In fiscal year 2001, FRA expects to work with WCTF as well as with 
the Transportation Technology Center, Inc., both to complete a digital-
radio-based equipment location system at TTCI (as proposed in the 
Research and Development portion of the 2001 request), and to use a 
part of the funding requested under the Innovative Technologies portion 
of the NGHSR program, to establish communications test facilities at 
TTCI. Such facilities are needed to compare the many and varied 
potential forms of digital radio, which may be either railroad-owned or 
commercially supplied, to assure the industry that future 
communications investments provide the necessary capabilities, 
transmission quality, and spectrum availability for future PTC 
requirements. A total of $250 thousand will be devoted to radio 
spectrum projects in fiscal year 2001.

                   INTEGRATION OF NGHSR TECHNOLOGIES

     Question. The NGHSR account includes non-electric locomotive 
development, train control technologies, and innovative signal and 
grade crossing technologies. How close are FRA and the industry to 
integrating these technologies in a revenue setting, i.e., a non-
electric locomotive pulling a train over track that includes smart 
signal and grade crossings, dispatched and controlled by positive train 
control technologies? When will it be appropriate to work specifically 
on this kind of technology integration?
    Answer. The developing corridors around the Nation are at widely 
varying performance levels. No single corridor is presently ready to 
apply all of the developing NGHSR technologies. FRA is working with the 
various corridors to provide demonstrations which meet the earliest key 
needs. For example, the Albany to New York City portion of the New York 
Empire Corridor already has a conventional cab signal train control 
system, therefore, FRA is working with New York on motive power and 
grade crossing issues. In Michigan and Illinois, the demonstration 
train control systems must become operative to permit higher speeds. 
While each NGHSR demonstration project must take local conditions into 
account, each project is selected for its general applicability on all 
corridors. Each project is taken to completion to assure that results 
are valid and, where possible, provide incremental benefits as a result 
of the project alone. It is therefore not necessary to focus all 
efforts on a single corridor to attain ultimate integration of the 
technology development effort.

           TRAIN SEPARATION SYSTEM AND POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL

    Question. Are there any integration or interoperability 
opportunities between the Northeast Corridor ACES train separation 
system and the positive train control technologies being developed in 
Illinois and Michigan?
    Answer. Yes. The Amtrak technical personnel who are directing the 
development and installation of the Northeast Corridor ACSES system are 
intensely involved in the Michigan and Illinois (North American Joint 
PTC) projects. As the North American project develops industry 
standards and a modular onboard approach, needs for freight locomotives 
to operate into the ACSES territory are constantly monitored. 
Ultimately, the industry standard platform should provide the basic 
computer processing power, displays, and other locomotive interfaces so 
that ACSES capability can be added to an industry-standard locomotive 
at minimum cost on a plug-in basis. In addition, the ACSES design has 
already been modified to employ digital data radio making use of 
industry standard methods, permitting future addition of other industry 
standard features to the baseline ACSES system.

                  TRAIN CONTROL AND LIABILITIES ISSUES

    Question. Please outline any legal or liability concerns among the 
industry concerning the application of positive train control 
technology in revenue service. Does FRA's budget request or any part of 
the project budget for the NAJPTC program address this issue? Should 
resources be allocated to this issue?
    Answer. FRA is not aware of any extraordinary legal or liability 
concerns in the industry related to implementing PTC in revenue service 
beyond those associated with any new train control system. Control 
system suppliers and vendors have traditionally dealt with these issues 
by extensive design verifications and product testing which will also 
be followed for the NAJPTC demonstration system, in addition to 
following the safety monitoring processes recommended by the Railroad 
Safety Advisory Committee, specifically for new microprocessor-based 
control systems. The liability issues associated with operating the 
innovative NAJPTC demonstration train control system during the test 
and installation phase are expected to be covered by insurance obtained 
by the System Design and Integration (SDI) contractor. Costs for the 
insurance are expected to be charged to the NAJPTC program; FRA and the 
other program sponsors will have better estimates of these costs, as 
well as any other major issues, after April 2000, when the SDI bids are 
expected.

                          ILLINOIS PTC PROJECT

    Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the Illinois 
flexible block high-speed train control system (now renamed the North 
American Joint Positive Train Control Program). Why has the line item 
description of this project in the fiscal year 2001 budget 
justification changed from ``flexible block operation'' to ``radio-
based train control systems?'' Please list all the project participants 
and outline the project's cost-sharing agreement (if any). Please 
present the funding history for this project, and specify any 
unobligated federal balances.
    Answer. The line item description has changed to indicate that the 
project objectives have expanded beyond flexible block operation on the 
Chicago to St. Louis corridor, although the flexible-block objective 
continues to be a key component of the program. Other issues now being 
addressed include development of industry-wide standards for PTC. In 
recognition of the value to the entire industry, the railroads through 
the Association of American Railroads have pledged $20 million over 
four years, or 33 percent of the estimated $60 million cost for the 
program. The State of Illinois has pledged $12 million (20 percent) of 
the estimated cost, and is also providing $70 million in related 
funding to upgrade the corridor to make it suitable for high speed 
operations. Illinois is preparing a grant request for the $6.5 million 
appropriated to FRA for this project in fiscal year 2000.
    The project funding history is as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Federal     State       AAR       Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 & prior....    $17,800     $8,000    $10,350    $36,150
Fiscal year 2001............      7,000      3,000      5,000     15,000
Outyears....................      3,200      1,000      4,650      8,850
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................     28,000     12,000     20,000     60,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          ILLINOIS PTC PROJECT

    Question. For the NAJPTC project, please provide an estimate of 
project costs for fiscal year 2001 and the out-years. Please specify 
federal funds, industry share, and monies provided by the state of 
Illinois.
    Answer. The total program cost is estimated at $60 million. Funding 
includes:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Federal     State       AAR       Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 & prior....    $17,800     $8,000    $10,350    $36,150
Fiscal year 2001............      7,000      3,000      5,000     15,000
Outyears....................      3,200      1,000      4,650      8,850
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................     28,000     12,000     20,000     60,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          MICHIGAN PTC PROJECT

    Question. Please summarize and assess the results to date of the 
Detroit-Chicago Corridor incremental train control system. What are the 
remaining technical and institutional challenges to adapting the 
technology to meet industry interoperability standards so that the 
Michigan project can integrate with the Illinois project? How does the 
fiscal year 2001 budget request address these challenges?
    Answer. The Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) will support 
revenue-service high-speed operation for passenger trains on about 80 
miles of the Detroit--Chicago corridor. Providing a demonstration 
system for this specific territory was originally proposed by the team 
of Michigan DOT, Amtrak, and Harmon Industries in 1995, and can be 
called the ``baseline'' system.
    The controlling units, both locomotives and cab cars, of all 
passenger trains on the corridor are now equipped with operating ITCS 
units. Six Norfolk Southern freight locomotives are also equipped, to 
power the local freight service on the line. As of March, 2000, wayside 
equipment is installed on virtually the entire 80 mile zone and is 
operating on the first 20-mile segment. Test trains have operated at 
over 110 mph. The remaining tasks to accomplish full high-speed 
operation of the baseline system are associated with: (1) safety 
verification and validation of the system design and software; (2) the 
necessary testing to ``cut in'' the remaining wayside sections; and (3) 
initiation of the system for freight trains. All participants in the 
joint project are confident that the baseline system can deliver the 
necessary levels of safety and reliability to support revenue service, 
as intended. The demonstration has already shown that introducing these 
complex new systems is very challenging to accomplish, since they 
affect all aspects of railroad operations both on the demonstration 
segment and at the terminals, such as Chicago and Detroit, where the 
equipped trains originate.
    The technical and institutional challenges associated with adapting 
the baseline system technology to industry interoperability 
requirements relate to the original nature of the baseline system, 
which utilized relatively limited computer capabilities aboard the 
locomotive and needed to operate on only a limited route structure 
consisting primarily of single track. To be more generally applicable, 
the system will need more capable onboard computers and improved 
location system capabilities to deal with multiple track routes. These 
technical needs can be accomplished while conforming the system to the 
new modular industry-standard onboard platform being developed as part 
of the North American Joint PTC Project for the Illinois corridor. The 
$3,000,000 requested by FRA in fiscal year 2001 is to adapt the ITCS 
system approach to the new platform and new industry standards, thereby 
making this approach more widely available for other developing high-
speed corridors as well as for the so-far unequipped portion of the 
Michigan corridor.

                    FUNDING FOR MICHIGAN PTC PROJECT

    Question. What are the funding needs of the Michigan incremental 
train control system (ITCS) high-speed passenger rail demonstration 
project during fiscal year 2001 and subsequent years? Who are the 
partners in this effort, and what cost-sharing agreements are in place?
    Answer. FRA has requested $3 million in fiscal year 2001 to adapt 
the ITCS system to the developing industry standards from the North 
American Joint PTC project. Partners in the project are Michigan DOT, 
Amtrak, and Harmon Industries, which is supplying the system hardware. 
To date, Michigan DOT has invested over $22 million in upgrading the 
infrastructure in the test section to permit speeds up to 110 mph. 
Harmon Industries has contributed over $5 million in development 
efforts, and Amtrak has supplied in-kind support such as test train 
operations and crews as well as installation labor. New cost sharing 
agreements will be needed as the baseline 80-mile system is completed 
and the requirements of the developing industry standards and modular 
onboard approach are defined in the North American Joint PTC Project.

             STATUS OF HSR NON-ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVE PROJECTS

    Question. Since last year, what specific progress has been made and 
what contracts have you signed in each of these three areas: (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 state the purpose of each relevant contract along with the 
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 funding amount for each contract. 
Please describe the progress in each of these three areas of research.
    Answer. In fiscal year 1999, FRA entered into a $2.4 million 
Cooperative Agreement with the University of Texas Center for 
Electromechanics (UT-CEM) to continue the Advanced Locomotive 
Propulsion Systems (ALPS). An fiscal year 2000 agreement in the amount 
of $3.9 million is expected to be awarded shortly. In addition, FRA 
provided $275 thousand and $250 thousand in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal 
year 2000 respectively to the Naval Business center for activities in 
support of the ALPS program, including the load testing of the ALPS 
high-speed generator.
    As of March 2000, fabrication of the full-scale flywheel is well 
underway and the assembly of the high-speed generator is nearly 
complete. Generator testing will begin shortly and is expected to be 
completed by July 2000. Design of an integrated turbine/alternator 
package to be installed and tested in the FRA/Bombardier High-Speed 
Non-Electric Passenger Demonstration Locomotive is underway. Assembly 
of the basic turbine-alternator components and control system will be 
completed by the end of fiscal year 2000. Development of controls to 
interface with the locomotive will take place in early fiscal year 2001 
and the package will be ready for integration into the FRA/Bombardier 
locomotive Demonstrator by June 2001. Final assembly of the flywheel is 
planned for November 2000. Laboratory testing and integration of the 
flywheel into a platform suitable for demonstration with the Bombardier 
locomotive is expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2001.
    In fiscal year 1998, FRA entered into a Cooperative Agreement with 
Bombardier Transit Corporation (Bombardier) to develop and demonstrate 
a high-speed turbine electric locomotive. A total of $10 million was 
provided in fiscal year 1999 ($7M) and fiscal year 2000 ($3M) for this 
project. These funds will be split between the existing Cooperative 
Agreement with Bombardier Transit Corporation and the Transportation 
Technology Center Inc. (TTCI) in Pueblo, Colorado, to pay for testing 
of the locomotive at TTC in late CY 2000 and early CY 2001. The split 
of the funds between these two recipients has not yet been finalized. 
FRA and Bombardier have shared equally in the development costs of this 
locomotive.
    Assembly of the FRA/Bombardier High-Speed Non-Electric Passenger 
Demonstration Locomotive is well underway and expected to be completed 
by the end of April 2000. After assembly is completed, the locomotive 
will undergo extensive static and rolling tests and evaluation. Initial 
operating capability at speeds up to 90 mph is expected by late 
September. Extensive high-speed and operational testing will begin in 
late 2000 at TTC, after which the locomotive will be capable of 
entering revenue service demonstrations at speeds up to 150 mph.

              CONSENSUS ON NON-ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVE DESIGN

    Question. How is the non-electric locomotive program developing a 
consensus about a common design that could serve several markets and 
generate sufficient demand?
    Answer. The locomotive is being developed in partnership with 
Bombardier Transit Corporation (Bombardier), with Bombardier and FRA 
each funding 50 percent of the cost. FRA has conducted extensive 
outreach meetings to states which are potential users of the locomotive 
technology. Due to this substantial investment by Bombardier, they have 
a strong commercial interest in assuring the marketability of the 
design and have undertaken the marketing and outreach efforts necessary 
to assure that the design appeals to a broad base of potential high-
speed rail customers.

                       STATUS OF FLYWHEEL PROJECT

    Question. What is the status of and challenges facing the flywheel 
project, and what are the planned activities for fiscal year 2000? How 
many additional years will be required to complete work on the flywheel 
project, and how much will this cost? Please provide costs for both 
development and large-scale testing. What are the cost-sharing 
arrangements for this project? What is the likelihood that this 
technology will be commercialized during the next five years?
    Answer. The ALPS system consists of two major elements: a high-
speed gas turbine driven generator and an energy storage flywheel. The 
project is currently well into the hardware fabrication of both these 
elements, and preparations for demonstration in the FRA/Bombardier Non-
Electric Locomotive are underway.
    Specifically, final assembly of the high-speed generator will be 
completed by April 2000, and the associated no-load and static load 
testing of the generator will be completed by the end of July 2000. The 
challenges associated with this effort are technical: having the 
generator rotor survive the very high rotational speeds associated with 
direct drive from the turbine, while simultaneously handling extremely 
high levels of electrical power and the resulting high temperatures in 
the generator components.
    Design of an integrated turbine/alternator package for insertion 
into the Bombardier system is underway and assembly of the basic 
turbine-alternator components and control system will be completed by 
the end of fiscal year 2000. Development of controls to interface with 
the locomotive will take place in early fiscal year 2001 and the 
turbine-alternator package will be tested and ready for integration 
into the Bombardier High-Speed Non-Electric Locomotive by June 2001. 
The challenges associated with this activity include matching the new 
turbine-alternator package to the existing locomotive and achieving 
proper control of the system by adapting necessary control software.
    Final assembly of the flywheel is planned for November 2000. 
Laboratory testing and integration of the flywheel into a platform 
suitable for demonstration with the Bombardier locomotive will be 
completed by the end of fiscal year 2001. These schedules are 
consistent with the current plan for demonstration of the Bombardier 
High-Speed Non-Electric Locomotive, allowing for demonstration of the 
ALPS system during fiscal year 2002. The major challenge for the 
flywheel effort is achieving satisfactory sustained flywheel operation 
despite the dynamic forces associated with a moving train.
    As outlined above, the basic ALPS technologies will be completed 
and tested in the laboratory by the end of fiscal year 2001. 
Demonstration of the ALPS system can be completed during fiscal year 
2002. To complete the planned activities for fiscal year 2001 and 
fiscal year 2002, funding of approximately $4 million per year will be 
required.
    A significant cost share for the program was originally provided by 
GM-EMD, along with contributions by the State of Texas Match Pool, 
Honeywell International (formerly AlliedSignal), and the US Navy. From 
the inception of the project in 1995 through 1997, the project was cost 
shared by the program participants at greater than 50 percent. In 1998, 
Bombardier replaced GM as the locomotive integrator for the effort and 
cost sharing by direct ALPS participants was reduced to about 15 
percent. Bombardier, however is providing 50 percent cost share for the 
development of the High-Speed Non-Electric Locomotive which will be 
used for demonstration of the ALPS system.
    There is a good chance that technology developed on the ALPS 
program will be commercialized during the next five years. The turbine 
and high-speed generator package is likely to be purchased for future 
units of the high-speed locomotive. Successful demonstration of the 
benefits of the flywheel energy storage system will address two key 
issues concerning operation of gas turbines in the locomotive 
environment: the relatively poor fuel economy at partial power and 
turbine maintenance requirements due to thermal cycling. The ALPS 
system also will help the rail industry meet future exhaust emissions 
limits that may be difficult for diesel-electric locomotives to 
achieve. In addition to the locomotive propulsion applications, 
additional commercial and military applications of ALPS components and 
technology are likely because of the extremely high power capability 
offered for the size and weight of the system components.

         TECHNICAL PROGRESS IN GRADE CROSSING HAZARD MITIGATION

    Question. Please assess the technical progress made as a result of 
FRA's investment in grade crossing hazard mitigation technologies. How 
would the fiscal year 2001 proposal promote the transfer of this 
knowledge to potential users?
    Answer. FRA's investment in grade crossing hazard mitigation 
technologies is now paying off on several levels. The North Carolina 
Sealed Corridor Project has already demonstrated enormous success 
employing innovative low-cost techniques to reduce driver misbehaviors, 
such as running around closed crossing gates, by over 80 percent. 
Additional demonstrations of advanced technologies are showing similar 
success rates. Work with New York State has produced a comprehensive 
approach to reducing corridor grade crossing risk despite increases in 
train numbers and speeds. FRA is working with California DOT on the San 
Joaquin corridor to apply the new methodology, as well as new laser-
based mapping techniques to provide the necessary information to better 
assess the risks of each crossing. The fiscal year 2001 request will be 
used, in part, to complete evaluation and reporting activities to make 
these results available to additional states and corridors as they 
become interested in high-speed rail. In addition, FRA will continue 
the successful broad agency announcement (BAA) solicitation to assure 
that worthwhile new demonstration projects which apply the techniques 
can be pursued.

               GRADE CROSSING HAZARD MITIGATION PROJECTS

    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 1999, 
fiscal year 2000, and planned fiscal year 2001 FRA investments for each 
major project in this program. Please display this information 
organized by subaccount, that is, mitigating grade crossing hazards, 
low cost, innovative technologies, and North Carolina sealed corridor 
initiative.
    Answer. The information is contained in the following table:

                                                     FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   1999  enacted   2000  enacted   2001  request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigating Grade Crossing Hazards...............................      $2,500,000      $2,500,000      $2,500,000
Low-Cost Innovative Technologies................................       1,100,000         997,000       1,100,000
Sealed Corridor Initiative......................................       1,000,000         400,000         400,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Grade Crossing.....................................       4,600,000       3,897,000       4,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 STATUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Project area                  Status              Issues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locked gate at private crossing.  Being conducted by  No significant
                                   New York DOT,       issues.
                                   underway.
Vehicle counting and              Demonstration       The ability to
 characterizati on at crossings.   project to be       characterize the
                                   awarded shortly.    types of vehicles
                                                       using a crossing
                                                       as well as their
                                                       number greatly
                                                       improves risk
                                                       predication
                                                       ability.
Crossing occupancy detection....  Project to adapt    Reliable crossing
                                   and evaluate an     occupancy
                                   ultrasonic-based    detection can
                                   crossing            greatly reduce
                                   occupancy           risk to both
                                   detection system    highway and rail
                                   to be awarded       vehicles.
                                   shortly.
Grade crossing topographical      Laser-mapping of    Rapidly acquired
 characterizati on.                crossing            accurate data
                                   topography          will permit easy
                                   conducted on two    identification of
                                   corridors, data     humped crossing
                                   analysis underway.  and those with
                                                       limited sight
                                                       distance or other
                                                       characteristics
                                                       affecting risk,
                                                       allowing better
                                                       targeting of risk-
                                                       reduction
                                                       efforts.
Locked gate at private crossing.  Being conducted by  No significant
                                   New York DOT,       issues.
                                   underway.
Broad Agency Announcement to      To be released      No significant
 solicit additional proposals in   shortly.            issues at this
 this technology area.                                 time.
NC Sealed Corridor..............  The second long     No significant
                                   gate arm test is    issues at this
                                   complete with an    time.
                                   84 percent
                                   reduction in
                                   violations. Video
                                   ticketing
                                   complete with 67
                                   percent reduction
                                   in violations.
                                   Implementation of
                                   median
                                   separators,
                                   longer gate arms
                                   and four quadrant
                                   gates at
                                   crossings between
                                   Greensboro and
                                   Charlotte
                                   continues. Five
                                   additional
                                   crossings closed
                                   since April 1999.
                                   Design and
                                   engineering has
                                   begun on 10
                                   crossings on
                                   CSXT's portion
                                   between Raleigh
                                   and Cary.
                                  Four quadrant
                                   gates: 12
                                   constructed, 2
                                   authorized for
                                   construction, 6
                                   under design, 6
                                   in planning
                                   Median
                                   separators: 15
                                   constructed, 3
                                   under design
                                   Longer gate arms:
                                   1 constructed, 17
                                   under design, 11
                                   auth. for const.
                                   Stop signs
                                   (temporary): 2
                                   (to be closed in
                                   next 1-4 years)
                                   Closures: 26
                                   completed, with
                                   plans to close 8
                                   more in the next
                                   2 years..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  RESULTS OF SEALED CORRIDOR APPROACH

    Question. Please assess the results thus far on the sealed corridor 
approach and discuss how the fiscal year 2001 budget request will 
continue those advances.
    Answer. The Sealed Corridor approach has very successfully tested 
and documented the results for deploying innovative, low cost grade 
crossing warning and protection systems. The project has conclusively 
demonstrated that these very practical approaches can reduce driver 
misbehavior at grade crossings by 80 percent or more. The results are 
now being analyzed for publishing, to be used by other states and in 
the development of high-speed corridors. The fiscal year 2001 funding 
will enable the construction of enhanced crossing devices and closure 
efforts to be extended along the designated Southeast High-Speed Rail 
Corridor between Raleigh and Charlotte, and completion of the analysis 
and reporting activities now underway.

                 STATUS OF HAZARD ELIMINATION PROJECTS

    Question. What is the status of each of the high speed rail 
corridor crossing hazard elimination projects funded in fiscal year 
1999 and fiscal year 2000 under TEA-21 section 1103(c)? How much 
contract authority is available within the highway firewall in fiscal 
year 2001 under current law?
    Answer. The DOT is in the process of allocating $5.25 million 
authorized in fiscal year 2000 according to the earmarks outlined in 
the Conference Report. The status of the fiscal year 1999 projects is 
presented in the following table and are for the funded amount of $6.95 
million. A total of $5.25 million is available in fiscal year 2001.

                     FISCAL YEAR 1999 PROJECT STATUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Amount
              State                 allocated        Project status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington.......................    $500,000  Close two crossings,
                                                install median barriers
                                                at 12 crossings, and
                                                support the construction
                                                of a pedestrian
                                                overpass. All projects
                                                are in preliminary
                                                engineering.
Oregon...........................     400,000  Conduct planning and
                                                updating the national
                                                inventory ($125,000).
                                                With the balance,
                                                $275,000, fund the
                                                construction of an
                                                access road to link
                                                seven properties to a
                                                major road with a public
                                                grade crossing, and
                                                close seven private
                                                crossings. Work on this
                                                is underway.
California.......................     250,000  Close the last ungated
                                                crossing on the San
                                                Diego line at Dana Point
                                                ($30,000), plus use
                                                $220,000 for feasibility
                                                studies and preliminary
                                                engineering for the
                                                egregiously unsafe
                                                crossing in Martinez.
                                                Preliminary engineering
                                                and environmental
                                                reviews for these
                                                projects is underway.
Wisconsin........................     500,000  Upgrade four crossings
                                                between Milwaukee and
                                                Chicago with new lights,
                                                gates and constant
                                                warning time devices
                                                (CWT).
Illinois.........................     350,000  Install flashing lights,
                                                gates and CWT at two
                                                crossings and close one
                                                crossing. No action has
                                                been taken on these
                                                projects due to the need
                                                to support the Vehicle
                                                Arresting Barrier
                                                project.
Indiana..........................     200,000  Study alternative routes
                                                for the Cincinnati-
                                                Indianapolis-Chicago
                                                corridor and to identify
                                                improvements needed and
                                                crossings for
                                                consolidation.
Michigan.........................     500,000  Close and upgrade
                                                crossings between
                                                Kalamazoo and Grand
                                                Beach, MI near the
                                                Michigan/Indiana border.
                                                Preliminary work is
                                                underway.
Texas............................     125,000  Study alternative routes
                                                for the corridor,
                                                identify improvements
                                                needed and crossings for
                                                consolidation, and
                                                update the national
                                                grade crossing
                                                inventory.
Louisiana........................     325,000  Update the national
                                                inventory ($75,000) and
                                                upgrade one very
                                                dangerous crossing at
                                                Gentilly Road in New
                                                Orleans ($250,000). The
                                                latter is viewed as part
                                                of the known alignment
                                                that the Gulf Coast
                                                Corridor must adopt
                                                through New Orleans.
                                                Preliminary design is
                                                underway.
Mississippi......................     355,000  Update the national
                                                inventory ($75,000) and
                                                upgrade two grade
                                                crossings in Gulfport
                                                (rated #4 in accident
                                                prediction ranking in
                                                the state) and Long
                                                Beach (rated #7 in the
                                                state) ($280,000).
                                                Preliminary design is
                                                underway.
Alabama..........................     345,000  Update the national
                                                inventory ($75,000) and
                                                upgrade two grade
                                                crossings ($270,000).
                                                Preliminary design is
                                                underway. Florida
                                                300,000 Upgrade two
                                                crossings, one with four-
                                                quadrant gates and one
                                                with median gates.
                                                Preliminary design is
                                                underway.
Georgia..........................     250,000  Fund one half of the
                                                total cost of the action
                                                plan for upgrading and
                                                consolidating all
                                                crossings in Georgia's
                                                high speed rail
                                                corridors. South
                                                Carolina 150,000 Develop
                                                the action plan for
                                                upgrading and
                                                consolidating all
                                                crossings in South
                                                Carolina's high speed
                                                rail corridors.
North Carolina...................   1,000,000  Realign two streets and
                                                close two crossings,
                                                install median barriers
                                                at four crossings and
                                                install long gate arms
                                                at four crossings.
Virginia.........................     500,000  Construct grade crossing
                                                improvements and support
                                                construction of a
                                                pedestrian overpass in
                                                Prince William County to
                                                eliminate trespassing on
                                                the CSX mainline on the
                                                high-volume Richmond
                                                extension of the
                                                Northeast Corridor.
Pennsylvania.....................     500,000  Begin design for the
                                                highway grade separation
                                                and bypass road. Design
                                                is now underway.
New York.........................     400,000  Conduct design and
                                                preliminary engineering
                                                for grade separations,
                                                the first step needed to
                                                implement the State's
                                                grade crossing
                                                improvement plans based
                                                on safety risk analysis.
                                                Design is underway.
                                  ------------
      Total......................   6,950,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               STATUS OF TRACK AND STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGY

    Question. Please prepare a table indicating separately the status, 
problems, and challenges, along with the fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 
2000, and planned fiscal year 2001 FRA funding (and other funding 
sources, when applicable) for each project in the track and structures 
technology program.
    Answer.

                      TRACK AND STRUCTURES FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year
                                  --------------------------------------
                                       1999         2000         2001
                                     enacted      enacted      request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount...........................   $1,200,000   $1,200,000   $1,200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 TRACK AND STRUCTURES STATUS AND ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Project area                  Status              Issues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk-based scheduling of          Underway..........  Potential
 ultrasonic testing for high-                          reduction in
 speed tracks.                                         track maintenance
                                                       costs and safety
                                                       improvements.
Increasing speeds through         Underway..........  Techniques to
 special trackwork.                                    increase speeds
                                                       through existing
                                                       special trackwork
                                                       without replacing
                                                       entire units to
                                                       permit higher
                                                       speeds at minimal
                                                       cost.
Evaluation of techniques to       3 different         Advanced
 address subgrade failures.        projects underway   techniques to
                                   or to begin         stabilize weak
                                   shortly--in         subgrade can
                                   service             reduce life-cycle
                                   demonstration of    cost and the
                                   the first to        frequency of slow
                                   begin shortly.      orders.
Demonstration of low-cost         Demonstrations      Low-cost
 techniques to improve ride        underway.           techniques such
 quality and increase speeds                           as tie-pads and
 over areas with large stiffness                       drainage
 variations.                                           improvements
                                                       offer
                                                       opportunities to
                                                       improve ride
                                                       quality and
                                                       permit higher
                                                       speeds at minimal
                                                       cost.
Broad Agency Announcement to      To be released      No significant
 solicit additional proposals in   shortly.            issues at this
 this technology area.                                 time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        STATUS OF MAGLEV PROGRAM

    Question. Please update the Committee on the accomplishments, 
results, cooperative agreements, and challenges associated with the 
maglev program funded under TEA-21.
    Answer. FRA has made considerable progress since the enactment of 
TEA-21. In October, 1998, FRA published an interim final rule setting 
forth the procedures for the application for pre-construction planning 
grants by interested states or state authorities. Eleven applications 
were received and evaluated. On May 24, 1999, Secretary Slater 
announced the seven projects that would receive grants. FRA signed 
seven cooperative agreements providing $12.7 million in fiscal year 
1999 funds and is in the process of finalizing amendments to those 
agreements adding $14.8 million in fiscal year 2000 funds.
    Last year, FRA selected a consulting firm, MK Centennial, to 
monitor the planning work underway by the seven project sponsors and to 
provide engineering support in subsequent phases of the program. The 
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center is another member of the 
team. Volpe will prepare the Environmental Impact Statements and assist 
a Departmental technical evaluation panel in rating the plans and 
recommending the best ones.
    On February 29, 2000, FRA received an Environmental Assessment from 
each of the seven applicants and by June 30, we expect to receive seven 
detailed Project Descriptions. By 2003, the Secretary will select a 
project as required by TEA-21. In fiscal year 2001, the President's 
Budget does not include funding for construction.

                             MAGLEV FUNDING

    Question. Please prepare a summary of authorized and appropriated 
funding for the maglev program. What cooperative agreements have been 
announced, what funds have been released and to which grantees? When 
will the fiscal year 2000 cooperative agreements and related federal 
funding be announced?
    Answer. Following is a summary of the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal 
year 2000 funding for the Maglev Deployment Program.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year
                                         -------------------------------
                                               1999            2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Authority......................     $15,000,000     $20,000,000
                                         ===============================
Obligation Limit (percent)..............            88.3            87.1
                                         ===============================
Available for Obligation................     $13,245,000     $17,420,000
                                         ===============================
California..............................      $1,430,000      $1,959,750
Florida.................................       1,400,000       1,959,750
Georgia.................................       1,400,000       1,959,750
Louisiana...............................       1,400,000       1,959,750
Maryland................................       1,300,000       1,959,750
Nevada..................................       1,400,000       1,959,750
Pennsylvania............................       4,415,000       3,048,500
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal..........................      12,745,000      14,807,000
                                         -------------------------------
Other...................................         499,970         871,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total Contract Authority..........      13,244,970      17,420,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 24, 1999 the Secretary of Transportation announced grants to 
seven states and authorities for preconstruction planning. Cooperative 
agreements between the various selected applicants and the FRA have 
been executed, obligating $12.745 million in fiscal year 1999. An 
additional $14.8 million in fiscal year 2000 funds will be obligated in 
fiscal year 2000.The following lists the project sponsors, a short 
description of the project, and the date amendments allocating fiscal 
year 2000 funding were signed by the Federal Railroad Administrator. 
Each of the first four project sponsors were advised of the amendment 
to their cooperative agreement providing the additional federal 
funding, by a letter from the FRA Administrator at the time that the 
agreement was signed. The amendment to the cooperative agreement for 
the project in New Orleans was announced by the Secretary of 
Transportation on March 3, 2000. The amendments for the projects in Los 
Angeles and Pittsburgh have not yet been signed or announced.
  --California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission.--A 42-mile project 
        linking Las Vegas to Primm, Nev.; 02/02/00.
  --Florida Department of Transportation.--A 20-mile project linking 
        Port Canaveral to the Space Center and the Titusville Regional 
        Airport; 02/02/00.
  --Atlanta Regional Commission.--First 40 miles of 110-mile project 
        from Atlanta to Chattanooga, Tenn.; 02/15/00.
  --Maryland Department of Transportation.--A 40-mile project linking 
        Camden Yard in Baltimore and Baltimore-Washington International 
        Airport to Union Station in Washington, D.C.; 2/15/00.
  --Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission.--A 40-mile project 
        linking New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal to the airport and 
        across Lake Pontchartrain to the fast-growing northern suburbs; 
        03/02/00.
  --State of California.--A 70- to 75-mile system connecting Los 
        Angeles International Airport to Union Station in downtown Los 
        Angeles to Ontario Airport and further east into Riverside 
        County; Pending signature by FRA.
  --Port Authority of Allegheny County.--A 45-mile project linking 
        Pittsburgh Airport to Pittsburgh and its eastern suburbs; 
        Pending negotiation of a Scope of Work.

                      MAGLEV ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

    Question. How much of the contract authority for the maglev program 
in the fiscal year 2001 budget request will be used for administrative 
needs? Please break out these costs.
    Answer. A total of $3.5 million has been earmarked for 
administrative expenses. Of this amount, $2M will provide contract 
support for the maglev program. The remaining balance of $1.5million 
will support other FRA administrative expenses.

                   FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 NDGPS FUNDS

    Question. In fiscal year 2000, $5,000,000 was provided for the 
NDGPS program from Federal Highway Administration administrative 
expenses funds. For fiscal year 2001, the budget requests $18,700,000 
from FHWA research and technology program funds. Who will administer 
both the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 funds? Please break out 
in detail both how the fiscal year 2000 funds are being spent 
(categorize capital and operating expenses), and how the requested 
fiscal year 2001 funds would be spent.
    Answer. Both the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 funds will 
be administered by the United States Coast Guard. Fiscal year 2000 
funds are being spent as follows: $1.8 million for capital costs, and 
$3.2 million for operating expenses. The requested fiscal year 2001 
funds would be spent as follows: $13.2 million for capital costs, and 
$5.5 million for operating expenses.

                INCREASE IN FISCAL YEAR 2001 NDGPS COSTS

    Question. Why is the request for fiscal year 2001 ($18.7 million) 
so much higher than the level requested in fiscal year 2000 ($10.4 
million)? Is $5.4 million of the request meant to make up the shortfall 
between last year's request and subsequent appropriation?
    Answer. The request for $18.7 million in fiscal year 2001 is based 
on FRA's plan to install 28 NDGPS sites in fiscal year 2001. This is 
the same amount submitted in last year's funding summary for fiscal 
year 2001, despite the fact that the funding requested for fiscal year 
2000 was subsequently cut by more than half from $10.4 million to $5 
million. Now that all of the Air Force Ground Wave Emergency Network 
(GWEN) towers, equipment, and real estate have been conveyed from the 
Air Force to the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard is obligated to pay the 
costs of leasing and maintaining the sites, even where they are not yet 
converted to NDGPS sites. Any funding limitations on the conversion 
efforts results in the federal government paying the lease and 
maintenance costs without receiving the benefits of operation.

                         NDGPS FUNDING HISTORY

    Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the 
nationwide differential global positioning system and FRA's role in 
that initiative. Provide a funding history to date, as well as a 5-year 
schedule of benchmarks, anticipated costs, and anticipated funding 
sources (please specify which DOT or other federal agencies will be 
providing funds).
    Answer. On March 15, 1999, the Secretary of Transportation and the 
Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard announced Full Operational 
Capability of the Maritime DGPS Service, which provides differential 
coverage along the coasts, the Great Lakes, and the Mississippi River. 
At the same time, the Secretary and the Commandant announced the 
expansion of that Service into a Nationwide DGPS (NDGPS) with the 
addition of eight operational inland GWEN sites. FRA's role in this 
initiative is to request funding for NDGPS because the Secretary of 
Transportation delegated his authority to the FRA to determine the 
Federal requirements for the NDGPS. A Memorandum of Agreement among the 
Office of the Secretary, FHWA, FRA, and the Coast Guard gave to FRA, 
the responsibility to submit and defend funding requests for 
implementation, operation, and maintenance of the NDGPS. FRA was given 
this responsibility because railroads especially need a continuous, 
uniform, accurate, high-quality radionavigation signal for new Positive 
Train Control systems. The funds are transferred to the Coast Guard 
which is responsible for the actual construction, operation, and 
maintenance of the NDGPS.
    The NDGPS project will take 5 years to complete (1998-2002) at an 
estimated cost of $37.1 million in capital funding. Once fully 
implemented, the system is estimated to cost approximately $6.9 million 
per year to operate and maintain. The allocation of Capital and 
Operating costs by fiscal year is detailed in the table below:

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Capital    Operating
                   Fiscal year                       costs       costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................................     \1\ 2.4  ..........
1999............................................     \1\ 5.5  ..........
2000............................................     \1\ 1.8     \1\ 3.2
2001............................................    \2\ 13.2     \2\ 5.5
2002 & Beyond...................................    \3\ 14.2     \3\ 6.9
                                                 -----------------------
      Total Capital & Annual Costs..............    \3\ 37.1    \4\ 6.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Appropriated.
\2\ Requested.
\3\ Estimated.
\4\ Annual Estimate.

    Based on the funding made available in the fiscal year 1998-1999, 
nine GWEN sites, including one that was converted at Macon, Georgia on 
March 17, 2000, have been integrated into the NDGPS. The fiscal year 
2000 funding phase of this five-year project will expand the NDGPS by 
an additional 14 transmitting sites by the end of calendar year 2000, 
and complete the NDGPS Master Control Station installations at 
Alexandria, Virginia, and Petaluma, California. The estimated cost 
avoidance to the government resulting from the reuse of GWEN property 
and equipment is $16 million. The current plan is for the establishment 
of an additional 28 sites in fiscal year 2001, and 16 sites in fiscal 
year 2002, for a total of 67 NDGPS stations. As required by Public 
Law105-66, Section 346, the new sites will all be integrated into the 
Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) and Precipitable Water 
Vapor System (PWVS) networks operated by the U.S. Department of 
Commerce.

                   NON-DOT AGENCIES INTEREST IN NDGPS

    Question. Seven federal agencies are signatories to a memorandum of 
agreement which outlines the federal governments commitment to the 
establishment and long-term operation, management, and maintenance of 
the NDGPS. Three of these agencies are not Department of 
Transportation: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Air Force. Please 
summarize each of these agencies interest in NDGPS technology, describe 
benefits that accrue to the agency's activities, and the level of 
financial or other support that each agency has contributed or is 
planning to contribute to NDGPS establishment, operation, management 
and maintenance. What level of funding is requested for the support of 
NDGPS in fiscal year 2001 budget requests other than the Federal 
Highway Administration?
    Answer. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will 
integrate each NDGPS reference station into Continuously Operating 
Reference Station (CORS) system and will add Integrated Precipitable 
Water Vapor System equipment to NDGPS. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
will provide real estate services and property management services to 
the NDGPS program including, but not limited to, real property, 
planning, appraisal, acquisition, leasing, management, engineering, 
design, environmental assessment, and construction management. The U.S. 
Air Force is transferring decommissioned Ground Wave Emergency Network 
(GWEN) sites and spare hardware to the Department of Transportation for 
use as NDGPS reference stations. For more details, the interest of 
these agencies in NDGPS technology and the benefits that accrue to 
their activities were described in a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations titled ``The Department of Transportation 
on Civilian Use of the Global Positioning System (GPS): The Nationwide 
Differential Global Positioning System and Additional Civilian GPS 
Signals,'' submitted on July 1, 1999, by the Federal Railroad 
Administration in cooperation with the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal 
Highway Administration, and the United States Coast Guard.
    The Department of Transportation is the only department requesting 
funding for NDGPS. The seven signatory Agencies agreed that FRA/DOT 
should be the program sponsor responsible for requesting funding. As 
noted above, every participating Agency is contributing resources, in 
staff or in-kind, for this project.

                  NON-DOT FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR NDGPS

    Question. The Committee has expressed its concern that ``DGPS-
related expenses should not be derived solely from the Federal highway 
trust fund or other DOT accounts.'' (Senate report 106-55, p. 101). How 
has the administration responded to this concern?
    Answer. The seven signatory Agencies are providing support for this 
project either through staffing, equipment or other in-kind services. 
In addition, FRA described in some detail in a report submitted to 
Congress on July 1, 1999, the significant contributions that the other 
Agencies have made and continue to make to the establishment of NDGPS. 
Unfortunately, the report was delivered after the Senate Report was 
published.
    The Department has proposed cost sharing from other Agencies; 
however, the task group agreed that FRA/DOT should be the program 
sponsor responsible for requesting funding since this is a 
transportation navigational system. Further, it is believed that cost 
sharing a relatively small project through seven Departments, and many 
more Congressional Committees, only to transfer the funds back to the 
Department of Transportation is counterproductive, increases 
administrative costs and reflects government at its worst.

                             NDGPS AND PTC

    Question. How is the NDGPS program being integrated with positive 
train control efforts already underway?
    Answer. All modes of transportation need precise positioning 
information. This information must be in real time and must be accurate 
to permit safe control of vehicles--trains, ships, aircraft, trucks, 
automobiles, transit, and emergency response. Intelligent 
Transportation Systems are being designed to incorporate precise 
positioning information. Coverage and integrity are important 
attributes of a positioning system.
    Over a 7-year period, railroads experienced at least 876 collisions 
and other accidents, which fully-implemented communications-based 
positive train control (PTC) systems would likely have prevented. In 
fact, the National Transportation Safety Board has listed PTC as one of 
its ``ten most-wanted'' initiatives for national transportation safety. 
FRA is facilitating the deployment of PTC within the railroad industry 
by completing the installation of a Nationwide Differential Global 
Positioning System (NDGPS) network, which FRA and several railroads 
have determined to be a prerequisite for PTC.
    In July, 1994, FRA published a report to Congress, entitled 
Railroad Communications and Train Control, as required by the Rail 
Safety Enforcement and Review Act. In that report, FRA outlined an 
action plan and time line to advance PTC deployment by the end of the 
century. FRA indicated that in fiscal year 1997 it would commence 
rulemaking regarding the installation PTC on identified railroad 
corridors. That rulemaking has begun and is taking place under the 
auspices of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee.
    In June, 1995, FRA published another report to Congress, entitled 
Differential GPS: An Aid to Positive Train Control, in response to a 
request from the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. It 
concluded that if the Coast Guard's DGPS service were expanded 
nationwide, it could satisfy the location determination system 
requirements for PTC systems. Full nationwide deployment of the Coast 
Guard DGPS network would significantly aid the development and 
deployment of PTC systems by providing an affordable, uniform, 
continuous, accurate, reliable, secure, real-time location 
determination system throughout the United States. PTC systems that 
would use positioning information from the NDGPS are being installed in 
Alaska, Illinois, Michigan, South Carolina, and Georgia, and are being 
considered in other areas of the country because of the need to handle 
growing railroad freight, intermodal, intercity passenger, and commuter 
rail traffic at higher levels of safety.

                 IMPACT OF REDUCING NDGPS SITES IN 2001

    Question. Please discuss whether it is critical to PTC deployment 
to fund the additional 28 NDGPS stations next year. What are the safety 
implications of only funding half of these this year?
    Answer. On December 8, 1998, the Federal Railroad Administrator 
determined that, ``The FRA has an operational requirement for NDGPS in 
the continental United States and Alaska to support Positive Train 
Control for railroads.'' What is most critical to PTC deployment is not 
so much the funding of 28 or some other specific number of NDGPS 
stations next year, but that the project be completed no later than 
fiscal year 2002 so that the investments to date are not wasted, the 
ultimate costs are not increased, and the safety and economic benefits 
(to railroads and a myriad of other users) are not lost. A delay in 
nationwide coverage adversely impacts on FRA's ability to issue a 
nationwide PTC rule.

                          STATUS OF RRIF RULE

    Question. TEA-21 expanded the Railroad Rehabilitation and 
Improvement Financing program to permit non-federal entities to provide 
the subsidy budget authority needed to support a loan through the 
payment of a credit risk premium. Has a final rulemaking been issued 
which outlines the structure of the expanded loan program? Is FRA aware 
of industry and commercial interest in utilizing this expanded loan 
program?
    Answer. A Final Rule, has been drafted and is currently in the 
clearance process. The 92 comments received in response to the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking reflected a wide range of interest in the 
program. Of the comments received, 57 small railroads indicated an 
interest in participating in the program. A total of 13 State 
Departments of Transportation wrote of the need for the program. In 
fact, Iowa and Washington are considering requesting state 
appropriations for the payment of credit risk premiums, required 
pursuant to the Credit Reform Act of 1990.

                       RHODE ISLAND AUTHORIZATION

    Question. Please cite the current authorization for the Rhode 
Island Rail development improvement project, including the date 
enacted.
    Answer. The authorization for the Rhode Island Rail Development 
Project is Section 9 of the ``Water Resources Development Act of 1999-
Technical Corrections'' (Public Law 106-109). It was enacted on 
November 24, 1999.

                          RHODE ISLAND FUNDING

    Question. Between fiscal years 1995 and 2000, the Rhode Island rail 
development project has received $38,000,000 in federal appropriations. 
What level of funding remains unobligated?
    Answer. A total of $28 million was available through fiscal year 
1999 and all the funds have been obligated. The $10 million provided in 
fiscal year 2000 will be obligated by year-end.

                  STATUS OF RHODE ISLAND CONSTRUCTION

    Question. Construction of 5 miles of Track 7 replacement track was 
scheduled to begin in April 1999 and continue for 15 months. Did this 
construction begin on schedule? When is it scheduled to be completed?
    Answer. Beginning nearly a year ago, Rhode Island DOT (RIDOT) 
undertook a comprehensive review of construction cost estimates to 
complete the Freight Rail Improvement Project. It was evident from this 
analysis that building vital sections of a new third track and 
increasing clearances at bridges were likely to cost more than had 
earlier been estimated. Because track 7 is currently in service, RIDOT 
decided to postpone upgrades until work on the more important new 
tracks and bridge clearances was complete. Track 7 will now be upgraded 
near the end of the Project--mid-2001--when other, more vital work is 
well underway and all costs are known. The exact scope of work on Track 
7 will be determined by the available budget at the time.

                   STATUS OF THIRD TRACK CONSTRUCTION

    Question. Is Third Track construction scheduled to begin in April 
2000 and continue for 18 months, as outlined in last year's hearing 
record? If not, why not?
    Answer. Work on the third track has been delayed due to time spent 
on the review of cost estimates and work on completing the NEC 
electrified high-speed operations (Amtrak is RIDOT's primary 
construction contractor.)
    Amtrak has nearly completed all construction related to 
electrified, high-speed operations and is now available for RIDOT 
construction. A master schedule prepared by Rhode Island DOT's Freight 
Rail Improvement Project office in early February 2000 shows third 
track construction beginning late this calendar year.

                     STATUS OF BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

    Question. Have any bridge construction package contracts been 
awarded? If so, which ones, and what are their schedules? Is the 
project on track for construction of bridge construction packages to be 
completed by summer of 2001, with high and wide operations commencing 
in fall of 2001? If there have been setbacks to this anticipated 
schedule, please outline the challenges and what steps Rhode Island DOT 
and the FRA intend to take to complete the project within budget and 
on, or close to, schedule.
    Answer. No bridge construction contracts have been awarded. The 
first, jacking of the Rocky Hollow bridge, is scheduled to be awarded 
this summer with a construction ``notice to proceed'' issued by late 
August. The last, Dexter Street bridge jacking, is being deferred as 
part of the Track 7 decision. Two bridges, Hunt's River and Cranston 
Street, will be improved using highway funds. All construction 
schedules have been impacted by the comprehensive review of 
construction cost estimates. This exercise was extremely important to 
the ultimate success of this project because it addressed potential 
cost overruns at the start of the process, eliminated non-critical 
scope in order to free up funds to insure that the most essential 
improvements are funded, and rescheduled certain less critical work to 
the end of the project when the actual amount of remaining funds will 
be known and assigned without fear of budget shortfalls. FRA and RIDOT 
will monitor actual construction costs very closely and be in a 
position to adjust scope and schedule so that a useable product that 
meets the goal of accommodating high and wide loads will result.

              IMPACT OF SPLIT FUNDING RHODE ISLAND PROJECT

    Question. What would the affect be of appropriating the remaining 
$17 million of federal commitment total into two equal appropriations 
of $8,500,000 in fiscal year 2001 and $8,500,000 in fiscal year 2002?
    Answer. All construction packages are currently scheduled to be 
awarded by Spring 2001. A delay of twelve months in the appropriation 
of $8,500,000 will push the last of these awards into 2002. Not only 
would this end up increasing project costs, but also force significant 
changes to construction schedules which have been coordinated with 
Amtrak, the owner and operator of the adjacent Northeast Corridor high-
speed tracks, and RIDOT's prime construction contractor. Amtrak is 
unlikely to support disruptions to its high-speed service, which is a 
key source of revenue to eliminate its need for operating subsidy.

         CURRENT COST ESTIMATE OF PENNSYLVANIA STATION PROJECT

    Question. What is the current cost estimate for the Pennsylvania 
Station project? How have the project cost estimates increased since 
this project was first funded in fiscal year 1995? What is the level of 
federal ``commitment'' to this project? What legal form does this 
commitment take?
    Answer. The current cost estimate for the Pennsylvania Station 
Redevelopment Project is $788 million. The increase in cost, since 
fiscal year 1995, is attributable to: additional project scope 
including an expanded West End concourse with a new commuter level 
concourse, an intermodal ticketing hall, improved loading facilities 
for the United States Postal Service (USPS), increased retail area; the 
addition of passenger handling facilities for airport access; lease 
payments to USPS, including the cost of Amtrak force account; USPS 
construction costs; financing costs; and contingency costs. The direct 
Federal funding commitment is $348 million of which $128 million was 
previously appropriated funds, $60 million was provided in advance 
appropriations beginning in fiscal year 2001 and $160 million provided 
in Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act credit 
assistance. In addition, the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment 
Corporation expects to receive certain Federal funds apportioned to the 
State of New York, including $20 million from the Surface 
Transportation Program and $64 million from the Congestion Mitigation 
and Air Quality Program. To date, the Federal Railroad Administration 
has entered into grant agreements with Amtrak totaling $48 million and 
the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation totaling $29 million 
in previously appropriated funds. In addition, Amtrak has invested $20 
million of its capital funds in Pennsylvania Station life safety 
improvements.

                FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR PENN STATION PROJECT

    Question. Please detail all federal appropriations and other 
federal funding(e.g. authorizations that carry contract authority, 
TIFIA) to the Pennsylvania Station project to date? What level of 
federal funding remains unobligated?
    Answer. A detailed list of federal appropriations and other federal 
funding to the Pennsylvania Station project follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Fiscal Year 1994 Supplemental Appropriations Act.................. 10.00
Fiscal Year 1995 Supplemental Appropriations Act.................. 21.50
Fiscal Year 1996 DOT Appropriations Act...........................  9.00
National Highway System Designation Act........................... 24.75
Taxpayer Relief Act............................................... 11.00
Fiscal Year 1998 DOT Appropriations Act........................... 12.00
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.................... 40.00
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act..........160.00
Fiscal Year 2001 Advance Appropriations........................... 60.00
                                                                  ______
      Total.......................................................348.25

Note: A total of $91 million remains unobligated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    PROJECT BUDGET FOR PENN STATION

    Question. Please provide a project budget that outlines all sources 
of funding, whether these funds are on hand or planned, what amount of 
funding in each category has been obligated to date, construction 
schedule milestones, and date of completion.
    Answer. The project budget and sources of funding for the 
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project follows:

Project Budget

                        [In millions of dollars]

Construction and contingencies....................................   573
Financing and reserves............................................   109
Professional services (architectural/engineering, risk management 
    and development manager)......................................    68
Lease costs.......................................................    20
Administrative and consultants....................................    18
                                                                  ______
      Total.......................................................   788

Sources of Funds

                        [In millions of dollars]

Federal funding to Amtrak.....................................    \1\ 68
Federal funding to PSRC.......................................56--\1\ 29
Advance Federal appropriation.................................    \2\ 60
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act......   \3\ 160
New York State Department of Transportation:
    Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality.....................    \4\ 64
    Surface Transportation Program............................20--\1\ 10
    State Multi-modal.........................................    \4\ 20
Metropolitan Transportation Authority.........................    \3\ 35
New York City Economic Development Corporation................    \1\ 25
United States Postal Service..................................   \4\ 125
New York State Urban Development Corporation..................   \3\ 155
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................       788

\1\ Obligated.
\2\ Appropriated.
\3\ Planned.
\4\ Committed.

    It is expected that the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project 
will begin construction in the fall of 2000 with a construction period 
of approximately 48 months. The West End Concourse is expected to be 
opened for pedestrian traffic by December 2003, with substantial 
completion of the station by December 2004.

            PENN STATION--RENOVATION VS LIFE SAFETY REPAIRS

    Question. Amtrak recently released a report to Congress on the 
planned infrastructure improvements to the South End of its Northeast 
Corridor (Washington, D.C. to New York City). Life safety improvements 
to the tunnels below Pennsylvania Station in New York City are 
estimated to cost more than $300 million over the next ten years or so. 
In FRA's budget, $20 million is requested--and was already funded as an 
advance appropriation in fiscal year 2000--for the Penn Station 
Redevelopment Project. Will any of the $20 million in the 
administration's budget for Penn Station be used for life safety 
improvements to the tunnels? Please justify the administration's 
decision to place a higher priority on funding the renovation of a 
building (much of which will be for commercial use), than on funding 
life safety repairs and improvements. How will the needed tunnel 
repairs and improvements be paid for?
    Answer. Both the upgrade of passenger related facilities at 
Pennsylvania Station (Penn Station) and safety improvements to the six 
tunnels providing access to Penn Station from New Jersey and Long 
Island are necessary for the long term vitality of all passenger rail 
service, commuter as well as intercity serving New York City. Both 
initiatives share important attributes. They address the need to invest 
in aging infrastructure and they require partnerships at the Federal, 
state and local level. The Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project 
(Project) includes fire and life safety improvements to the portion of 
the tunnels beneath Penn Station and the James A. Farley Post Office 
building (Farley building). The $20 million funded by the Congress as 
an advance appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is not specifically 
targeted for improvements to the tunnels. However, a total of 
approximately $54 million in life safety improvements below Penn 
Station and the Farley building are included in the Project plan. The 
need to invest in Penn Station is well documented, including the 
inadequacies of the existing facility in terms of the safety of egress 
and the inability to create any additional capacity through the 
construction of new tracks and platforms. If the region's 
transportation and environmental needs are to be met, then the existing 
facilities must be expanded now. The Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment 
Corporation is endeavoring to do so through its innovative design for 
combining parts of the Farley building with the existing Penn Station.
    Upgrading the rail passenger tunnels accessing New York Penn 
Station is vital to the long-term future of all rail passenger service 
in the Northeast. The Department as well as Amtrak, New Jersey Transit 
(NJT) and the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) are mindful of the need to 
upgrade the tunnels. Since 1976, a total of $106 million has been 
invested in their upgrade by Amtrak and its partners and another $43 
million will be invested in fiscal year 2000. Amtrak is also working 
with NJT and LIRR to prioritize long-term tunnel improvement 
investments and to develop an appropriate mechanism for allocating the 
resulting costs which reflects Amtrak's ownership but minority use of 
the tunnels.

                        CAPITAL GRANTS TO AMTRAK

    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 of Amtrak's Federal appropriations 
including the Northeast Corridor Program follows:

Amtrak Federal Appropriations Including the Northeast Corridor Program

                    [In millions of current dollars]

        Fiscal year                                               Amount

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
1999..........................................................     609.2
2000..........................................................     571.0
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................  21,120.1

                 AMTRAK'S YEAR-END NET 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 by fiscal year 
are as follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]

        Year                                          Net Operating Loss

1971 (Year end 12/31).............................................    92
1972 (Year end 12/31).............................................   151
1973 (Year end 12/31).............................................   159
1974 (Year end 12/31).............................................   273
1975 (Year end 12/31).............................................   353
1976 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   343
1977 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   537
1978 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   582
1979 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   620
1980 (Year end 9/30)..............................................    27
1981 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   179
1980-1981 Adjustment..............................................\1\ 41
1982 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   795
1983 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   805
1984 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   763
1985 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   774
1986 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   702
1987 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   699
1988 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   650
1989 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   665
1990 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   703
1991 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   722
1992 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   712
1993 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   731
1994 (Year end 9/30)...........................................\2\ 1,077
1995 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   808
1996 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   764
1997 (Year end 9/30)..............................................   762
1998 (Year end 9/30).............................................\3\ 353
1999 (Year end) 9/30).............................................   702

\1\ This adjustment was due to a change in Amtrak's method of accounting 
for track structure depreciation which had the effect of increasing net 
losses for fiscal year 1983, 1982, and 1980-81 by $35 million, $24 
million and $41 million, respectively.
\2\ Includes $244 million of one-time expenses.
\3\ Offset of $577 million of TRA receipts, including interest earned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

    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 loads by fiscal year are as 
follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Federal debt                            Grand
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------   total
              Fiscal year                  Less non-Federal loan                                        paid-in
                                        --------------------------- NECIP/NHRIP    Grand      Total     capital
                                            Debt    Guarantees \1\  funding \2\   capital              items \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1971...................................        0.7           25.0   ...........       25.0       25.7       25.7
1972...................................        7.1            7.1   ...........  .........        7.1        7.1
1973...................................       30.9           78.6   ...........       78.6      109.5      109.5
1974...................................       76.6          220.9   ...........      220.9      297.5      297.5
1975...................................      107.1          377.8         377.8      484.9      484.9
1976...................................      232.7          533.3   ...........      533.3      766.0      766.0
1977...................................      212.8          492.6          89.0      581.6      794.4      794.4
1978...................................      189.9          472.2         267.8      740.0      929.9      929.9
1979...................................      113.3          374.0         485.3      859.3      972.6      972.6
1980...................................       99.3          445.0         698.7    1,143.7    1,243.0    1,243.0
1981...................................       78.9          731.2         940.8    1,672.0    1,750.9    1,750.9
1982...................................       68.7          811.6       1,311.8    2,123.4    2,192.1    2,192.1
1983...................................        6.5          880.0       1,618.3    2,498.3    2,504.8    2,504.8
1984...................................       13.2        1,119.6       1,871.8    2,991.4    3,004.6    3,004.6
1985...................................       22.2        1,119.6       2,043.7    3,163.3    3,185.5    3,185.5
1986...................................       23.8        1,119.6       2,128.8    3,248.4    3,272.2    3,272.2
1987 \1\...............................       22.7        1,119.6       2,220.6    3,340.2    3,362.9       22.7
1988...................................       35.9        1,119.6       2,271.1    3,390.7    3,426.6       35.9
1989...................................      126.5        1,119.6       2,310.5    3,430.1    3,556.6      126.5
1990...................................      183.8        1,119.6       2,334.1    3,453.7    3,637.5      183.8
1991...................................      288.0        1,119.6       2,370.0    3,489.6    3,777.6      288.0
1992...................................      418.8        1,119.6       2,550.8    3,670.4    4,089.2      418.8
1993...................................      492.3        1,119.6       2,673.9    3,793.5    4,285.8      492.3
1994...................................      770.3        1,119.6       2,787.6    3,907.2    4,677.5      770.3
1995...................................      837.0        1,119.6       2,906.9    4,026.5    4,863.5      837.0
1996...................................      987.0        1,119.6       3,154.3    4,273.9    5,260.9      987.0
1997...................................    1,336.4        1,119.6       3,563.4    4,683.0    6,019.4    1,336.4
1998...................................    1,637.9        1,119.6       4,012.0    5,131.6    6,769.5    1,637.9
1999...................................    1,887.2        1,119.6       4,046.4    5,166.0    7,053.2    1,877.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note in the amount of $1,119.6 million was signed on October 5, 1983 in return for FRA payment of Loan
  Guarantees. At that time, $238.7 million of deferred interest was also folded into this note. Note comes due
  November 1, 2082 and is secured by Amtrak rolling stock.
\2\ These are borrowings under NECIP/NHRIP fundings.
\3\ Amounts in this column reconcile to Amtrak's Annual Reports.
\4\ Beginning fiscal year 1988 (with fiscal year 1987 restated for comparability), federal debt was reclassified
  as ``federal paid-in capital (in italics)'' for financial reporting purposes.

                            LOANS TO AMTRAK

    Question. Please list the loans made to Amtrak in fiscal year 1999 
and thus far in fiscal year 2000 (through February 29). Please include 
information on the lending institution, amount of loan, repayment 
period, and interest rate.
    Answer. The list of loans made by Amtrak during fiscal year 1999 
and fiscal year 2000 is as follows:

                                              [Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Term
             Lender/lessor                       Description          Amount  (years)  Interest rate  (per year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999:
    Export Development Corp. & MBK Rail  High-speed trainsets          164.1       20  LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 75 bp.
     Finance Corporation (of Japan).      (additional draws).
    Export Development Corp. & MBK Rail  High-speed trainsets           64.0       20  LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 75 bp.
     Finance Corporation (of Japan).      (additional draws).
    First Union National Bank Capital    (19 F-59 locomotives).....     42.8       20  5.6 percent.
     Lease.
    Wabash National Finance............  Capital Lease.............       .1       20  6.0 percent.
    Corporation........................  (4 inter-bogies)..........  .......  .......  .........................
    New York Air Brake Corporation.....  Capital Lease (5 simula-        1.0        5  4.3 percent.
                                          tors).
    The Fuji Bank, LTD and MBK Finance   AEM-7 Rebuild (additional      10.7        3  LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 110
     Corp. (of Japan).                    draws).                                       bp.
    Wabash National Finance Corporation  Capital Lease (173 Road         8.1        9  6.0 percent
                                          Railers & Equipment).
    Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau und   Richmond Static Frequency      10.9       15  LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 110
     Bayerische Landesbank.               Converter (additional                         bp.
                                          draws).
Fiscal year 2000 (thru February 29,
 2000):
    Wabash National Finance Corporation  Capital Lease (173 Road         5.0        9  6.0 percent
                                          Railers & Equipment).
    The Fuji Bank, LTD and MBK Rail      AEM-7 Rebuild (additional       4.5        3  LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 110
     Finance Corp. (of Japan).            draws).                                       bp.
    Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau und   Richmond Static Frequency       5.5       15  LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 110
     Bayerische Landes bank.              Converters (additional                        bp.
                                          draws).
    Export Development Corp. & MBK Rail  High-speed Trainsets           39.6       15  LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 75 bp.
     Finance Corporation (of Japan).      (additional draws).
    Export Development Corp. & MBK Rail  High-speed Trainsets            1.8       20  LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 75 bp.
     Finance Corporation (of Japan).      (additional draws).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           FISCAL YEAR 2001 FUNDING WITH EXPANDED DEFINITION

    Question. If the Federal Transit Administration's expanded capital 
definition were applied to Amtrak capital, what is the maximum amount 
of the $521,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 request that could be used for: 
maintenance of equipment, maintenance of facilities and maintenance of 
way?
    Answer. Amtrak's business plan projects that it will use the 
expanded capital definition to fund approximately $242 million of 
maintenance of equipment, maintenance of facilities and maintenance of 
way expenses from the capital grant that would otherwise be funded from 
operating revenues.

                       DOT VS. ARC BUDGET REQUEST

    Question. What was the funding request sent to OMB for the Amtrak 
Reform Council? What is the ARC's own request for funds in fiscal year 
2001.
    Answer. The ARC proposed a request of $1.4 million to OMB.

                     AMTRAK REFORM COUNCIL STAFFING

    Question. How many full time staff are currently at the Amtrak 
Reform Council? How many staff are represented in the funding level 
requested in the 2001 budget? Are the costs associated with the 2000 
and 2001 cost of living increases (4.4 percent and 4.5 percent 
respectively) reflected in the budget request? Is there any provision 
for locality pay and benefit adjustments?
    Answer. The Amtrak Reform Council is an independent agency. The 
Department has no role in developing, reviewing, or approving their 
budget requests or staffing plans. Questions such as this should be 
directed to the Council. To the best of our knowledge, the Amtrak 
Reform Council has five employees on board. The fiscal year 2001 budget 
includes funding for 5 positions. Cost of living expenses for fiscal 
years 2000 and 2001 are reflected in the budget request, as well as the 
locality pay and benefit adjustments.

                  AMTRAK REFORM COUNCIL SUPPORT COSTS

    Question. What level of funding is assumed in the request for 
travel and meeting costs?
    Answer. A total of $980,000 is requested in fiscal year 2001 for 
the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC); of which $32,000 is for travel. We do 
not know how much is for meeting costs. This question should be 
directed to the ARC.
                                 ______
                                 

       Questions Submitted to the Federal Transit Administration

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                       TEA-21 PROGRAM GUARANTEES

    Question. Do any of your fiscal year 2001 transit program budget 
requests differ from the guaranteed levels in TEA-21? If so, please 
outline the guaranteed program funding levels, and show the proposed 
increase request. Why has the administration requested increased 
funding levels in these programs?
    Answer. The only program FTA requests above the TEA-21 Guaranteed 
level is the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program. For this program 
FTA requests the full authorized level of $150 million. The guaranteed 
level for this program in fiscal year 2001 is $100 million, therefore 
FTA requests $50 million in addition to fully fund the program. The 
administration requests these additional funds as part of the 
redistribution of realigned budget authority (RABA) made available 
under the Federal-aid Highway program. This program is a priority of 
the administration and is critical to the success of Welfare Reform.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

    Question. Please prepare an organizational chart for the Federal 
Transit Administration, showing the office structure and regional 
office locations, as well as the current number of FTEs currently 
assigned to each office.
    Answer. The following table provides current Federal Transit 
Administration organizational chart information: 

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FTA.000

    Question. Please break out Administrative Expenses by activity and 
sub-activity. Prepare a table showing fiscal year 1999 funding for each 
activity, fiscal year 2000 funding estimated, and fiscal year 2001 
funding request.
    Answer. The following chart shows fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 
2000 and fiscal year 2001 Administrative Expenses by activity/sub-
activity:

         FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION--ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year
                                  --------------------------------------
      Activity/sub-activity            1999         2000         2001
                                      actual      estimate     request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salary & Benefits:
    Salary.......................       32,040       34,244       36,499
    Benefits.....................        6,263        7,296        7,787
Travel and Transportation........        1,268        1,378        1,697
Rent.............................        3,659        3,955        4,321
Communications...................        1,389        1,923        2,044
Printing & Reproduction..........          362          365          366
Contractual Services:
    Audit and Financial Reviews    ...........        1,500        1,000
     Services....................
    Building management /Services        1,336        1,065        1,129
    Contractor Support (Service,         1,000        1,700        1,724
     Help Desk,etc.).............
    Accounting System (DELPHI)...  ...........          200          303
    Financial Systems (DAFIS)....          477          753          761
    Grant Systems/TEAM(Includes          2,500        2,493        2,675
     Y2K and training)...........
    PDD63........................  ...........          300          550
    Data Warehousing.............  ...........  ...........          150
    Electronic Commerce..........  ...........  ...........          150
    Training/Workforce Planning..          325          580        1,066
    Other Contractual Services...        1,387          622          654
Supplies & Materials.............          193          202          209
Equipment & Furniture............        1,139          986          915
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total......................       53,338       59,562       64,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

    Question. Please specify what employee development activities have 
been accomplished in fiscal years 1999 and thus far in fiscal year 
2000. How has FTA paid for these activities? What planned activities 
would be undertaken with the additional $347,000 for employment 
training and development? What is the base enacted funding level for 
this activity?
    Answer. The Department's Learning and Development, workforce 
planning, and flagship initiatives require the obligation of funds for 
a variety of training courses to be offered to all employees throughout 
the fiscal year. These learning and development activities keep 
employees abreast of new developments in their fields and enhance their 
knowledge and skills in the areas of transportation. Key management 
training includes; supervisory; leadership development, interpersonal 
skills, oral and written communication skills, and information 
technology. Listed below are employee development activities that were 
accomplished in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 courses for which 
contracts have been awarded, or employees have completed the course:

Fiscal year 1999 Courses:                                         Amount
    Leadership for a Democratic Society.......................   $44,500
    Aspen Institute...........................................     8,700
    Management Development Seminar............................     9,150
    Executive Development Seminar.............................     6,100
    Presidential Management Intern Seminar....................     5,325
    Executive Potential Seminar...............................    14,700
    Women's Executive Leadership Program......................     7,300
    Leadership Potential Seminar..............................    15,250
    Seminar for New Managers..................................     6,100
    Strategic Planning Through The Power of Vision............     4,000
    Advanced Leadership Program...............................     9,750
    Supervisory Development Program...........................     2,250
    Career Strategies Seminar For Prospective Managers........    14,400
    Basic Supervisory Skills..................................     4,100
    New Leaders Program.......................................     7,980
    Aspiring Leaders Program..................................     1,995
    Negotiation Skills........................................     1,920
    Managing Up...............................................     1,125
    General Employee Training.................................   154,355
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   319,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 2000 Courses Completed to date:
    Amount Leadership for a Democratic Society................    27,450
    Developing Customer-Focused Organizations.................     3,050
    Leadership Potential Seminar..............................    18,300
    Management Development Seminar............................     9,150
    Federal Budgetary Policies and Processes..................     6,100
    Supervisory Leadership Seminar............................     9,150
    Environmental Policy Issues...............................     6,100
    Capitol Hill Workshop.....................................     3,580
    White House Workshop......................................     1,790
    Executive Potential Program...............................     9,800
    Congressional Operations Seminar..........................     6,650
    New Leaders Program.......................................     5,985
    Advanced Leadership Program...............................     1,500
    Motivating Others: Bringing Out the Best in People........     7,375
    Effective Writing.........................................     1,725
    Grammar Review............................................     1,800
    Effective Briefing Techniques.............................     3,300
    General Employee Training.................................    58,004
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   180,809

    Fiscal year 2001 planned additional Learning and Development 
activities to be funded from the administrative expenses account:

Course:                                                           Amount
    Transit Academy...........................................    $4,200
    Leadership for a Democratic Society.......................    28,150
    Aspen Institute Executive Seminar.........................     6,525
    Developing Customer-Focused Organizations.................     4,000
    Leadership Potential Seminar..............................    21,350
    Management Development Seminar............................     9,150
    Federal Budgetary Policies and Processes..................     6,100
    Supervisory Leadership Seminar............................    12,200
    Environmental Policy Issues...............................     6,100
    Capitol Hill Workshop.....................................     5,570
    White House Workshop......................................     2,685
    Women's Executive Leadership Program......................     3,650
    Executive Potential Program...............................    14,700
    Congressional Operations Seminar..........................     8,550
    New Leaders Program.......................................     5,990
    Advanced Leadership Program...............................     2,780
    Motivating Others: Bringing Out the Best in People........     7,575
    Presidential Management Intern Leadership Seminar.........     5,700
    Effective Writing.........................................     9,600
    Effective Briefing Techniques.............................     9,600
    Coaching Skills for Managers and Supervisors..............    30,000
    Interpersonal Communication Skills........................    20,000
    Conflict Intervention, etc................................    14,000
    Team Decision Making......................................    18,000
    Communicating With Style..................................    37,800
    Managing Multiple Priorities..............................    26,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   319,975

    The $319,975 does not include the $27,000 budgeted to support TASC 
training. FTA has $575,000 included in the fiscal year 2000 base for 
this activity.

                                STAFFING

    Question. How much of the proposed salaries and benefits increase 
(+$2,828,000) is associated with the pending reprogramming which 
includes an FTE increase from 485 to 495? (Please be sure to include 
any within-grade and step increase funding that is assumed to be 
associated with these positions.) Over how many months in fiscal year 
2000 does this portion of the increase cover?
    Answer. Of the $2,828,000, $835,000 is associated with the pending 
reprogramming. In fiscal year 2000, the FTA planned to hire 20 new 
positions throughout the fiscal year thus increasing FTE from 485 to 
495. In fiscal year 2001, these positions will be fully annualized, 
therefore, increasing the FTE from 495 to 505. This portion of the 
increase covers 12 months of the fiscal year.
    Question. The FTA has proposed increasing the FTE level from 495 to 
505 in fiscal year 2001. Please break out these staffing increases by 
title, grade, and projected starting dates, including where each 
position will be located.
    Answer. The following chart provides a break out of the proposed 
FTE funding increase:

                      FISCAL YEAR 2001 HIRING PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Office                 Positions (title/grade)     EOD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Planning..................  Community Planner, GS-9/   9/10/00
                                       11/12.
Region 1............................  General Engineer, GS-11/   9/24/00
                                       12/13.
Region 3............................  Community Planner, GS-9/   10/8/00
                                       11/12.
Region 4............................  General Engineer, GS-11/  10/22/00
                                       12/13.
Region 5............................  Community Planner, GS-    11/05/00
                                       11/12.
Region 6............................  Community Planner, GS-    11/19/00
                                       11/12.
Region 9............................  General Engineer, GS-11/   9/10/00
                                       12/13.
Office of Program Management........  General Engineer, GS-11/   9/24/00
                                       12/13.                    10/8/00
                                      General Engineer, GS-11/
                                       12/13.
Office of Research Demo. &            Transportation Program    11/05/00
 Innovation.                           Specialist, GS-12/13.
                                                              ----------
      Total--10 New Positions.......  .......................     10 FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table similar to the one found on page 
478-479 of Senate hearing 106-221, detailing FTA's FTEs for fiscal 
years 1999, fiscal year 2000 on-board, estimated end-of-year (assuming 
the approval of the pending reprogramming), and 2001 proposal.
    Answer. The following table provides detail of FTA's FTE through 
fiscal year 2001:

                            FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal year
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                       Organization                           1998       1999    2000  on-     2000       2001
                                                             actual     actual     board    estimated  requested
                                                              FTE        FTE        FTE         FTE        FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Offices:
    Administrator........................................          6          5          4          4          5
    Public Affairs.......................................         11         12         12         12         12
    Chief Counsel........................................         32         29         31         31         33
    Budget and Policy....................................         46         49         50         52         53
    Civil Rights.........................................         25         26         26         26         26
    Administration.......................................         74         74         70         72         65
    Res. Demonstration and Innovation....................         41         41         45         44         46
    Program Management...................................         57         55         58         59         60
    Planning.............................................         25         29         32         31         33
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal Headquarters..............................        317        320        328        331        333
                                                          ======================================================
Regional Offices:
    Region 1, Cambridge, MA..............................         13         13         14         14         14
    Region 2, New York, NY...............................         17         18         19         19         20
    Region 3, Philadelphia, PA...........................         20         20         21         20         21
    Region 4, Atlanta GA.................................         21         21         20         21         22
    Region 5, Chicago, IL................................         22         23         24         24         24
    Region 6, Fort Worth, TX.............................         16         17         16         16         17
    Region 7, Kansas City, MO............................          9         11         12         12         12
    Region 8, Denver, CO.................................          7          8          8          8          9
    Region 9, San Francisco, CA..........................         20         21         22         22         23
    Region 10, Seattle, WA...............................          9          9          9          8         10
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal Regions...................................        154        161        165        164        172
                                                          ======================================================
      Total FTA..........................................        471        481        493        495        505
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

    Question. Please lay out a schedule, by fiscal year and associated 
cost, of information technology improvements from fiscal year 1999 
through the anticipated completion of the current upgrade. Break out 
each activity to major sub-activity levels.
    Answer. The following table provides information technology 
improvements at the major sub-activity level:

                   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal year
              Major sub-activity              --------------------------
                                                 1999     2000     2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2000: Conversion & Remediation..........    1,350  .......  .......
Accounting Systems: DELPHI Conversion........  .......      200      100
Financial Systems: DAFIS Operations..........  .......      200  .......
TEAM System: Application Enhancements........  .......      750      250
Contractor Support (Help desk, etc.).........  .......      700  .......
PDD63: Awareness/Renovation & Testing........  .......      300      250
Electronic Commerce:
    Equipment & Software.....................      100      300  .......
    Operations & Expansion...................  .......  .......      150
Data Warehousing.............................  .......  .......      150
DOT Bandwidth................................  .......  .......       15
Standardize and Secure e-mail................  .......  .......       26
Telecommunications: Infrastructure Upgrades..      200      300  .......
IT Equipment and Software: Software Licensing      150  .......  .......
 & Workstation Upgrades......................
                                              --------------------------
      IT Improvement Total...................    1,800    2,750      941
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Does not include increases for inflation adjustments.

    Question. On pages 33-35 of the budget justification, you describe 
the components of the requested $941,000 increase for information 
technology. (This increase is predicated on the assumption that the 
pending reprogramming increase for IT in fiscal year 2000 will be 
approved.) Please present this list of activities in priority order, 
and justify why each project is necessary in fiscal year 2001.
    Answer. The increase in information technology activities cuts 
across major governmental and departmental initiatives. All initiatives 
have a high importance to proceed with activity in fiscal year 2001 due 
either to Executive, Federal and/or Departmental mandates or flagship 
initiatives. In priority order they are as follows:
  --Presidential Decision Directive 63 ($250,000).--Federal mandate 
        requires FTA to protect the infrastructure of Federally 
        operated systems, and also to allow FTA to continue its 
        partnership with departmental initiatives involving electronic 
        commerce through mission critical systems accreditation. 
        $300,000 is planned for fiscal year 2000.
  --Transportation Electronic Award and Management (TEAM) ($250,000).--
        Funds will provide software, hardware and communications 
        necessary to implement the web-enabled TEAM application. 
        Transitioning to the internet will streamline FTA's business 
        process by making it easier to access the federal financial 
        assistance application process.
  --Electronic Commerce in Procurement ($150,000).--To provide annual 
        lifecycle maintenance, licenses and core operations of FTA's 
        electronic commerce program. We are planning $400,000 in fiscal 
        year 2000.
  --Data Warehousing ($150,000).--To continue the standardization of 
        ``pockets of information'' so that information is accessible 
        and sharable from a single source, eliminating redundancy of 
        systems and information flow, and providing a more effective 
        and efficient information sharing environment. This is a new 
        activity in fiscal year 2001.
  --DELPHI--Accounting System Conversion ($100,000).--To convert and 
        migrate the Agency's information in DAFIS to a new automated 
        accounting system. We are planning $200,000 in fiscal year 
        2000.
  --Strategic Communications--Institution of a Standard and Secure 
        Departmental E-mail System in support of all Departmental Goals 
        ($26,000).--This builds on securing information and systems and 
        fosters a ``OneDOT'' approach to sharing information over a 
        secured infrastructure, demonstrating that DOT is serious about 
        protecting its information and maintaining the public 
        confidence in the Department. Intermodal meetings were held, 
        however funding is requested in fiscal year 2001.
  --Strategic Communications--Increase Bandwidth for Targeted Segments 
        of Departmental Networks ($15,000).--Under the ``OneDOT'' 
        approach, this funding would provide required infrastructure 
        improvements for FTA to communicate efficiently and effectively 
        with selected Departmental systems.

                      PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT

    Question. Please detail the authorized takedown levels (percentage 
and dollar amounts) for both formula and capital investment grants for 
fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, and the amounts requested and 
enacted for PMO each of those fiscal years.
    Answer. The following table provides a detail of FTA's Oversight 
takedown levels:

                      FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 1999-2001 OVERSIGHT BUDGET
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Fiscal year              Fiscal year              Fiscal year
           Section/Program             1999 oversight  Percent  2000 oversight  Percent  2001 oversight  Percent
                                          takedown     of app.     takedown     of app.     takedown     of app.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula Programs:
    Alaska Railroad (Sec. 5307)......         $24,250       50         $24,250       50         $24,250       50
    Urbanized Area Formula (Sec.           12,736,954       50      13,864,451       50      14,986,580       50
     5307)...........................
    Nonurbanized Area Formula (Sec.           889,618       50         968,065       50       1,046,416       50
     5311)...........................
Capital Investment Grants:
    Bus and Bus Facilities (Sec.            3,760,500       75       4,096,500       75       3,594,000       75
     5309)...........................
    Fixed Guideway Modernization            6,771,000       75       7,353,000       75       7,938,000       75
     (Sec. 5309).....................
    New Starts (Sec. 5309)...........       6,771,000       75       7,353,000       75       7,938,000       75
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..........................      30,953,322  .......      33,659,266  .......      35,527,246  .......
                                      ==========================================================================
Amount Requested For PMO.............      16,000,000  .......      18,067,000  .......      17,520,000  .......
Actual Obligations (includes               23,502,000  .......      21,887,000  .......  ..............  .......
 carryover)..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Why doesn't the budget request assume the fully 
authorized takedown amounts for oversight activities in fiscal year 
2001?
    Answer. The budget request assumes the fully authorized take-down 
of $35.5 million for oversight activities in fiscal year 2001. The 
Oversight Program increases commensurately with the increase of the 
Formula and Capital Investment programs. This level of funding is 
necessary to meet the growing demands on the Oversight Program. These 
funds are used to carryout our statutory oversight functions. As the 
New Starts project list grows more funds are required to oversee these 
projects. Over 61 percent of the funds are for Project Management and 
Financial Oversight activities. Safety Oversight is funded with 9 
percent of the funds; the remaining funds support procurement and 
management oversight. As the FTA program grows under the guaranteed 
level provided in TEA-21, so will the need for oversight. Therefore, 
the percentage take-down from the capital portions of the FTA program 
for oversight activities is an appropriate means of funding these 
requirements.
    Question. Please provide the names of contractors, their geographic 
location, annual and total costs of contracts, and a short description 
of each contract, for each PMO contract let in fiscal year 1999 and 
thus far in 2000.
    Answer. A total of 9 Project Management Oversight Contracts were 
let in Fiscal year 1999 while none were awarded in fiscal year 2000. 
This list does not include non-PMOC activities such as Financial 
Management Oversight and Procurement System Reviews. The total and 
annual cost of the 9 contracts is provided in the attached chart.

                       FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION--PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT CONTRACTORS--FISCAL YEAR 1999-FISCAL YEAR 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Fiscal year
                                                                              Contract    --------------------------------
              Contractor                             Location                  amount           1999            2000           PMO projects monitored
                                                                                            expenditures    expenditures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gannett Fleming, Inc..................  Camp Hill, PA....................     $12,183,951      $1,600,000      $1,701,763  Region IX Seattle.
Fluor Daniel, Inc.....................  Irvine, CA.......................      10,391,273       2,000,000       1,300,000  LIRR, NYCDOT, NCTA.
Hill International, Inc...............  Newport Beach, CA................      11,533,331       3,012,183       2,337,617  Los Angeles Metro Rail Salt
                                                                                                                            Lake City.
Day & Zimmerman.......................  Philadelphia, PA.................      10,810,846       1,934,484       1,665,692  WMATA, MBTA, and Region IV.
Sverdrup Civil, Inc...................  Maryland Heights, MO.............      11,576,298       1,000,000         525,000  Chicago Miami-Dade.
Delon Hampton and Associates, Chtd....  Washington, D.C..................      12,507,225       1,351,582       1,600,000  New Jersey Transit, Metro
                                                                                                                            North RR, CONNDOT.
STV, Inc..............................  Philadelphia, PA.................      13,850,585       3,728,466       1,902,469  RTD Denver MUNI & BART.
Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall....  Baltimore, MD....................       9,474,885       1,480,000         590,357  Dallas & Railtran, Cleveland,
                                                                                                                            and Phoenix.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Construction       Herndon, VA......................      13,065,484  ..............         260,000  Little Rock Junction Bridge/
 Services.                                                                                                                  River Rail.
                                                                          ------------------------------------------------
      Totals.............................................................     105,393,878      16,106,715      11,882,989
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table similar to that found on page 484 
of Senate hearing record 106-221, indicating oversight obligations by 
activity broken out for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 estimate, 
and 2001 planned.
    Answer. The following table provides actual Oversight obligations 
for fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 1998 and estimated for fiscal 
year 2000 through fiscal year 2001:

                                        OVERSIGHT OBLIGATIONS BY ACTIVITY
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal year
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1997       1998       1999       2000       2001
                                                             actual     actual     actual    estimate   planned
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Management Oversight.............................      3,984     10,198     23,502     21,887     17,520
Financial Management Oversight...........................      2,060      3,533      3,530      4,500      4,500
Safety Oversight.........................................      2,825      3,000      2,827      4,010      3,100
    Drug & Alcohol Compliance............................      1,150      1,525      1,410      2,200      1,500
    SAMIS................................................         75    ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )
    DAMIS................................................        600    ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )
    State Rail Safety Oversight..........................        200        650        693        900        800
    Security Audits......................................        550        825        724        910        800
    Alternative Fuels....................................        250    ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )
Procurement Oversight....................................      1,130      1,588      1,320      1,784      1,500
Management Oversight.....................................     13,418      6,216      5,576     10,456      8,907
    Civil Rights Reviews, DBE, EEO.......................        586        477        709        934        800
    ADA Civil Rights Reviews.............................  .........        485        951        963        850
    National Transit Database (NTD)......................      4,308    ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )
    NTD Phase 3 Redesign.................................  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,515
    Triennial and State Management Reviews...............      4,010      3,959      3,726      3,490      3,500
    Electronic Grant Making..............................      2,000  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Planning Compliance..................................        467        995        190      2,203      1,110
    Rail Control Technology..............................  .........  .........  .........        577        402
    Bus Technology.......................................        500        300  .........        642        230
    Turnkey Oversight....................................      1,546    ( \2\ )    ( \2\ )    ( \2\ )    ( \2\ )
    ITS National Architecture............................  .........  .........  .........      1,647        500
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Total Oversight....................................     23,417     24,535     36,755     42,637     35,527
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded under National Research and Technology.
\2\ Turnkey Oversight is funded under other oversight acitivites.

               FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

    Question. What financial management oversight (FMO) reviews were 
conducted in fiscal year 1999? What FMO reviews are underway or planned 
for fiscal year 2000? What FMO reviews are planned for fiscal year 
2001?
    Answer. The following FMO reviews were completed in fiscal year 
1999:
Financial Capacity Assessments
    Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
    Maryland Mass Transit Administration
    Dallas Area Rapid Transit
    Utah Transit Authority
    Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
    Sacramento Regional Transit District
Additional Financial Assessments (New Starts Evaluations)
    Austin, Texas/Northwest/North Central Corridor
    Chicago, Illinois/Central Kane Corridor
    Chicago,Illinois/North Central Corridor
    Chicago, Illinois/Southwest Corridor
    Cincinnati, Ohio/Interstate 71 Corridor
    Cleveland, Ohio/Euclid Corridor Improvement Project
    Denver, Colorado/Denver Southeast Corridor
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida/Tri-County Commuter Rail
    Fort Worth, Texas/RAILTRAN Phase II
    Kansas City, Missouri/Southtown Corridor
    Las Vegas, Nevada/Las Vegas Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway
    Little Rock, Arkansas/Little Rock River Rail Project
    Memphis, Tennessee/Medical Center Rail Extension
    Miami, Florida/Miami East-West Corridor
    Miami, Florida/Miami North 27th Avenue
    Minneapolis, Minnesota/Hiawatha Avenue Corridor
    New Orleans, Louisiana/Canal Streetcar Spine
    New York, New York/Long Island Rail Road Access toManhattan's East 
Side (East Side Access)
    Norfolk, Virginia/Norfolk-Virginia Beach Corridor
    Northern New Jersey/Hudson-Bergen Waterfront Light Rail Transit
    Northern New Jersey/Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link SystemMinimum 
Operable Segment-2 (MOS-2)
    Orange County, California/Orange County Transitway Project
    Orlando, Florida/Central Florida Light Rail System
    Phoenix, Artizona/Central Phoenix/East Valley Corridor
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania/Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway 
Extension--Phase I
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh Stage II Light Rail Transit
    Portland, Oregon/South-North Corridor
    Raleigh, North Carolina/Regional Transit Plan Phase I Regional 
Rail--Durham to North Raleigh
    San Diego County, California/LOSSAN Rail Corridor
    San Diego County, California/Mid Coast Corridor
    San Diego County, California/Mission Valley East
    San Diego County, California/Oceanside-Escondido Passenger Rail 
Project
    San Francisco, California/Third Street Light Rail Project Phase 1
    San Juan, Puerto Rico/Minillas Extension
    Seattle, Washington/Seattle Link Light Rail
    Seattle, Washington/Seattle-Tacoma Sounder Commuter Rail
    Tampa, Florida/Tampa Bay Regional Rail System
    Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area/Largo Metrorail Extension
Financial Management Systems Full Scope Reviews
    Vermont Agency of Transportation
    Port Authority of Allegheny County (PA)
    City of Washington (PA)
    Lehigh & Northhampton Transportation Authority
    VA Department of Rail & Public Transportation
    Borough of Pottstown (PA)
    Triangle Transit Authority
    Georgia Department of Transportation
    Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
    Minnesota Department of Transportation
    Metropolitan Council (Met Council)
    Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council
    Metro Transit
    Galveston-Island Transit
    Brazos Valley Community Action Agency
    Shreveport Transit Management, Inc.
    Lincoln Transportation System
    City & County of Honolulu
    Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (Reno)
    Metro (Seattle)
    The FMO reviews that are planned, in process or completed in fiscal 
year 2000 are:

                                                                  Status
Financial Capacity Assessments:
    New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority......        Planned.
    Port Authority of Allegheny County (Pittsburgh).....        Planned.
    Miami-Dade Transit Agency...........................        Planned.
    MARTA (Atlanta).....................................     In Process.
    Chicago Transit Authority...........................        Planned.
    Metra (Commuter Rail Division of the Chicago RTA)...        Planned.
    Metropolitan Council/Metro Transit (Minneapolis)....        Planned.
    Houston Metro.......................................     In Process.
    Colorado DOT........................................        Planned.
    Regional Public Transportation Authority (Phoenix)..        Planned.
    Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of 
      Oregon............................................     In Process.
    Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority......        Planned.
    Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority......     In Process.
    Memphis Area Transit Authority......................     In Process.
    New Jersey Transit Corporation......................      Completed.
    Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority..................      Completed.
    Puerto Rico--Tren Urbano/Minellas Extension.........      Completed.
    San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board....      Completed.
    Denver Regional Transportation District.............      Completed.
    Bi-State Development Agency (St. Louis).............      Completed.
Additional Financial Assessments (New Starts 
    Evaluations):
    Austin, Texas/Light Rail Corridors..................      Completed.
    Baltimore, Maryland/Baltimore Central Light Rail 
      Double Tracking...................................      Completed.
    Boston, Massachusetts/South Boston Piers 
      Transitway--Phase II..............................      Completed.
    Chicago, Illinois/Douglas Branch Reconstruction 
      Project...........................................      Completed.
    Chicago, Illinois/Ravenswood Line Expansion Project.      Completed.
    Chicago, Illinois/Central Kane Corridor Commuter 
      Rail..............................................      Completed.
    Chicago, Illinois/North Central Corridor Commuter 
      Rail..............................................      Completed.
    Chicago, Illinois/Southwest Corridor Commuter Rail..      Completed.
    Cincinnati, Ohio/Interstate 71 Corridor.............      Completed.
    Cleveland, Ohio/Euclid Corridor Improvement Project.      Completed.
    Fort Worth, Texas/Trinity Railway Express Phase II..      Completed.
    Hartford, Connecticut/New Britain--Hartford Busway..      Completed.
    Johnson County, Kansas--Kansas City, Missouri/I-35 
      Commuter Rail.....................................      Completed.
    Las Vegas, Nevada/Las Vegas Resort Corridor Fixed 
      Guideway MOS......................................      Completed.
    Little Rock, Arkansas/River Rail Project............      Completed.
    Los Angeles--San Diego County, California/LOSSAN 
      Rail Corridor Improvements........................      Completed.
    Maryland/MARC Commuter Rail Improvement Projects....      Completed.
    Miami, Florida/East-West Corridor...................      Completed.
    Miami, Florida/North 27th Avenue....................      Completed.
    Miami, Florida/South Miami-Dade Busway Extension....      Completed.
    Minneapolis, Minnesota/Hiawatha Avenue LRT..........      Completed.
    Nashville, Tennessee/East Corridor Commuter Rail....      Completed.
    New Orleans, Louisiana/Canal Streetcar Spine........      Completed.
    New York, New York/Long Island Rail Road Access to..      Completed.
    Manhattan's East Side (East Side Access)............      Completed.
    Norfolk, Virginia/Norfolk-Virginia Beach Corridor...      Completed.
    Orange County, California/Centerline Rail Corridor..      Completed.
    Phoenix, Arizona/Central Phoenix/East Valley 
      Corridor..........................................      Completed.
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania/Stage II LRT Reconstruction      Completed.
    Raleigh, North Carolina/Regional Transit Plan Phase 
      I Regional Rail...................................      Completed.
    Salt Lake City, Utah/CBD to University LRT..........      Completed.
    San Diego County, California/Oceanside--Escondido 
      Rail Project......................................      Completed.
    San Francisco, California/Third Street Light Rail 
      Project Phase 1...................................      Completed.
    Seattle, Washington/Central Link LRT (MOS)..........      Completed.
    Seattle, Washington/Everett-to-Seattle Commuter Rail      Completed.
    Tacoma, Washington/Lakewood-to-Tacoma Commuter Rail.      Completed.
    Tampa, Florida/Tampa Bay Regional Rail System.......      Completed.
    Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area/Dulles Corridor 
      Rapid Transit.....................................      Completed.
    Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area/Largo Metrorail 
      Extension.........................................      Completed.
    Aspen--Glenwood Springs, CO Corridor................        Planned.
    Boston--Providence Commuter Rail....................        Planned.
    Bridgeport, CT Intermodal Transportation Center.....        Planned.
    Charlotte North-South Corridor Transitway...........        Planned.
    Cleveland Berea Extension...........................        Planned.
    Cleveland Waterfront Line Extension.................        Planned.
    Dallas Northwest Corridor...........................        Planned.
    Dallas Southeast Corridor...........................        Planned.
    Louisville South Central Corridor...................        Planned.
    Minneapolis--St. Cloud Northstar Corridor...........        Planned.
    Minneapolis--St. Paul Riverview Corridor............        Planned.
    Nashua--Lowell Commuter Rail Extension..............        Planned.
    New York City Manhattan East Side Alternatives......        Planned.
    Northern Indiana West Lake Corridor.................        Planned.
    Spokane South Valley Corridor.......................        Planned.
    Washington County, OR Wilsonville-Beaverton Corridor        Planned.
    Wilmington Transit Connector........................        Planned.
Financial Management Systems Full Scope Reviews:
    Marble Valley Regional Transit District.............        Planned.
    Delaware DOT........................................        Planned.
    Potomac and Rappahannock Transp. Commission.........        Planned.
    Greenville Transit Authority........................     In Process.
    METRA--Commuter Rail Division of the RTA............        Planned.
    Chicago Transit Authority...........................        Planned.
    Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority...........        Planned.
    Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky..............        Planned.
    Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority................        Planned.
    Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking 
      Authority.........................................        Planned.
    Kansas DOT..........................................        Planned.
    City of Pueblo......................................        Planned.
    Easter Seals--Project Action........................        Planned.

    In addition, FTA continues to monitor grantees that underwent 
financial capacity assessments in fiscal year 1999 and prior.
    FTA will determine the Financial Management Oversight program 
reviews to be conducted in fiscal year 2001, by August 31, 2000. Each 
summer, FTA goes through a Risk Assessment process that includes 
recommendations from regional offices. The regional offices determine 
the grantees' risk level and recommend the type of financial management 
oversight review to be conducted. Among the areas under consideration 
for Financial Capacity Assessments in fiscal year 2001 are: New 
Orleans, Oceanside, CA, Cleveland, Little Rock, Nashville, and Clark 
County, Nevada.
    Among the potential new projects for which Financial Assessments 
for New Starts Evaluations would be conducted in fiscal year 2001 are: 
Boston North-South Rail Link, Canton-Akron-Cleveland Corridor, Denver 
East Corridor, Eugene-Springfield BRT, Harrisburg Corridor One, 
Indianapolis Northeast Corridor, Milwaukee Downtown System, New York/
New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown, Brooklyn-Manhattan Access, Omaha 
Downtown Trolley System, Orlando Airport Connector, Philadelphia Cross 
County Metro, Philadelphia Schuylkill Valley Metro, Ogden-Provo-Orem 
Commuter Rail, Seattle SeaTac Airport PRT, and Tampa-St. Petersburg. 
FTA undertakes, minimally, an annual Financial Assessment for each New 
Starts project that is in either preliminary engineering or final 
design.
    Question. You have requested a $1,000,000 reimbursement to the DOT 
Inspector General for costs associated with audits and review of new 
fixed guideway systems. Will this reimbursement funding be provided 
from PMO, or from administrative funds? Why do you feel justified in 
requesting a lesser reimbursement level in fiscal year 2001, with an 
increased number of pending full funding grant agreements which may 
require baseline assessments or other Inspector General audits and 
reviews?
    Answer. The $1,000,000 reimbursement funding for the Office of 
Inspector General will come from the Administrative Expenses account. 
OIG activities were funded under Administrative Expenses in fiscal year 
2000 and under the Oversight Program in fiscal year 1999. The reduction 
in funding for the Office of Inspector General in fiscal year 2001, is 
based on the expectation that there are no urgent emerging transit 
issues expected to be investigated. FTA has been praised by the OIG for 
appropriate management of projects. The $1,000,000 a year should be 
sufficient to meet the audit and investigative needs of the New Starts 
pipeline.
    Question. What are the trigger factors in determining that the 
Inspector General should perform a baseline audit of a full funding 
grant agreement project?
    Answer. The OIG has indicated to FTA that there are no specific 
factors that trigger an audit. Departmental and Congressional inquiries 
are given priority. The OIG attempts to survey projects on a continuing 
basis to see if any emerging issues such as large cost increases or 
lengthy schedule delays may indicate vulnerabilities.

                 JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE CONNUTE GRANTS

    Question. Please provide a funding history table for the Job Access 
and Reverse Commute grant program, showing the guaranteed firewall TEA-
21 funding level for each fiscal year in the authorization, the 
administration's funding request (and source of additional funds), and 
the enacted funding level for the program.
    Answer. The following table provides a funding history table for 
the Job Access and Reverse Commute grant program:

                              JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS FUNDING HISTORY
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Guaranteed
                           Fiscal year                                funding     Budget request   Enacted level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................................................         $50,000    \1\ $100,000     \1\ $75,000
2000............................................................          75,000     \2\ 150,000          75,000
2001............................................................         100,000     \2\ 150,000         ( \3\ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prior to TEA-21 Reauthorization.
\2\ RABA funds requested as source of additional funds.
\3\ Pending.

    Question. What is the length of availability of federal funds made 
available as grant awards under the Job Access and Reverse Commute 
program?
    Answer. As authorized in TEA-21, Job Access and Reverse Commute 
funds are available until expended. However, FTA has urged that 
projects be submitted that can be quickly implemented. The fiscal year 
2000 notice states that project readiness is a factor to be considered 
in awarding grants and that applicants must be able to implement a 
project preferably within six months of award, but no longer than one 
year after selection.
    Question. Have all the fiscal year 1999 Access to Jobs funds been 
obligated? If not, why not?
    Answer. As of March 31, 2000, FTA had obligated $46.5 million of 
the $70.8 million designated for selected projects in fiscal year 1999. 
This represents 125 out of 191 selected projects. Causes of delays in 
finalizing applications included meeting FTA standard grant 
requirements, final securing of matching funds, and project scope 
adjustments. These have all slowed applicants' progress in finalizing 
grant applications. It must also be recognized that approximately half 
of the projects involve non-traditional applicants who are dealing with 
the FTA grant process and requirements for the first time.
    Question. To what extent will DOT obligate all fiscal year 2000 
Access to Jobs funds by the end of the fiscal year? What is the 
timetable for selecting grantees for the discretionary program funding 
(roughly $25,000,000) in fiscal year 2000? When will the FTA publish in 
the Federal Register its selection of Job Access and Reverse Commute 
awards for fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. It is highly unlikely that FTA will have obligated all of 
the fiscal year 2000 Job Access and Reverse Commute funds by the end of 
the fiscal year. The national solicitation was issued on March 10, 2000 
with proposals and applications due on May 9. The competitive projects 
are expected to be selected and announced in the Federal Register in 
early September. In cases where applicants submitted only proposals, 
such applicants will then proceed to submit final applications 
addressing FTA standard grant requirements. The two-step application 
process is designed for new proposers. Applicants receiving 
congressional earmarks or applicants seeking continued funding for 
projects awarded in fiscal year 1999 will more likely submit a full 
one-step application, and may be processed sooner.
    Question. For the funds that it will receive in fiscal year 2001, 
what are the Department's time frames for evaluating and awarding 
additional grants?
    Answer. FTA expects to solicit competitive projects within 30 days 
of the enactment of the fiscal year 2001 transportation appropriation 
for the Job Access and Reverse Commute program. Applicants will be 
given 120 days to submit proposals and selections will be made within 
120 days thereafter.
    Question. How many applications did DOT receive in the fiscal year 
1999 grant cycle? How much in requested funds is represented by these 
applications? How many applications did DOT receive in the fiscal year 
2000 grant cycle? How much in requested funds is represented by these 
applications?
    Answer. DOT received proposals for 266 projects in fiscal year 
1999. These proposals requested a total of $108 million. Since fiscal 
year 2000 proposals are due by May 9, 2000, DOT does not yet know the 
number of proposals that will be received.
    Question. Please clarify the response on page 489 of Senate hearing 
106-221 regarding the use of Job Access and Reverse Commute program 
funds to help individuals purchase cars.
    Answer. Last year, we reported that FTA could not assist in the 
purchase of automobiles reserved for individuals' personal and private 
use. However, automobiles could be acquired by qualified public and 
non-profit organizations as long as they were used for ridesharing or 
other public transportation uses. The agency receiving the grant must 
have continuing control of the vehicle to ensure that the purposes of 
the grant are carried out in accordance to the provisions of the Act.
    FTA recently reviewed this situation with regard to a specific 
congressional earmark in the Job Access and Reverse Commute program. 
FTA determined that funding loan programs to assist in the purchase of 
an automobile is eligible as long as the recipient agency enters into a 
contractual arrangement with the individual being assisted to ensure 
that the vehicle is tied to a public transportation purpose. FTA's 
determination is specific to this congressional earmark and is not 
intended to encourage the use of limited FTA funding for this purpose.
    Question. Given the gap between transit services in smaller 
communities and the need for transportation for welfare-to-work 
programs, would the Federal Transit Administration support a new 
program to fund car-based initiatives where transit resources are 
scarce or non-existent?
    Answer. Generally FTA believes that the limited funds for this 
program should be used to support mass transportation activities. FTA 
believes that there are other sources of federal funds that are more 
appropriate for funding car based initiatives such as the Temporary 
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funding. The TANF program is funded 
at $16.5 billion annually.
       use of temporary assistance to needy families (tanf) funds
    Question. In the fiscal year 1999 grant cycle for Job Access and 
Reverse Commute grants, what percentage of local matching funds was 
provided by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program 
funds?
    Answer. TANF funds were commonly used as matching funds. DOT is in 
the process of gathering this information and will make it available as 
soon as the information is collected.
    Question. What problems have been experienced by Job Access and 
Reverse Commute grant recipients in securing TANF and other federal 
funds to be used for matching purposes? How has FTA assisted grant 
recipients in resolving these problems?
    Answer. Job access applicants have had timing problems in securing 
the match. When Job Access and Reverse Commute grants were announced in 
May 1999, some expected TANF matching funds had been reallocated to 
other purposes since the end of the fiscal year was fast approaching in 
many states. Additionally, some state human resource departments have 
resisted the new flexibility to use TANF funding for new service 
development. DOT has worked with the Department of Health and Human 
Services (DHHS) and the Department of Labor (DOL) to develop guidance 
on the use of TANF and other Federal funds. This guidance is currently 
being updated and will be reissued shortly.
    More efforts are needed to clarify how TANF can be used for 
transportation purposes. FTA is working with the American Public 
Transportation Association (APTA), the Community Transportation 
Association of America (CTAA), the American Association of State 
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Association of 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) and the Association for 
Commuter Transportation (ACT) in implementing an aggressive technical 
assistance program to help applicants and grantees. FTA is planning to 
hold a series of technical assistance regional conferences where the 
use of TANF will be addressed by the Department of Health and Human 
Services (DHHS). This subject will be addressed additionally at a 
national employment transportation conference in June 2000.
    Question. What problems have been experienced at the State level in 
making TANF dollars available? What role has FTA played with the States 
in resolving these problems?
    Answer. As mentioned above, some state and local agencies seeking 
to use TANF funding have found state budget or human service offices 
resistant to the use of TANF funding to develop transportation 
services. These agencies believe that TANF funding must be directly 
tied to individuals being assisted under the TANF program and want an 
individual-by-individual accounting of funding expenditures. New TANF 
guidance does not require this when TANF funds are used to pay for the 
start-up and operating cost of new service. DOT and DHHS are working 
together to clarify further to states and local human service agencies 
the flexibility that they have in applying TANF funds to the 
development of new services. FTA is also meeting with AASHTO to work 
together along with DHHS staff to resolve these issues.
    Question. Are there advantages to using Social Services Block 
Grants as matching funds for the JARC program rather than TANF dollars? 
How could this process be improved?
    Answer. At one time, there was an advantage to transferring TANF 
funds to Social Service Block Grants (SSBG) because SSBG funds did not 
impose time limits for individuals who received these funds and did not 
require an individual tracking system as did TANF. New TANF funding 
rules have largely reduced these advantages since tracking is not 
associated with new service development and individuals receiving TANF 
funding for transportation purposes alone do not trigger time limits.

                             FORMULA GRANTS

    Question. Please provide a table displaying the state-by-state 
distribution of the formula program funds within each of the program 
categories for fiscal year 2001 (as shown on pages 490-491 of Senate 
hearing 106-221). Please add a column to the far right of the table 
that expresses each state's share of the formula grants program as a 
percentage of the total program.
    Answer. The following table provides a state-by-state distribution 
of formula program funds:

      FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2001 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS
                                                   [By State]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Section 5310
                                       Section 5307    Section 5311     elderly and    Total formula     State
                State                    urbanized     non-urbanized   persons with      programs     percent of
                                           area            area        disabilities                      total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................     $13,046,848      $4,974,114      $1,363,957     $19,384,919        0.59
Alaska..............................   \1\ 7,433,414         741,748         197,821       8,372,983        0.26
American Samoa......................  ..............         105,722          52,867         158,589  ..........
Arizona.............................      33,260,503       2,177,536       1,200,201      36,638,240        1.12
Arkansas............................       5,119,390       3,976,597         946,967      10,042,954        0.31
California..........................     482,887,208       9,705,577       7,477,863     500,070,648       15.27
Colorado............................      37,142,854       2,071,753         926,429      40,141,036        1.23
Connecticut.........................      52,359,019       1,879,275       1,064,511      55,302,805        1.69
Delaware............................       6,122,420         468,834         308,825       6,900,079        0.21
District of Columbia................      27,169,899  ..............         306,385      27,476,284        0.84
Florida.............................     146,712,613       6,239,173       5,039,527     157,991,313        4.83
Georgia.............................      51,231,289       7,272,683       1,774,590      60,278,562        1.84
Guam................................  ..............         300,966         134,536         435,502        0.01
Hawaii..............................      25,780,183         816,248         398,306      26,994,737        0.82
Idaho...............................       3,072,028       1,646,756         408,081       5,126,865        0.16
Illinois............................     206,007,568       6,672,281       3,250,600     215,930,449        6.59
Indiana.............................      32,873,659       6,445,272       1,695,963      41,014,894        1.25
Iowa................................       9,360,438       4,145,662       1,019,530      14,525,630        0.44
Kansas..............................       7,996,681       3,297,743         851,478      12,145,902        0.37
Kentucky............................      17,131,642       5,443,854       1,306,330      23,881,826        0.73
Louisiana...........................      27,667,179       4,502,461       1,310,621      33,480,261        1.02
Maine...............................       2,203,751       2,172,613         515,251       4,891,615        0.15
Maryland............................      75,972,090       2,712,403       1,316,914      80,001,407        2.44
Massachusetts.......................     115,219,238       2,906,872       1,905,644     120,031,754        3.67
Michigan............................      62,637,557       7,872,306       2,778,229      73,288,092        2.24
Minnesota...........................      29,392,604       4,530,057       1,335,764      35,258,425        1.08
Mississippi.........................       4,618,496       4,420,748         919,424       9,958,668        0.30
Missouri............................      33,532,798       5,276,351       1,720,175      40,529,324        1.24
Montana.............................       2,324,606       1,334,002         372,751       4,031,359        0.12
Nebraska............................       8,078,023       2,012,840         594,428      10,685,291        0.33
Nevada..............................      18,703,029         657,162         437,100      19,797,291        0.60
New Hampshire.......................       3,256,965       1,739,992         411,825       5,408,782        0.17
New Jersey..........................     178,188,359       2,487,820       2,291,863     182,968,042        5.59
New Mexico..........................       6,743,181       1,955,803         520,371       9,219,355        0.28
New York............................     511,629,104       8,757,424       5,337,074     525,723,602       16.06
North Carolina......................      26,423,807       9,302,971       2,020,953      37,747,731        1.15
North Dakota........................       2,266,047         986,554         314,324       3,566,925        0.11
Northern Marianas...................  ..............          97,974          52,619         150,593  ..........
Ohio................................      86,171,474       9,471,071       3,393,254      99,035,799        3.02
Oklahoma............................      10,888,938       4,048,785       1,124,568      16,062,291        0.49
Oregon..............................      26,177,070       3,214,771       1,044,095      30,435,936        0.93
Pennsylvania........................     140,326,812      10,565,079       4,072,337     154,964,228        4.73
Puerto Rico.........................      42,415,576       3,157,178         989,437      46,562,191        1.42
Rhode Island........................      10,057,038         404,440         456,412      10,917,890        0.33
South Carolina......................      10,959,566       4,656,183       1,086,351      16,702,100        0.51
South Dakota........................       1,634,658       1,202,532         341,032       3,178,222        0.10
Tennessee...........................      21,984,782       6,010,601       1,614,124      29,609,507        0.90
Texas...............................     158,452,230      12,690,049       4,206,514     175,348,793        5.36
Utah................................      19,572,743         911,586         483,564      20,967,893        0.64
Vermont.............................         821,531       1,075,168         278,448       2,175,147        0.07
Virgin Islands......................  ..............         230,121         137,109         367,230        0.01
Virginia............................      60,835,448       5,328,980       1,679,979      67,844,407        2.07
Washington..........................      82,706,220       3,733,949       1,504,629      87,944,798        2.69
West Virginia.......................       3,960,684       3,174,933         788,425       7,924,042        0.24
Wisconsin...........................      35,490,834       5,485,912       1,536,567      42,513,313        1.30
Wyoming.............................       1,135,107         767,267         233,859       2,136,233        0.07
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal......................   2,987,155,201     208,236,752      78,850,801   3,274,242,754         100
Oversight...........................      15,010,830       1,046,416  ..............      16,057,246  ..........
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................   3,002,166,031     209,283,168      78,850,801   3,290,300,000  ..........
                                     ===========================================================================
Clean Fuels.........................  ..............  ..............  ..............      50,000,000  ..........
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility.....  ..............  ..............  ..............       4,700,000  ..........
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total...................  ..............  ..............  ..............   3,345,000,000  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,825,700 for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations.

                   USE OF FUNDING FOR DUES AND TRAVEL

    Question. Can Section 5307 or Section 5309 funds be used by 
grantees to:
  --pay dues to the American Public Transportation Association,
  --pay for transit conference registration fees, or travel thereto,
  --pay for consultants, lobbyists, or other representatives who 
        attempt to affect national or state legislation?
    Answer. The following gives a brief explanation of Section 5307 and 
5309 eligibility requirements:
  --Under Section 5309, funds may be used for capital expenses but may 
        not be expended by grantees for association dues, conference 
        fees or travel, nor to pay for consultants or lobbyist 
        activities.
  --Section 5307 funds to urbanized areas over 200,000 may not be used 
        for association fees, conference fees or travel, nor may it be 
        used to pay for consultants or lobbyist activities.
  --Section 5307 funds to urbanized areas under 200,000 in population 
        and may be used for operating expenses. Thus:
          (1) grantees can use Section 5307 funds to pay dues to the 
        American Public Transportation Association. In accordance with 
        OMB Circular A-87, APTA dues are an eligible expense.
                  --FTA allows payment of 85 percent of such dues from 
                Section 5307 funds.
                  --The other 15 percent of such dues were determined 
                by an audit to be an ineligible expense because they 
                were used exclusively for lobbying; and
          (2) Grantees may use Section 5307 funds to pay for transit 
        conference registration fees or travel thereto.
  --Neither Section 5307 nor Section 5309 funds may be used to pay for 
        consultants, lobbyists or other representatives who attempt to 
        affect national or state legislation.

                      CLEAN FUELS FORMULA PROGRAM

    Question. Of the bus and bus related projects identified in the 
fiscal year 2000 appropriations act, which specific projects would have 
been eligible for funding under the clean fuels formula program? 
(Please arrange this list by state, and note the amount provided for 
each project in the appropriations bill.)
    Answer. We cannot identify the specific projects in fiscal year 
2000 that would have been eligible for the Clean Fuels Formula program. 
Based on fiscal year 1999 data, where Clean Fuel Formula program funds 
were earmarked under the Capital Investment bus category. The following 
bus purchases (40', 35', 30', and less than 30' bus) were purchased 
under the Section 5309 Bus program. The following chart shows the 
majority were clean fueled:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Buses
                Bus propulsion                   purchased    Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel........................................          851         78.1
Gasoline......................................           73          6.7
CNG/LNG/LPG...................................          147         13.5
Methanol/Ethanol..............................  ...........  ...........
Electric......................................           11          1.0
Other.........................................            7          0.6
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................        1,089        100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since clean diesel fuel buses are eligible under the clean fuels 
formula program, conceivably any projects for the purchase of clean 
diesel buses could also qualify. However, under the clean fuels formula 
program formula, only 35 percent of the clean fuel formula funds may be 
used for clean diesel buses. Therefore, under the clean fuels formula 
program, each clean diesel project may have received a lower funding 
level than through earmarking of bus capital funds.

                OVER-THE-ROAD BUS ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM

    Question. The transit cooperative research program (TCRP) has 
performed an analysis of the over-the-road bus accessibility program, 
which includes data on the total capital needs of operators, compliance 
deadlines, and the current matching fund requirements. A report on this 
analysis was due to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees by 
March 1, 2000. Has the report been completed? If so, please provide a 
copy of the executive summary of the report for the record. If not, 
please summarize the findings of this analysis.
    Answer. Neither the report nor the findings of the analysis have 
been completed. Data that will form the basis of the analysis is being 
collected and it is expected that the report will be submitted to the 
House and Senate Appropriations Committees by May 31, 2000.
    Question. Beginning in October 2000, Class I over-the-road bus 
companies are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to 
purchase lift-equipped buses, or to install a wheelchair lift in any 
new buses which they purchase. The entire fleet of buses owned by these 
companies must be accessible by 2012. What is the TEA-21 guaranteed 
funding level for the over-the-road bus accessibility program for each 
year of the authorization? Are there any other federal funding programs 
under which these privately-owned companies could apply for assistance 
in meeting this mandate?
    Answer. The Over-The-Road Bus Accessibility Program is the only 
federal funding program under which the privately owned companies can 
apply for assistance in meeting the mandate. The guaranteed funding 
levels (in millions) for the over-the-road bus accessibility program 
for each year of the authorization are:

                        OVER-THE-ROAD BUS ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM GUARANTEED FUNDING LEVELS
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    All others
                           Fiscal year                               Intercity     (e.g. charter       Total
                                                                    fixed-route      and tour)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................................................           $2.00  ..............           $2.00
2000............................................................            2.00           $1.70            3.70
2001............................................................            3.00            1.70            4.70
2002............................................................            5.20            1.70            6.95
2003............................................................            5.30            1.70            6.95
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................           17.50            6.80           24.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a list of each award made in fiscal year 
1999, the recipient, the amount of the award and the purpose of the 
award. When are the fiscal year 2000 grant awards expected.
    Answer. Ten projects were selected for funding in fiscal year 1999. 
The projects, purposes and Federal dollar amounts are listed in the 
table below. Grant applications were then completed and are being 
processed by FTA. One grant was awarded for $1.1 million in fiscal year 
1999. The fiscal year 2000 project selections should be announced by 
FTA in July 2000.

                                        FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION--OVER-THE-ROAD BUS FISCAL YEAR 1999 AWARDS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           No. of     Cost of                                                    Funds
                                                                          lifts on   lifts on     No. of    Cost of                            obligated
                  Region                               Agency                new        new     retrofits  retrofits   Training      Total     in fiscal
                                                                          vehicles   vehicles                                                  year 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................  Peter Pan Bus Lines,                 1     $17,000  .........  .........     $84,000    $101,000  ..........
                                             Springfield, MA.
2.........................................  Shortline (Hudson Transit     ........  ..........          6   $120,000      30,000     150,000  ..........
                                             Bus), Mahwah, NJ.
2.........................................  Adirondack Transit Lines,     ........  ..........          6    120,000      30,000     150,000  ..........
                                             Kingston, NY.
3.........................................  Capitol Bus (Capitol                 6      92,293  .........  .........      10,000     102,293  ..........
                                             Trailways of PA )
                                             Harrisburg, PA.
3.........................................  Carl R. Beiber Tourways,             4      60,000          3     60,000      10,000     130,000  ..........
                                             Kutztown, PA.
3.........................................  Frank Martz Coach, Wilkes            3      45,000  .........  .........       9,454      54,545  ..........
                                             Barre, PA.
5.........................................  Jefferson Lines,                     7      95,280  .........  .........      12,000     107,280  ..........
                                             Minneapolis, MN.
5.........................................  Peoria Charter Coach,         ........  ..........          1     16,000       1,250      17,250  ..........
                                             Peoria, IL.
6.........................................  Greyhound, Ft. Worth, TX....        58   1,015,000  .........  .........      41,707   1,056,707  $1,056,707
7.........................................  Burlington Trailways, West           6      81,000  .........  .........      10,000      91,000  ..........
                                             Burlington, IA.
10........................................  Northwest Stage, Spokane, WA         2      29,925  .........  .........  ..........      29,925  ..........
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................    ..........................        87   1,435,498         16    316,000     238,411   1,990,000   1,056,707
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE PLANNING

    Question. Please provide a table displaying the formula 
apportionments to States and MPOs for the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal 
year 2001 Metropolitan and State Planning Funds.
    Answer. Funds for the MPOs, the Metropolitan Planning program, are 
apportioned by formula to the states for state distribution (by state 
formulas) to the MPOs. The table below shows the actual apportionment 
to the States for fiscal year 2000 for the Metropolitan and for the 
State Planning programs. The fiscal year 2001 apportionments are based 
on the guaranteed funding level for these programs for fiscal year 
2001.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Section 5303                   Section 5313(b)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Metropolitan planning            Statewide planning
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      State                           Actual                          Actual
                                                   apportionment    Guaranteed     apportionment    Guaranteed
                                                    fiscal year   funding fiscal    fiscal year   funding fiscal
                                                       2000          year 2001         2000          year 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................................        $434,813        $456,460        $113,592        $119,192
Alaska..........................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
Arizona.........................................         790,795         830,166         163,970         172,054
Arkansas........................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
California......................................       8,463,459       8,884,840       1,572,168       1,649,677
Colorado........................................         645,896         678,052         146,797         154,034
Connecticut.....................................         580,320         609,211         151,605         159,078
Delaware........................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
District/Col....................................         267,707         281,035          51,875          54,432
Florida.........................................       2,706,938       2,841,705         628,325         659,300
Georgia.........................................         958,264       1,005,971         201,301         211,224
Hawaii..........................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
Idaho...........................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
Illinois........................................       2,900,719       3,045,133         523,440         549,244
Indiana.........................................         704,204         739,263         166,235         174,430
Iowa............................................         222,764         233,854          58,196          61,064
Kansas..........................................         257,521         270,342          62,884          65,984
Kentucky........................................         308,461         323,818          78,828          82,714
Louisiana.......................................         533,037         559,575         137,549         144,329
Maine...........................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
Maryland........................................       1,152,512       1,209,890         221,105         232,005
Massachusetts...................................       1,405,704       1,475,688         292,035         306,431
Michigan........................................       1,810,929       1,901,088         358,838         376,528
Minnesota.......................................         735,337         771,946         146,372         153,588
Mississippi.....................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
Missouri........................................         813,010         853,487         171,795         180,264
Montana.........................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
Nebraska........................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
Nevada..........................................         215,306         226,025          56,247          59,020
New Hampshire...................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
New Jersey......................................       2,461,011       2,583,534         409,281         429,457
New Mexico......................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
New York........................................       4,997,493       5,246,297         871,467         914,428
North Carolina..................................         593,830         623,394         155,134         162,782
North Dakota....................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
Ohio............................................       1,710,750       1,795,921         410,974         431,234
Oklahoma........................................         320,052         335,987          83,612          87,733
Oregon..........................................         359,506         377,404          87,669          91,990
Pennsylvania....................................       2,218,797       2,329,261         444,961         466,897
Rhode Island....................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
South Carolina..................................         337,161         353,947          88,081          92,423
South Dakota....................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
Tennessee.......................................         524,150         550,245         136,931         143,681
Texas...........................................       3,373,131       3,541,065         702,076         736,686
Utah............................................         311,831         327,355          81,464          85,480
Vermont.........................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
Virginia........................................       1,109,510       1,164,748         236,432         248,088
Washington......................................         884,320         928,346         198,465         208,249
West Virginia...................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
Wisconsin.......................................         619,141         649,965         152,162         159,663
Wyoming.........................................         198,569         208,454          51,875          54,432
Puerto Rico.....................................         538,076         564,864         131,205         137,673
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................      49,642,128      52,113,600      10,374,946      10,886,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH

    Question. Please provide a list by activity and amount of the 
earmarks contained in TEA-21 that must be administered under the FTA's 
transit planning and research account in fiscal year 2001. Are there 
any TEA-21 project earmarks under the national research and technology 
program for fiscal year 2001?
    Answer.

Earmarks Contained in TEA-21 Administered under the FTA's Transit 
Planning and Research Account in Fiscal Year 2001

                        [In thousands of dollars]

                                                        Fiscal year 2001
        Activity                                                  Amount
Metropolitan Planning.........................................   52,114 
Statewide Planning and Research...............................   10,886 
Transit Cooperative Research Program..........................    8,250 
National Transit Institute....................................    4,000 
Rural Transit Assistance Program..............................    5,250 
National Research and Technology..............................   29,500 
    SEPTA Advanced Propulsion Control........................\1\ [3,000]
    Project ACTION...........................................\1\ [3,000]

\1\ These projects are earmarked in TEA-21.

    The SEPTA Advanced Propulsion Control project and Project ACTION 
must be administered under the national research and technology program 
for fiscal year 2001.
    Question. If FTA had a constrained budget for the national research 
and technology program, how would the agency allocate non-TEA-21 
mandated programs with a discretionary allowance of $12,000,000?
    Answer. FTA has requested $23,500,000 for non-TEA-21 mandated 
programs in fiscal year 2001. If only $12,000,000 were made available 
for use at FTA's discretion, we would allocate it to the following non-
TEA-21 programs, as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year
                    Program                         2001     Constrained
                                                  request       level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.2. National Transit Database................        2,500        2,500
1.5.1. Safety & Security Training (includes           1,300        1,300
 Transportation Safety Institute).............
1.1.1. Grade Crossing Safety..................          750          750
1.5.5.2. SAMIS................................          400          400
1.5.5.3. Drug and Alcohol Testing Information         1,000        1,000
 System (DAMIS)...............................
1.5.6. Safety & Security Clearinghouse and Web          200          200
 Site.........................................
1.5.13. Transit Accident Causal Factors.......          300          300
1.4. Implementation of FTA Safety Task Force          1,000        1,000
 Recommendations..............................
1.5.10. Joint Use/Safety Certification........          200          200
1.5.2. Safety & Security Training Course                200          200
 Development..................................
1.5.3. Drug and Alcohol Testing: Updated                250          250
 guidelines and newsletters...................
1.5.12. Safety & Security Preparedness                  200          200
 Planning and Drills..........................
1.5.11. Safety Awareness Outreach.............          200          200
1.5.9. Fire Materials Testing.................          100          100
4.6. National Rural Transportation Assistance           750          750
 Program......................................
5.2. FTA Internet Website.....................          200          200
4.1. Job Access Support and Study.............          250          250
7.5. Financial Planning.......................          200          200
3.3.4. BRT Project Administration.............          600          600
6.1. Transit Conditions, Performance and Needs          200          200
7.2. New Starts Planning and Project                    550          550
 Development..................................
3.3.2. BRT Data Collection & Analysis.........          500          500
2.5.1.3. Transit Construction Roundtable......           80           80
6.3. Innovative Financing.....................          200           70
                                               -------------------------
      Subtotal................................       12,130       12,000
                                               =========================
7.1. Transportation Planning and Programming..          750  ...........
3.3.1. BRT Design & Operational Parameters,             300  ...........
 Impacts......................................
8.1. Support for Title VI/Environmental                 400  ...........
 Justice......................................
6.5. Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey          500  ...........
7.3. Land Use and Environmental Planning......          200  ...........
3.3.6. BRT: Professional Development                    200  ...........
 Workshops--Design, Vehicle Systems, Services,
 System.......................................
9.3. Program Evaluation and Strategic Planning          200  ...........
 (GPRA).......................................
7.4. Planning Methods.........................          500  ...........
3.3.3. BRT Systems Integration Workshop.......          250  ...........
6.4. Global Climate Change....................          500  ...........
3.3.5. BRT: Technology Transfer...............          200  ...........
6.2. Benefits of Transit......................          100  ...........
3.3.7. BRT: Lessons Learned Workshop..........          150  ...........
5.3 Documentation and TRB Support.............          200  ...........
5.1.Computer Automation.......................          400  ...........
2.5.1.1. Turnkey Demonstration Program........          400  ...........
2.1.1. Advanced Technology Buses: Small Heavy-        1,820  ...........
 Duty Bus and Advanced Bus Technologies.......
2.4.1. Rail Communications-Based Subsystem            1,000  ...........
 Deployment...................................
8.2. Garrett A. Morgan Trans. Tech. Program...          200  ...........
10.1.International Mass Transportation                  500  ...........
 Program: Technical Assistance and Training...
2.3.1. Hybrid Propulsion System Development           2,000  ...........
 and Deployment...............................
9.1. National Transit GIS.....................          200  ...........
5.4. Small Business Innovative Research.......          400  ...........
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................       23,500       12,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       NATIONAL RESEARCH EARMARKS

    Question. Please explain the difference between enacted funding 
levels for congressionally designated national planning and research 
projects in Public Law 106-69 and the fiscal year 2000 funding levels 
displayed for these projects in the 2001 budget justification.
    Answer. Section 301(a) of the fiscal year 2000 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-113) rescinded discretionary budget 
authority Government-wide. To accommodate the reduced budget authority, 
FTA reduced funding levels for congressionally designated national 
planning and research projects, other than those dealing with Safety 
and Security, by 1.15 percent.
    Question. For each of the congressionally designated programs and 
projects in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill under ``Transit 
Planning and Research'', please note when the grant, contract, or 
cooperative agreement was released and note who the official grantee 
agency or entity is in each case.
    Answer. The official recipient for each project and release dates 
are indicated in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year
          Programs and activities             2000 amount        Release date            Official recipient
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit Cooperative Research Program......      $8,250,000  Not yet released.....  National Academy of Sciences/
                                                                                    TRB.
National Transit Institute................       4,000,000  Not yet released.....  Rutgers University
National Research and Technology:
    Zinc-air battery bus technology                988,492  Not yet released.....  Electric Fuel Corporation.
     demonstration.
    Washoe County, Nevada transit                1,235,616  Not yet released.....  Regional Transportation
     technology.                                                                    Commission of Washoe County.
    Massachusetts Bay Transportation             1,482,739  Not yet released.....  Massachusetts Bay
     Authority advanced electric transit                                            Transportation Authority.
     buses and related infrastructure.....
    Palm Springs, California fuel cell             988,492  4/5/2000.............  SunLine Transit.
     buses.
    Gloucester, Massachusetts intermodal         1,482,739  Not yet released.....  Massachusetts Bay
     technology center.                                                             Transportation Authority.
    Southeastern Pennsylvania                    2,965,477  Not yet released.....  Southeastern Pennsylvania
     Transportation Authority advanced                                              Transportation Authority.
     propulsion control system............
    Project ACTION........................       2,965,477  4/10/2000............  Easter Seals Project Action.
    Advanced transportation and                  3,212,600  4/6/2000.............  Westart-CALSTART, Inc.
     alternative fuel technology
     consortium (CALSTART)................
    Hennepin County community                      988,492  Not yet released.....  Hennepin County Regional
     transportation, Minnesota.                                                     Railroad Authority
    Electric vehicle information sharing           741,369  Not yet released.....  Chattanooga Area Transit
     and technology transfer program.                                               Authority.
    Portland, Maine independent                    494,246  2/29/2000............  Independent Transportation
     transportation network.                                                        Network.
    Wheeling, WV mobility study...........         247,124  Not yet released.....  Ohio Valley Regional
                                                                                    Transportation Authority.
    International program.................         988,492  Not yet released.....  To be determined.
    Transit Safety and Security Training..       1,200,000  3/13/2000............  Transportation Safety
                                                                                    Institute.
    Safety and security programs..........       4,250,000  Not yet released.....  Various recipients.
    Santa Barbara Electric Transit                 494,246  Not yet released.....  Santa Barbara Electric
     Institute.                                                                     Transit Institute.
    Pittsfield economic development              1,334,465  Not yet released.....  Pittsfield Economic
     authority electric bus program.                                                Development Authority.
    Citizens for modern transit, Missouri.         296,548  Not yet released.....  East-West Gateway
                                                                                    Coordinating Council.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Why is FTA requesting bill language that provides 
$750,000 from the national research and technology program to the Rural 
Transportation Assistance Program, which already has a guaranteed 
funding level of $5,250,000?
    Answer. Rural Transportation Assistance Program (RTAP) includes 
$5.25 million in guaranteed funding distributed by formula. In 
addition, historically FTA has funded a national component of $750,000 
from National Research funding. The $5.25 million is apportioned to all 
states using the Nonurbanized Area Formula Grants program formula. The 
$750,000 was used to fund the national portion of RTAP that supports 
rural operators by providing technical assistance and training. In 
fiscal year 2000, the available funding that was unearmarked in the 
National Research Program was insufficient to permit funding of the 
national portion of RTAP. Thus, FTA set aside 10 percent of the RTAP 
program funding to fund the national component of the program at a 
reduced level of $525 thousand. The result was that both the grant and 
national portions were reduced. Our proposal for bill language is 
intended to ensure that both portions of RTAP, crucial to rural public 
transportation, are funded at historic and statutory required levels.

                     SAFETY AND SECURITY ACTIVITIES

    Question. The FTA has requested a total of $6,100,000 for safety 
and security activities and products in fiscal year 2001. Please 
reproduce the funding breakout table on page 150 of the justification, 
noting the priority order of each of the 13 activities planned for 
fiscal year 2001.
    Answer. The table listing the priority of the fiscal year 2001 
safety and security activities follows.

                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal
        Program: FTA 1 Safety and Security          year 2001   Priority
                                                      amount     order
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Key Activities and Products

1. Safety and Security:
    A. Technology.................................      1,750  .........
        1.1 Railroad Grade Crossing Safety:
            1.1.1. Grade Crossing Safety:                 750          2
             Operational test and evaluation......
        1.4 Implementation of FTA Safety Task           1,000          7
         Force Recommendations....................
    B. Training and Technical Assistance..........      4,350  .........
        1.5.1. Safety & Security Training               1,300          1
         (includes Transportation Safety
         Institute)...............................
        1.5.2. Safety & Security Training Course          200          9
         Development..............................
        1.5.3. Drug and Alcohol Testing: Updated          250         10
         guidelines and newsletters...............
        1.5.5.2 SAMIS.............................        400          3
        1.5.5.3. Drug and Alcohol Testing               1,000          4
         Information System (DAMIS)...............
        1.5.6. Safety & Security Clearinghouse and        200          5
         Web Site.................................
        1.5.9 Fire Materials Testing..............        100         13
        1.5.10 Joint Use/Safety Certification.....        200          8
        1.5.11 Safety Awareness Outreach..........        200         12
        1.5.12 Safety & Security Preparedness             200         11
         Planning and Drills......................
        1.5.13. Transit Accident Causal Factors...        300          6
                                                   ---------------------
          Total Budget Authority..................      6,100  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Of the activities requested within the safety and 
security area, which are directly supported by or in response to NTSB 
recommendations?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2001, FTA will undertake implementation of 
recommendations resulting from the congressionally mandated review of 
the National Transit Database and its component safety and security 
data. The NTSB's recommendations regarding the development of accident 
causal data will be addressed as part of that activity. In addition, 
NTSB's recommendations concerning materials toxicity and flammability 
will be addressed in phase II of a project to improve fire safety 
standards for interior materials of transit vehicles.

                   RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING ACTIVITIES

    Question. How is FTA's railroad grade crossing technology 
demonstration and evaluation program coordinated with similar efforts 
by the Federal Railroad Administration? Please list technologies that 
have been tested or deployed by this program in the past two years, and 
those technologies that FTA intends to explore with the fiscal year 
2001 funding.
    Answer. The FTA coordinates its grade crossing activities through 
the USDOT Highway Rail Grade Crossing Team, an intermodal team of 
professionals from the FTA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, and NHTSA that was formed 
as the Department's response to the tragic grade crossing accident in 
Fox River Grove, Illinois, in the early 1990's. This team meets 
periodically to discuss and share information on innovative grade 
crossing technologies and outreach initiatives to enhance safety along 
the Nation's highway grade crossings. The following table lists grade 
crossing technologies that have been evaluated during the past two 
years.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Project No. and title                            Abstract                   Grantee and/or consultants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA-03-7001, Four Quadrant Gated Grade     Evaluate design and operational standards/  Massachusetts Bay Area
 Crossing.                                 safety enhancements for commuter rail       Transportation Authority.
                                           grade crossings. Demonstrate use of four
                                           quadrant gates with vehicle detection
                                           system at commuter rail grade crossing..
 MD-26-7024, Second Train Coming Warning  Develop & evaluate use of active 2nd train  Mass Transportation
 Sign.                                     warning sign for motorists at light rail    Administration,
                                           grade crossings. The warning sign will      Baltimore, MD.
                                           alert motorists who are stopped at the
                                           crossing that a second high-speed train
                                           is coming from the opposite direction..
CA-26-7017 Second Train Coming Warning    Develop & evaluate use of graphic 2nd       Los Angeles County
 Sign.                                     train sign for pedestrians at rail grade    Metropolitan
                                           crossings. This project is in conjunction   Transportation Authority.
                                           with MD-26-7024, and will include field
                                           study of an active warning sign..
CA-26-7010, Assessment of Left Turn       Field test and technical studies to         Los Angeles County
 Crossing Gates for LRT.                   investigate left turn railroad crossing     Metropolitan
                                           gated for light rail transit (LRT) grade    Transportation Authority.
                                           crossings. Field test to include
                                           evaluation of track area vehicle
                                           detection systems..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fiscal year 2001, the FTA intends to explore the integration of 
advanced intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies at 
highway-rail intersections (HRI) along light rail and rapid rail lines. 
A USDOT ITS-HRI team has been convened and is developing strategies for 
deployment of advanced grade crossing safety technologies. The FTA has 
also identified a number of potential projects for fiscal year 2001.
  --Train Approach Warning at Stations.--Sacramento Regional Transit 
        District: Since the light rail system began operation in 1986 
        there have been 32 collisions between pedestrians and light 
        rail vehicles. Nineteen of the incidents have occurred in the 
        immediate vicinity of light rail stations. Almost all of these 
        incidents have involved persons whose judgement was impaired by 
        drugs, alcohol, physical disability, emotional disability, or 
        developmental disability. The diminished ability to quickly 
        detect or avoid harm cannot entirely be ruled out as causal 
        factors in these incidents. The annunciation of the approach of 
        a train may provide the additional information necessary for 
        people to recognize the hazard or extra time to move out of the 
        path of travel. This project will involve the installation of 
        visual and audible warning devices in the station areas that 
        would activate in advance of the train warning. They need to be 
        easily accessed and understood by the disabled community. These 
        devices will utilize Train to Wayside communication to prompt 
        the station annunciation.
  --Advanced Four Quadrant Gate Detection with In-Cab Alert Systems.--
        LACMTA: This project will consist of a four quadrant gate 
        system with vehicle detection and an in-cab alert system that 
        would inform the train operator if a motorist was stopped or 
        stalled on the tracks at the Greenleaf Boulevard crossing in 
        the City of Compton, California. Most recently, there was a 
        tragic collision at this crossing that resulted in six 
        fatalities. Although the crossing is equipped with photo 
        enforcement camera equipment, it is clear that additional 
        improvements are needed if collisions are to be eliminated at 
        this crossing. Upon receiving an alarm in the cab with a 
        vehicle stopped on the tracks, the operator would start braking 
        and slowing the train with the intent of avoiding a collision. 
        The in-cab alert system would be particularly beneficial for 
        crossings where the visibility for train operators is limited 
        because of curves in the track geometry, obstructions at 
        crossings, bad weather conditions, and operations at night or 
        at crossings where there is insufficient street lighting. This 
        project has elements that duplicate the Los Angeles County 
        Transportation Authority's (LACMTA) four quadrant gate project 
        currently under evaluation and other four quadrant gate 
        projects being done elsewhere. However, it is significantly 
        different because of the in-cab alert system being proposed 
        plus differences in the street geometry and traffic conditions 
        at the Greenleaf Boulevard crossing.
  --Magnetic Pedestrian Gates.--Los Angeles County Transportation 
        Authority (LACMTA): A second proposed project, targeted only 
        for pedestrians, is the installation and evaluation of a 
        magnetic pedestrian gate. Recently, the Metro Blue Line has 
        experienced a high number of pedestrian related accidents. Most 
        of these accidents have occurred in the corridor where LRTs 
        operate at speeds of up to 55MPH and share the corridor with 
        the Union Pacific freight railroad. This system when installed 
        at the demonstration location will provide a positive barrier 
        to control pedestrian traffic across the tracks. As a train 
        approaches the crossing, an alarm will sound followed by the 
        gate closing to prevent pedestrians from crossing the tracks, 
        and at the same time open an escape path allowing pedestrians 
        already in the track area to safely exit. Once the train passes 
        the crossing, the gate will automatically open giving access to 
        the pedestrian walkway. This type of a system has the potential 
        of being more effective than passive and even active warning 
        signs because it requires a conscious effort on the part of 
        pedestrians to ignore and circumvent the gate.
    The resurgence of light rail transit and popularity of commuter 
railroads across the United States brings concerns related to highway-
rail intersection safety that are shared by safety professionals and 
planners. As more and more transit agencies begin new operations and 
reenergize existing systems in mixed traffic corridors, the issue of 
how to safely commingle the different transportation modes becomes 
important and requires urgent attention. Although the behavior of some 
motorists and pedestrians at grade crossings is incomprehensible, 
transit agencies are implementing measures that go above and beyond 
industry standards to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities 
that occur at rail crossings. The projects briefly described above have 
the potential of reducing these types of accidents thus decreasing the 
number of injuries and fatalities and meeting the FTA and USDOT 
strategic goals on safety.
    Question. The Committee is aware of FTA's and FRA's joint work on 
developing agency policy on shared use of the general railway system by 
conventional railroads and transit systems. Please outline the status 
of this policy's development, summarize the principle issues and 
questions, and describe how the requested funds would be spent.
    Answer. There has been extensive discussion in the transit industry 
with regard to the construction and operation of light rail transit 
systems on railroad rights-of-way. This concept of ``shared use'' or 
``shared corridor'' involves use of an owner railroad's land as 
differentiated from ``shared track'' in which instance transit vehicles 
are operated on a portion of the general railroad system.
    The safety concerns relevant to transit vehicles operating on 
exclusive tracks but adjacent and parallel to railroad tracks are 
minimal compared to shared track operations in which circumstance it is 
necessary to maintain absolute physical separation between vastly 
disparate vehicles (railroad locomotives and freight cars versus light 
weight, streetcar-like rail transit vehicles).
    The principal, and perhaps singular, safety concern in shared 
corridor is the possibility of a derailment which might result in the 
intrusion of a railroad train, or transit vehicle, into the path of a 
dissimilar train or vehicle. This circumstance is best addressed 
through appropriate design of the transit alignment to minimize, if not 
eliminate, the probability of any derailment intrusion.
    To that end, FTA is directing that our Project Management Oversight 
process assures that, insofar as shared corridor is concerned, risk 
assessment and hazard analysis is performed and that the preliminary 
engineering effort results in designs which are acceptable to the 
transit agency, the owner railroad and the State Safety Oversight 
agency. FTA is proposing to amend its State Safety Oversight rule to 
require state oversight at the preliminary engineering stage, and 
thereafter, of rail fixed guideway transit projects.
    The public comment period for the FTA/FRA Statement of Joint Policy 
and FRA's Statement of Agency Policy ended on February 17th. FTA is 
currently reviewing comments on the Statement of Joint Policy and 
expects that a final version will be released in the next few months.
    Conclusions drawn from the public comments will, along with other 
agency considerations, determine the course that FTA will undertake in 
implementing this policy. The funds requested will be used to provide 
technical assistance to transit agencies planning joint trackage and 
shared corridor use. Compliance guidelines are now being developed for 
these situations. FTA will assist with and encourage coordination 
between local planning organizations, transit agencies and their 
engineering consultants, involved owner railroads and the FTA's project 
management oversight contractors and field engineering staff.
    Additionally, FTA intends to undertake studies of signaling and 
operational practices to enhance the safety of joint trackage 
operations and design standards for intrusion detection or prevention 
in shared corridor situations.

                EQUIPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITIES

    Question. The FTA has requested a total of $8,300,000 for equipment 
and infrastructure activities in fiscal year 2001. Please reproduce the 
funding breakout table on page 157 of the justification, noting the 
priority order of each of the 6 activities planned for fiscal year 
2001. Are any of these projects earmarked in TEA-21?
    Answer. Below is the funding breakout table noting the priority 
order of each of the 6 activities planned for fiscal year 2001. Of 
these activities the SEPTA Advanced Propulsion Control System project 
is earmarked in TEA-21.

                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Program Schedule
                                    ------------------------------------
    Program: FTA 5 Research and             Fiscal year
     Technology Program Support     --------------------------- Priority
                                       1999     2000     2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Key activities and products

2. Equipment & Infrastructure:
    2.1. Bus Technology Development   $6,000   $9,243   $3,820  ........
    2.1.1. Advanced Technology       .......  .......    1,820         3
     Buses: Small Heavy-Duty Bus
     and Advanced Bus Technologies.
    2.2.2. Palm Springs, CA Fuel       1,000      989  .......  ........
     Cell Buses....................
    2.3.1. Hybrid Propulsion System  .......  .......    2,000         5
     Development and Deployment....
    2.3.1. Santa Barbara Electric        500      494  .......  ........
     Transportation Institute......
    2.3.2. Advanced Transit Systems    1,500    3,213
     & Electric Vehicle Program
     CALSTART......................
    2.3.3. MBTA Advanced Electric      1,500    1,483
     Transit Buses & Related
     Infrastructure................
    2.3.4. Zinc Air Battery            1,500      989  .......  ........
     Research......................
    2.3.5. Electric Vehicle          .......      741  .......  ........
     Information Sharing and
     Technology Transfer Program...
    2.3.6. Electric Vehicle          .......    1,334  .......  ........
     Information Sharing and
     Technology Transfer Program...
    2.4. Rail Equipment and Systems    3,750    4,449    4,480  ........
    2.4.1. Rail Communications-      .......  .......    1,000         4
     Based Subsystem Deployment....
    2.4.2. SEPTA Advanced              2,000    2,966    3,000         6
     Propulsion Control System.....
    2.4.3 Gloucester, MA Intermodal    1,500    1,483  .......  ........
     Technology Center.............
    2.4.4. Vegetation Control on         250  .......  .......  ........
     Rail Rights-of-Way Survey.....
    2.5.1.1. Turnkey Demonstration   .......  .......      400         2
     Program.......................
    2.5.1.3. Transit Construction    .......  .......       80         1
     Roundtable....................
                                    ---------------------------
      Total Budget Authority.......    9,750   13,692    8,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Is FTA on track to complete the turnkey demonstration 
program in fiscal year 2001? What activities will be supported with the 
$400,000 requested in fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. FTA will continue project monitoring and evaluation 
activities through 2003. Two of the five turnkey demonstration projects 
are completed, and the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Line will open in April 
of 2000. The remaining two projects will become operational in 2002 
(Tren Urbano) and 2003 (BART extension to San Francisco International 
Airport).
    Since each of the three active Turnkey Demonstration Projects 
exceed $1 billion in construction funds, there is justification to gain 
technical knowledge outside the normal oversight process. This includes 
monitoring, data collection, reporting, and evaluation. A minimum level 
of contracted technical analysis effort for these tasks is estimated at 
one professional person-year per year of the projects' implementation 
schedule, plus a subsequent year for the evaluation of systems 
operation in the cases of the San Juan and New Jersey projects. 
Therefore the Turnkey Demonstration Program will require about $400,000 
annually for documentation and evaluation. In addition, the Turnkey 
Demonstration Program requires funds to conduct special studies on key 
issues of concern to FTA and a related industry workshop. One example 
of an outstanding issue is the level of engineering that must be 
completed before a turnkey contract is awarded.
    Question. How will FTA's rail communication-based subsystem 
deployment program be coordinated with similar efforts by the Federal 
Railroad Administration? Who are the participants in the Joint 
Partnership Program?
    Answer. Regarding coordination with the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA), the FTA expects, as part of the rail 
communication-based subsystem deployment program, to coordinate 
technology development and deployment activities with FRA through joint 
meetings, program reviews, and by leveraging similar FRA research, 
development, and deployment efforts. The Transit Cooperative Research 
Program (TCRP) is one mechanism currently used by FTA to coordinate 
with similar efforts by FRA. For example, FTA is participating in TCRP 
Project D-7--Joint Rail Transit Related Research with the Association 
of American Railroad's Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI). 
This project will benefit the transit industry by leveraging research 
already being performed by the FRA at the TTCI in the areas of broken 
rail detection, transit switch design evaluation, rail welding 
techniques, and wheel/rail friction control techniques. FTA has 
identified broken rail detection as one of the key areas where further 
technology development is necessary for the widespread deployment of 
Communication-based Train Control (CBTC) technology. FTA will continue 
to seek other mechanisms to use in order to fully coordinate with FRA.
    Regarding participants in the Joint Partnership Program (JPP), FTA 
received thirty-one applications in response to a Federal Register 
solicitation dated October 2, 1998. One of the highly ranked 
applications was submitted by a team of Harmon Industries and the San 
Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). The application 
proposed to develop technology in several key areas in order to 
facilitate the widespread deployment of CBTC technology. These areas 
are: broken rail detection using alternate technologies, silent train 
detection, accurate programmed stop/train position technology 
development, remote interface development, and development of advanced 
control algorithms.
    FTA intends to use the fiscal year 2001 funding to develop and 
deploy advanced broken rail detection technology. In addition to BART 
and Harmon, team members would include: Penn State University, Sandia 
National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the 
Texas Transportation Institute.
    Question. What is the current status and cost to complete the 
Georgetown University fuel cell bus program?
    Answer. In 1997, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) program 
was scaled back to develop only two fuel cell buses, one with a 
phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC) and one with a proton exchange 
membrane fuel cell (PEMFC). This was a prudent decision at the time 
since it was not clear which technology might better satisfy the 
transit bus marketplace.
    The PAFC bus development is complete. The fuel cell power plant was 
fabricated, tested and integrated into a 40-foot Nova BUS platform. 
Lockheed Martin Control Systems (LMCS) provided the power and 
propulsion system (the same design that is being used on the hybrid-
electric buses in New York City). Emission testing of this vehicle will 
take place in the spring of 2000, and the FTA plans to schedule a 
congressional demonstration of the PAFC transit bus shortly thereafter.
    The FTA has structured a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with 
Georgetown University (GU) to define the total program, schedule, end 
products and funding requirements for the Fuel Cell Transit Bus 
Program. It also includes the Intermodal Fuel Cell Transit Bus 
Maintenance Facility so that the total Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program 
activities are defined in a single document. The Fuel Cell Transit Bus 
Program contains the following elements:
  --A total of eight fuel cell transit buses (includes the two 
        currently completing development)
  --Fuel cell power plants provided by up to two fuel cell vendors
  --Remaining six fuel cell transit buses to be developed will be non-
        hybrid (no batteries--200 kW fuel cell power plants)
  --Testing and training at GU and at various transit agencies in 
        cooperation with the FTA.
    The cost to complete the fuel cell transit bus program beyond the 
$51 million in funding provided through fiscal year 2000 is $20.8 
million.
    Currently, all endeavors for transportation are now dedicated to 
the PEMFC technology. This is being driven by industry support for 
adapting PEMFC for automotive application. Fuel cell bus power plants 
will scale the automotive fuel cells to bus requirements by coupling 
the smaller units to increase power. FTA's first PEMFC bus employs two 
DaimlerChrysler 50 kW automotive power plants to achieve the 100 kW 
power level.
    On a positive note, incorporating automotive technology should 
greatly reduce the production cost of future bus fuel cells since 
production levels will be much higher to meet the automotive demand.
    One key lesson learned to date is that combining fuel cell and 
battery technology into a hybrid configuration cannot meet the 
commercial goals established for this program. Such buses are too heavy 
and complex to satisfy the industry needs. Larger fuel cell power 
plants are mandatory. Automotive power plants are now sized at 60 kW. A 
non-hybrid 40-foot transit bus requires approximately 200 kW of power. 
Although additional fuel cell stacks can be combined, non-recurring 
engineering is needed to develop a responsive fuel processor to convert 
the liquid methanol into the hydrogen-rich gas to feed the stacks.
    There is interest within the Department of Defense to investigate 
the use of fuel cells for Army land vehicle applications. The Tank 
Automotive Command's National Automotive Center (NAC) funded a concept 
study on the applicability of PEMFC power plants for various types of 
Army trucks. The power levels of these vehicles are close to the fuel 
cell power plants (200 kW) being developed for the next PEMFC bus. The 
ability to operate on liquid fuel is paramount for military 
applications although eventually a logistic military fuel (diesel or 
JP-8) would have to be used. The NAC may be willing to participate in 
the next fuel cell bus development to gain familiarity with the control 
schemes and operation of this class of vehicle.
    The 100 kW PEMFC power plant has been fabricated, tested and 
integrated into a 40-foot Nova BUS platform. To our knowledge, this is 
the largest PEMFC in the world that can operate on liquid fuel. In 
January 2000, the bus was on exhibit just outside a hearing held by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB) to consider stringent new 
emission standards for urban buses. At this time, the PEMFC power plant 
is being tested for compatibility with other bus subsystems. Following 
that, the bus will be sent to LMCS to fine-tune the electric drive 
train. A public debut is planned for the American Public Transportation 
Association Bus Technology Conference in Houston in May 2000.
    The fuel cell power plants and the propulsion system are designed 
to be integrated into any bus platform once the design and development 
process is completed. The issue is a commitment from a fuel cell 
manufacturer to manufacture and mass-produce the fuel cell transit 
buses.
    Two key factors are involved. First, the demand for fuel cell 
transit buses will not exist until the transit agencies are assured 
that the technology is viable and the buses meet the transit industry 
requirements. This is the very reason that the MOA was structured to 
produce sufficient vehicles to address this critical issue.
    The current fuel cell vendors for the FTA program are XCELLSiS 
(Daimler Chrysler majority owner) and International Fuel Cells 
(division of United Technologies Corporation). Both are investing 
millions of dollars to bring a fuel cell power plant to the automotive 
marketplace. Daimler Chrysler is committed to producing a commercial 
fuel cell bus by 2004. The FTA Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program will 
incorporate multiple automotive fuel cell power plants to meet the 
transit industry power requirements. Thus, bus power plants can be 
built with the automotive economies of scale for production hardware. 
However, it is still vital to develop and integrate these larger fuel 
cell power plants into actual transit buses to address scale-up and 
control issues, as well as to demonstrate resulting performance to the 
transit community.
    The projected acquisition costs of a fuel cell transit bus have yet 
to be established but there are approaches to make realistic estimates. 
First, it must be recognized that the rather small transit bus market 
(3,000-4,000 vehicles per year) will not generate economies of scale 
sufficient to drive cost reduction. Assuming that fuel cell buses 
capture 10 percent of the transit bus market (a reasonable assumption 
where transit agencies in air quality non-attainment areas may see this 
technology as absolutely essential to meeting Federal or local 
guidelines), then production numbers would be approximately 400 fuel 
cell transit buses per year. This may seem a very small number, but it 
is eight times more than the annual production rate of utility fuel 
cell power plants.
    The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) has 
established a cost goal of approximately $50 per kW in automotive 
production quantities. This would be cost competitive with current 
internal combustion engines. If the fuel cell can be produced for $500 
per kW (ten times greater then the PNGV goal), then a 200 kW power 
plant would cost about $100,000. The electric drive train costs may add 
another $40,000 to the total bus cost. The current diesel engine/
transmission combination costs about $65,000. If those cost projections 
were attained, the acquisition cost premium of a fuel cell bus would be 
$75,000. Thus a fuel cell bus would cost $325,000 versus approximately 
$250,000 for a typical diesel bus.
    The transit industry is buying thousands of Compressed Natural Gas 
(CNG) transit buses to meet air quality standards. The CNG buses cost 
about $320,000 and do not come close to the environmental benefits of 
the fuel cell bus. It should be noted that DaimlerChrysler expects 
manufacturing costs of fuel cell power plants to be less than those of 
internal combustion engines based upon the manufacturing processes 
involved. If true, the fuel cell bus acquisition cost could approach 
that of today's diesel bus.
    Question. What transit agencies are currently testing or have given 
firm commitments to acquire the Georgetown University fuel cell/hybrid 
electric buses?
    Answer. There is insufficient experience to date with fuel cell 
transit buses to convince any transit agency of the technology 
readiness, operational benefits, or vehicle performance needed for 
practical fleet implementation. Additional vehicles, demonstrations and 
evaluations are absolutely essential to meet this objective. Several 
agencies, including Chicago Transit Authority and SunLine Transit 
Agency in Palm Springs, have expressed interest in the technology. They 
are waiting to see the result of the non-hybrid (200 kW) fuel cell 
transit bus development, the vehicle upon which procurement decisions 
can be made. Towards that end, the Memorandum of Agreement with 
Georgetown University established a Transit Review Committee (TRC) 
comprised of interested transit agencies to review the Fuel Cell 
Transit Bus Program. The objective of this review committee is to 
ensure that fuel cell buses, maintenance and training satisfy the 
operational requirements of the transit industry. Recommendations of 
the TRC will help guide the Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program. The TRC 
meets twice a year in conjunction with the APTA Annual Meeting and the 
Bus Technology Conference.

                           BUS RAPID TRANSIT

    Question. What is the total amount allocated to bus rapid transit 
activities in fiscal years 1999, 2000, and planned for fiscal year 
2001? What are the out-year costs associated with this program?
    Answer. The table below indicates funds allocated to the BRT 
program in fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000, and planned for fiscal 
year 2001.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year
                            Activity                             -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       1999            2000            2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRT Design and Operational Parameters, Impacts..................        $150,000  ..............        $300,000
BRT Data Collection & Analysis..................................         250,000  ..............         500,000
BRT Systems Integration Workshop................................         200,000  ..............         250,000
BRT Project Administration......................................         500,000  ..............         600,000
BRT Technology Transfer.........................................         100,000  ..............         200,000
BRT Professional Development....................................         200,000  ..............         200,000
BRT Lessons Learned Workshop....................................         100,000  ..............         150,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Technology transfer of lessons learned and professional development 
will continue to dominate the out-year costs through 2004. BRT projects 
initially implemented in 2002 and 2003 will need to be monitored and 
evaluated at least through 2004. As experience is gathered from these 
projects and the important lessons learned are identified, this 
information will be disseminated through BRT seminars, workshops and 
reports. For example, BRT Professional Development will be enhanced 
through knowledge gained regarding the cost and performance of specific 
subsystem elements suitable for integration into a cohesive BRT system. 
Findings from BRT demonstration projects and cross-cutting 
documentation that compares multiple projects and draws general 
conclusions will encourage replication of the BRT concept at other 
sites. These information sources can be developed only after a BRT 
project is implemented and operational. The lessons learned from BRT 
projects implemented in 2002 and 2003 won't be fully documented until 
2004.
    Question. Were BRT demonstration projects selected and announced in 
1999? Please list the selected agencies, and provide a brief 
description of each BRT project and its associated schedule and budget. 
What federal funding options are available to these projects? If the 
projects have received discretionary federal funding in the past two 
years, please note the amount of funding, when it was appropriated, and 
the type of funding.
    Answer. In 1999 seventeen sites were selected to participate in 
FTA's BRT Program. Ten agencies were selected as demonstration sites, 
and another seven agencies whose BRT projects were still in the concept 
or early planning phase, were selected as other members of a BRT 
Consortium. These projects could be funded through the New Starts 
Program, the Bus Discretionary Program or the Formula Program.
    Of the ten demonstration sites the Eugene-Springfield, Oregon site 
has received Capital Investment Sec. 5309 Bus funding of $4.4 million 
and $4.3 million in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, 
respectively. In addition, the Dulles Corridor, Virginia site has also 
received Capital Investment, Sec. 5309 New Starts funding of $16.9 
million and $24.5 million in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, 
respectively.
    Descriptions of the ten demonstration sites follow:
    Boston, MA.--The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's 3.8-
mile ``Silver Line'' on Washington Street will run to and through 
downtown to the South Boston Piers and Logan Airport.
    Status: Section A is expected to be completed in December 2002. 
Section B is expected to be in construction this spring. Section C is 
in the initial design phase with an expected completion date of 
December 2008.
    Charlotte, NC.--The City of Charlotte's Independence Corridor will 
add to its exclusive busway in the median of Independence Boulevard. 
This project potentially could be 13.5 miles long.
    Status: The project is viewed as an element of a countywide, five-
corridor rapid transit system that should promote land use objectives 
in addition to providing travel time savings. The approach is to plan 
the entire corridor project with the Phase II busway project being 
defined as part of the Major Investment Study (MIS) for the 
Independence Boulevard transit corridor. The MIS process is currently 
underway. A consultant team of both land-use and transportation experts 
has been selected to prepare the MIS for the 13.5-mile corridor. 
Contract negotiations are expected to be completed and work in the 
corridor begun.
    Cleveland, OH.--The Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation 
Authority proposes to rebuild a 5.0-mile section of Euclid Avenue to 
provide for exclusive transit lanes and a beautified avenue with 
landscaping and transit shelters.
    Status: Currently, the Euclid Corridor BRT is proceeding with the 
preliminary engineering effort. It is expected that the project will 
enter Final Design in July 2000 and begin construction in mid-2002. 
Opening day for the Euclid Corridor BRT is scheduled to occur in 2005. 
The environmental review process is being conducted in conjunction with 
the preliminary engineering effort and an environmental finding is 
expected to be issued in May 2000.
    Dulles Corridor, VA.--The Virginia Department of Rail and Public 
Transportation proposes BRT as an intermediate phase to the extension 
of Metrorail in this 22-mile corridor. BRT would operate mainly on the 
Dulles Airport Access Road stopping at median stations which would be 
converted to rail stations.
    Eugene-Springfield, OR.--The Lane Transit District proposes to 
implement BRT in a variety of exclusive lane configurations on a 10-
mile pilot corridor in Eugene and Springfield.
    Status: Lane Transit District is pursuing an east-west pilot 
corridor in Eugene-Springfield. The pilot corridor has been divided 
into three phases for planning, engineering and public involvement 
efforts. Phase 1 will operate between downtown Eugene and downtown 
Springfield. Project planning and preliminary engineering for Phase 1 
has been completed, and environmental review is currently underway. 
Final approval of Phase 1 is anticipated by late summer 2000, and 
construction is scheduled for completion in late 2001 or 2002. Phase 2 
extends west from downtown Eugene approximately 3 miles. Preliminary 
engineering has begun for Phase 2 of the project, with environmental 
review to follow late in 2000. Operation of Phase 2 is planned for 
2003. Phase 3 extends east from downtown Springfield to Thurston 
Station, a major park and ride facility. Planning and engineering work 
for the final phase of the pilot corridor is expected to begin in 2001, 
and be operational within 3 years.
    Hartford-New Britain, CT.--The Connecticut Department of 
Transportation has proposed a nine-mile, 12-station exclusive busway to 
be built on active and inactive rail right of way.
    Status: Currently the project is in the Environmental Impact Study 
(EIS) phase. The EIS is being prepared to evaluate the environmental, 
social and financial impacts of the busway. Through the EIS the 
appropriate environmental approvals will be obtained. Also, the EIS is 
being used as the informational tool to educate and gain the support of 
the public.
    Honolulu, HI.--The City and County of Honolulu has proposed a 12.6-
mile system called ``CityExpress!'' with limited bus stops through the 
primary transportation corridor, using HOV lanes on Hawaii's H-1 
freeway and downtown exclusive lane.
    Status: CityExpress! started service in March 1999, initially 
between the Kalihi Transit Center and the University of Hawaii. The 
first day's ridership through this 6.8 mile route was about 1,300. In 
August 1999, CityExpress! expanded service to Pearlridge, adding an 
additional 6.0-miles to the route. Total travel time between Pearlridge 
and the University of Hawaii was formerly approximately one hour and 
twenty minutes; CityExpress! reduced this to forty-five minutes. 
Average daily ridership grew from 2,463 in March 1999 to 5,238 in 
December 1999. Daily weekday ridership generally exceeds 6,000. The 
average monthly ridership in Phase I was 83,500 and increased in Phase 
II to 126,500.
    CityExpress! operates Monday through Saturday between 5:30 a.m. and 
9:30 p.m. providing 8- to 10-minute headways between the Kalihi Transit 
Center and the University of Hawaii. Between Pearlridge and the Kalihi 
Transit Center, the service operates with 15- to 20-minute headways. A 
traveler information system will be installed at selected CityExpress! 
bus stops within the next few months. Signal prioritization capability 
is being installed aboard CityExpress! buses and will operate at five 
intersections along the route. Route map ``Spinners'' are being 
installed at CityExpress! bus stops to provide additional route 
information. Future phases will see CityExpress! expand beyond 
Pearlridge.
    Miami, FL.--Metro-Dade Transportation Authority (MDTA) will extend 
its existing 8-mile, 15-station busway another eleven miles to Florida 
City, adding 22 new stations.
    Status: A Notice to Proceed has been issued to a consultant for a 
work order on the ``Busway/Grade Separation Analysis for the Bus Rapid 
Transit Demonstration Project''. The analysis will include a study of 
three alternatives: an elevated structure, a depressed by-pass, and at-
grade with warning devices and signals, as well as the selection of an 
intersection within Phase I of the project as the location for the 
selected alternative to be implemented. Regarding the South Miami-Dade 
Busway Extension to Florida City, the Florida Department of 
Transportation is continuing with right-of-way acquisition for Segment 
I. MDTA is working with Florida DOT and the County's Public Works 
Department on traffic signal issues critical to maintaining essential 
features of a BRT system, and a consultant has been assigned the task 
of preparing a Project Management Plan.
    San Juan, Puerto Rico.--The Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation 
Authority (PRHTA) will operate fast shuttle service on a new 2.5-mile 
Rio Hondo connector linking the Bayamon Tren Urbano Station and the Rio 
Hondo Tren Urbano Plaza.
    Status: PRHTA is working on Phase I of its work plan for 
development of Tren Urbano Plaza/Bus Rapid Transit. The purpose of the 
Phase I effort is to develop the plaza/BRT concept up to the beginning 
of final design. Phase I efforts include demand analysis, traffic 
engineering, operations planning, environmental impact assessment and 
permitting, land acquisition, and preliminary engineering. Current work 
is directed at refining the concept design for the plaza facility, 
operations planning for privatized operations of the bus service and 
plaza facilities, and traffic engineering for bus rapid transit 
operations.
    Santa Clara County, CA.--The Santa Clara County Valley 
Transportation Authority (VTA) will improve operations on its 27-mile-
long Line 22 in six cities: San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain 
View, Palo Alto and Los Altos.
    Status: Design is near completion on the first queue jump lanes (to 
be constructed on El Camino Real in Palo Alto and Los Altos). VTA is 
negotiating procurement of up to 40 articulated buses, to be delivered 
in the next 2 to 3 years, and working with Caltrans regarding the 
signal priority research project and other elements of research funded 
through the University of California, Berkeley. VTA is also beginning 
the definition of ITS elements specific to its fiscal year 2000 ITS 
earmarked project. This may include signal priority implementation and 
real-time information displays at bus stops.
    Question. Please update last year's summary of the results of FTA's 
bus rapid transit research thus far. Have you developed preliminary 
scoping of the concept data, including cost per mile, land use 
parameters, efficiency measurements, and cost of operation?
    Answer. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program is progressing 
essentially as we described in last year's summary. These projects will 
require several years to implement. Data will then be collected on 
their operation so that conclusions can be drawn about their 
effectiveness and efficiency. The ten demonstration sites are at 
various stages of final planning or initial construction. The seven 
other Consortium members are moving toward defining and choosing 
alternative BRT configurations and initial planning.
    Since last year, the focus has been on strengthening the Consortium 
as the primary means of sharing information and experience relating to 
BRT activities among its members and initiating BRT research sponsored 
by the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). There have been two 
successful workshops focusing on specific BRT issues for Consortium 
members. The first involved BRT Vehicle issues and the second focused 
on BRT image and marketing. At the second workshop, research results 
were presented on internal and external design of buses and the 
relationship between buses and support facilities (stops, stations and 
terminals).
    Workshops on BRT operational and infrastructure issues and fare 
collection are planned for this year. These workshops have attracted 
other cities that are interested in BRT and have resulted in several 
requests to join the Consortium.
    Because these BRT projects have not entered the operational stage 
data pertaining to costs per mile for construction, land use impacts, 
costs of operation etc. are not yet available. The TCRP project will 
document current practice with BRT as has occurred in Curitiba, Brazil; 
Ottawa, Ontario; Orlando, Florida; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                    research and technology support
    Question. The FTA has requested a total of $1,200,000 for 
information management and technology activities in fiscal year 2001. 
Please reproduce the funding breakout table on page 178 of the 
justification, noting the priority order of each of the 4 activities 
planned for fiscal year 2001.
    Answer. The following chart provides a funding breakout for 
information management and technology activities:

                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Program schedule
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
   Program: FTA 5 research and technology                                                     Fiscal year
              program support                                Priority                 --------------------------
                                                                                         1999     2000     2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Key activities and products

5.1. Computer Animation....................  3.......................................  .......  .......     $400
5.2. Multi-Media Information: FTA Website..  1.......................................  .......     $100      200
5.3 Documentation and TRB Support..........  2.......................................  .......  .......      200
5.4. Small Business Innovation Research....  N/A (Statutory Program).................  .......  .......      400
5.5. Technical Direction & Documentation of  High....................................  .......  .......  .......
 Research & Technology Projects............
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Budget Authority...............  ........................................  .......      100    1,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although funds were not specifically requested for Key Activity 
5.5, because they will be set aside as part of any project funded, it 
has a very high priority.
            metropolitan/rural policy development activities
    Question. The FTA has requested a total of $1,500,000 for 
metropolitan/rural policy development activities in fiscal year 2001. 
Please reproduce the funding breakout table on page 182 of the 
justification, noting the priority order of each of the 5 activities 
planned for fiscal year 2001.
    Answer. The following table lists the metropolitan/rural policy 
development activities for fiscal year 2001.

                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Program schedule
                                       ---------------------------------
   Program: FTA 6 Metropolitan/rural          Fiscal year
          policy development           ------------------------ Priority
                                         1999    2000    2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Key activities and products

6. Metropolitan/Rural Policy
 Development:
    6.1. Transit Conditions,              $300  ......    $200        1
     Performance and Needs............
    6.2. Benefits of Transit..........  ......  ......     100        5
    6.3. Innovative Financing.........     100  ......     200        2
    6.4. Global Climate Change........  ......  ......     500        4
    6.5. Nationwide Personal            ......  ......     500        3
     Transportation Survey............
    6.8. City of Branson, Congestion       450  ......  ......  ........
     Study............................
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total Budget Authority..........     850  ......   1,500  ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the fiscal 
year 1999 grant for the City of Branson, Missouri congestion study. Was 
this funding applied for and released?
    Answer. The Missouri Department of Transportation submitted a grant 
application in February, 2000. The grant award is expected to be made 
in the third quarter of fiscal year 2000.
    Question. What statutory requirement motivates the request for 
$500,000 to collect and analyze transit use and performance data 
related to global climate change?
    Answer. There is no statutory requirement that directly links 
global climate change data with transit use and performance. However, 
49 U.S.C. Sections 5301(b)(7) and 5301(e) establish the goals of 
improving energy efficiency and preserving the environment, and Section 
5335(a) requires the Secretary to maintain a reporting system using 
uniform categories. While the categories that currently exist are 
useful for reporting basic levels of transit use in specific urbanized 
areas, they are not easily used to assess the impacts of varying levels 
of transit use, by mode, on local or regional emissions and 
accumulations of pollutants. These pollutants will differ according to 
vehicle type, fuel type, vehicle energy efficiency, occupancy level, 
and type of service (local vs. express).
    The requested funding level would help to determine whether uniform 
categories of information could be developed to measure this effect and 
whether the resulting data could be incorporated with transportation 
models in use within the Department and in various urban areas around 
the country, to measure the effectiveness of transportation investments 
in reducing one or more environmental emissions, including emissions 
that may influence the global climate.
    Question. Could the Bureau of Transportation Statistics assist FTA 
in data collection and management related to the Nationwide Personal 
Transportation Survey?
    Answer. There is every reason to expect the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics (BTS) to exercise increasing leadership in 
the collection and management of Nationwide Personal Transportation 
Surveys (NPTS). However, notwithstanding the importance of BTS, it is 
essential that FTA, along with the other transportation modes, provide 
independent financial and technical support for NPTS, so that their 
distinct data needs and priorities are effectively incorporated into 
the NPTS design and implementation.
    Historically, FTA has used the Nationwide Personal Transportation 
Survey (NPTS) to examine the role of transit for households and cities. 
For many years, the NPTS data has enabled FTA to report on transit's 
share of travel in large and small cities, among demographic groups, 
and in different geographic regions. More recently, FTA has used NPTS 
data to measure the value of transit benefits in market niches not 
adroitly served by privately owned vehicles. This use of NPTS is 
demonstrated in a book supplied to the Committee in late 1999: Policy 
and Planning as Public Choice: Mass Transit in the United States, 
(1999) by D. Lewis and F.L. Williams. Unfortunately, as discussed 
below, a sharply increased effort will be necessary in the near future 
to maintain data comparable in quality to earlier NPTSs. Without the 
increased effort, FTA's ability to monitor transit's markets will be 
severely compromised.
    Under Dr. Ashish Sen's leadership, the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics (BTS) has greatly increased its financial support for and 
leadership in the NPTS process. BTS is poised to serve as the principal 
leader for the modernization of methods to gather and manage personal 
transportation data. Dr. Sen has voiced serious concern over the 
erosion of telephone survey validity by decreasing response rates, 
mostly due to intensive telemarketing efforts in recent years. Dr. Sen 
has also observed that decision makers are requesting more frequent and 
more quickly accessible travel data. FTA shares these concerns and FTA 
expects to work with BTS, FHWA, and other NPTS partners to develop more 
efficient and timely techniques to collect personal transportation 
data.
    Initially, innovative data collection could be comparatively 
expensive to learn, design, put into place, and integrate. Smart cards, 
geographic information systems, global positioning networks, highway 
telemetry, and satellite photography offer promising new ways 
unobtrusively to gather personal travel data while respecting the 
privacy of individuals and businesses. Once established, these 
technologies would be relatively inexpensive to maintain, upgrade, and 
operate.
    With the active support of FTA and other agencies within and 
outside the Department, no organization is better positioned or better 
able to lead and coordinate such a transformation than BTS. But, again, 
experience teaches that an independent financial and technical 
contribution by FTA and each other mode is the most effective means to 
ensure the continued usefulness of NPTS.

              PLANNING AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

    Question. The FTA has requested a total of $2,200,000 for planning 
and program development activities in fiscal year 2001. Please 
reproduce the funding breakout table on page 186 of the justification, 
noting the priority order of each of the five activities planned for 
fiscal year 2001.
    Answer. The following table lists the planning and program 
development activities for fiscal year 2001:

                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Program schedule
                                       ---------------------------------
  Program: FTA 7 planning and project         Fiscal year
          development program          ------------------------ Priority
                                         1999    2000    2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Key activities and products

7. Planning and Project Development:
    7.1 Transportation Planning and     ......  ......    $750        3
     Programming......................
    7.2. New Starts Planning and          $450  ......     550        2
     Project Development..............
    7.3. Land Use and Environmental     ......  ......     200        4
     Planning.........................
    7.4. Planning Methods.............  ......  ......     500        5
    7.5. Financial Planning...........  ......  ......     200        1
    7.7. Citizens for Modern Transit..  ......    $297  ......  ........
    7.8. Wheeling, West Virginia        ......     247  ......  ........
     Mobility Study...................
    7.9. Skagit County, WA, North           50  ......  ......  ........
     Sound Connecting Communities
     Project..........................
    7.10. Desert Air Quality             1,000  ......  ......  ........
     Comprehensive Analysis, Las
     Vegas, NV........................
    7.11. Seattle, WA Livable City....     200  ......  ......  ........
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total Budget Authority..........   1,700     544   2,200  ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please update the Committee on the status of each of the 
three community planing and analysis projects included in the fiscal 
year 1999 appropriations bill: (1) Skagit County, Washington North 
Sound connecting communities; (2) Desert air quality comprehensive 
analysis, Las Vegas, Nevada; and (3) Seattle, Washington livable city. 
Have these grants been released? Are follow-on costs required or 
anticipated?
    Answer. All three projects were released (awarded) in fiscal year 
1999. No additional follow-on costs are required or anticipated. The 
project in Skagit County, Washington North Sound and connecting 
communities, is intended to study a cross-border seamless 
transportation system. A seamless system will improve the environment 
and air quality, reduce freight movement delays, and enhance domestic 
and international tourism through the Two-Nation vacation initiative.
    The Desert air quality comprehensive analysis, Las Vegas, Nevada, 
is research on specific air pollution problems existing in the Las 
Vegas Metropolitan area. This will be a broad-scope study conducted by 
the Desert Research Institute, an affiliate of the University and 
Community College System of Nevada.
    The Seattle, Washington Livable City project, will provide near-
term Improvements in travel times and reliability to transit users thus 
encouraging higher ridership and reducing service costs. The City of 
Seattle and King County Metro will cooperate in implementing speed and 
reliability improvements.

                   PERFORMANCE AND REVIEW/EVALUATION

    Question. The FTA has requested a total of $2,900,000 for 
performance and review/evaluation in fiscal year, of which $2,500,000 
is for the congressionally mandated National Transit Database program. 
The fiscal year 2000 conference report directed FTA to work with the 
National Academy of Sciences to design a new transit data base, 
comprised of operational and performance measures and financial data 
necessary to fulfill FTA's statutory responsibilities in distributing 
formula grants, while providing meaningful data for state and local 
governments, transit industry personnel, and academic institutions. 
Consultation with the American Public Transportation Association in 
developing the new data base was encouraged. Please summarize the 
progress to date on developing this new data base model, which is to be 
submitted to the Appropriations Committees and the General Services 
Administration by May 31, 2000. Will the congressionally directed 
deadline be met? Will FTA be able to utilize the new design in the 
fiscal year 2001 cycle of federal grantee reports?
    Answer. The FTA is on schedule to deliver a report to Congress on a 
new, revised National Transit Database (NTD) for the 21st Century by 
May 31, 2000. If funding is made available, the FTA is planning to 
restructure and test the new NTD in time to work on report year 2001 
data.
    FTA is making progress on developing a new, revised NTD. FTA 
conducted and completed three outreach-listening sessions with transit 
professionals across the nation. These sessions were held in Chicago, 
San Francisco, and Washington, DC. The Washington, DC session focused 
on transit safety data. In addition, FTA met individually with transit 
agencies and safety groups. A national FAX number and an Internet web 
site were established to receive comments for those unable to attend 
the outreach sessions.
    FTA has worked closely with the Transportation Research Board of 
the National Academy of Sciences (TRB/NAS). The TRB has formed a 
committee to review our findings and recommendations. FTA met with the 
TRB committee on April 10. In addition, FTA met with the APTA 
committee, comprised of general managers and safety directors to review 
the NTD and proposed changes. A report on recommendations to revise the 
NTD (phase I of the project) is expected to be transmitted to Congress 
by the end of May 2000.
    FTA will summarize and synthesize the comments and recommendations 
given to the FTA. All forms, procedures, and data elements will be 
evaluated. FTA's goal is to improve the usefulness of the NTD to 
transit without adding to the burden of reporting agencies. By the end 
of April, FTA will have received TRB and APTA comments and will prepare 
a draft report to Congress, completing Phase I of our action plan.
    After submitting the report to Congress, and receiving comments on 
that report from Congress, GSA, TRB and others, FTA will incorporate 
these changes in the database forms, definitions, procedures, 
circulars, and database structure. At the end of fiscal year 2000, FTA 
plans to complete Phase II of the action plan, developing a prototype 
of the final revised NTD. Phase III is to program the revised NTD which 
will have a relational database. In fiscal year 2001, FTA has requested 
$1.5 million to program the new NTD and load the NTD data into a new 
relational database program. Completion of Phase III is expected to 
take much of fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, FTA will test an 
operational, new, revised NTD on report year 2001 data.

        FTA'S URBAN MAGLEV AND ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PILOT PROGRAM

    Question. Federal Highway Administration funds are authorized 
within the highway trust fund firewall for two urban magnetic 
levitation technology programs to be administered by the Federal 
Transit Administration. The two statutory provisions providing the 
program's funding are Section 1218 of TEA-21, which authorizes a total 
of $5 million over the life of the authorization to research and 
develop low speed superconductive maglev technology; and Section 
3015(c) of TEA-21, which authorizes $5 million per year for the 6 years 
to carry out a broad maglev technology development program. The FTA 
published a notice in the January 29, 1999 Federal Register soliciting 
applications for this program, stating that the agency, ``anticipates 
multiple awards resulting from this solicitation.'' How many proposals 
were received by FTA before the March 1999 deadline? Of these 
applicants, how many projects have received awards? Please list the 
recipients and amounts.
    Answer. Eight (8) proposals were received by the March 1999 
deadline. To date, one project has received an award. Fiscal year 1998 
and fiscal year 1999 funding from Section 3015(c) was allocated to this 
project, a total of $7,968,586. General Atomics Corporation (GA) will 
lead a team to develop maglev technology for the purpose of providing a 
solution to urban and regional transportation problems. In addition to 
GA, the team is comprised of: Macklin Engineering, Hall Industries, 
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Western Pennsylvania Maglev Development 
Corporation, Union Switch & Signal, Port Authority of Allegheny County, 
Sargent Electric Company, Mr. Richard Portis (DBE), P.J. Dick, Argonne 
National Laboratory, Carnegie Mellon University, Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, and the Pennsylvania Department of 
Transportation.
    Question. To date, have all the authorized fiscal year 1998, 1999, 
and 2000 funds been transferred from FHWA to FTA (both from the Section 
3015(c) and 1218 programs)? Have all the available fiscal year 1998, 
1999, and 2000 funds been awarded? If not, please elaborate on the 
reasons for the delay.
    Answer. For the Section 3015(c) program, fiscal years 1998, 1999, 
and 2000 funds from 3015(c) have been transferred from FHWA to FTA. As 
stated above, fiscal year 1998 and 1999 funding has been awarded. 
Fiscal year 2000 funding was only recently transferred to FTA and has 
not yet been awarded. Fiscal year 2000 funding for the Advanced 
Technology Pilot Project will be used to fund cooperative agreements 
with one or more project groups to develop advanced magnetic levitation 
technology. The Federal Register Notice articulates the goals and 
objectives for the Advanced Technology Pilot Project and the Urban 
Maglev Program in general. FTA will again use this as a guide when 
considering awards during fiscal year 2000 to additional project 
groups. (Five other groups submitted ``technically competitive'' 
proposals in response to FTA's January 29, 1999 Federal Register 
Notice).
    For the Section 1218 program, FTA recently received $1,742,000 from 
FHWA. FTA is currently working on an agreement with the Department of 
Energy to obligate $1,000,000 for SERAPHIM, a motor technology being 
developed by Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. For the 
additional funding ($742,000), FTA will again consider one or more of 
the groups that submitted proposals to FTA for Low Speed Maglev 
technology development.
    Question. Please detail all Congressional input, both legislative 
and non-legislative, in the grant decision making process. Please 
include copies of all legislative direction or Congressional 
correspondence that influenced awards under this program.
    Answer. Legislative guidance:
    (1) The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) has 
been the legislative guide to FTA for developing the Urban Maglev 
Program. In Section 3015(c), TEA-21 created a low speed magnetic 
levitation technology development project titled the Advanced 
Technology Pilot Project. This project authorizes the Department of 
Transportation to support further development of magnetic levitation 
technologies to demonstrate energy efficiency, congestion mitigation 
and safety benefits. The FTA Urban Magnetic Levitation Transit 
Technology Development Program (Urban Maglev Program) was then 
initiated through a January 29, 1999 Federal Register Notice to carry 
out this project as well as a similar low speed Maglev project created 
by TEA-21 and codified at 23 U.S.C. Section 322(i), entitled the Low 
Speed Project. The Low Speed Project is similar to the Section 3015(c) 
project except that funding is specifically for the development of 
superconductive technology. The Urban Maglev Program combines these two 
statutory provisions into a single program to include both 
superconductive and non-superconductive maglev technologies.
    (2) fiscal year 2000 Conference Report that accompanied the 
appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies for the fiscal year 2000 (Report 106-355) also provided 
guidance. This Report directed DOT to make available $1,000,000 from 
Section 322(h)(1)(B)(i) [the 1218 program] for the development of the 
Segmented Rail Phased Induction Electric Magnetic Motor (SERAPHIM).
    Non-Legislative Guidance:
    (1) Letter dated July 12, 1999 from the United States House of 
Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
communicating the Committee's intent for the 3015(c) program.
    (2) Letter dated December 3, 1999, from the United States Senate 
Committee on Appropriations, which underscored the intent of the 
Committee to make available $1,000,000 from the 1218 program for 
SERAPHIM.

                     Congress of the United States,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                     Washington, DC, July 12, 1999.
Hon. Gordon J. Linton,
Administrator, Federal Transit Administration,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Administrator Linton: We are writing to clarify the intent of 
the advanced technology pilot project specified in Section 3015(c) of 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-
178). Section 3015(c) provides funding for low-speed magnetic 
levitation (MAGLEV) technology for public transportation purposes in 
urban areas to demonstrate energy efficiency, congestion mitigation, 
and safety benefits.
    This provision was included in the House-passed version of TEA 21 
in direct response to the Pittsburgh Airborne Shuttle System (PASS) 
low-speed MAGLEV project, which to our knowledge, was the only low-
speed MAGLEV project seeking federal assistance at the time. In fact, 
House Committee Report 105-467 Part 1, accompanying the House-passed 
version of TEA 21, referred to the project, recognizing that $1 million 
was provided in the fiscal year 1998 DOT appropriations bill to support 
``low-speed magnetic levitation technology in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 
through the Allegheny County Port Authority'' (page 204). In the 
conference committee on TEA 21, the Senate receded to the House on 
Section 3015(c), with the addition of new language clarifying the 
application of Davis Bacon labor provisions.
    It was, and continues to be, our expectation that these funds will 
be made available to the Pittsburgh project. Congress clearly intended 
that the energy efficiency, congestion mitigation and safety benefits 
of the technology be demonstrated through the application of the 
technology. This cannot be achieved by spreading the funding over 
numerous projects. Concentrating the funding on one project, deploying 
one system and measuring its effects, is the only way to satisfy 
Congressional intent with respect to the advanced technology pilot 
project specified in Section 3015(c).
    We look forward to working with you and the Department on this 
matter in the near future.
            Sincerely,
                                   Bud Shuster,
          Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
                                   James L. Oberstar,
  Ranking Democrat, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
                                   Thomas Petri,
                   Chairman, Subcommittee on Ground Transportation.
                                   Nick Rahall, II,
          Ranking Democrat, Subcommittee on Subcommittee on Ground 
                                                    Transportation.
                                 ______
                                 
                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Appropriations,
                                  Washington, DC, December 3, 1999.
Hon. Rodney E. Slater,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Secretary: We are writing to clarify a provision in the 
Conference Report accompanying the recently-enacted appropriations bill 
for the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000 (H.R. 2084, Report 106-355). In 
the fiscal year 2000 conference report, under the Magnetic Levitation 
Transportation Technology Deployment Program, the Conferees specified 
funding for the low-speed magnetic levitation program, which is 
authorized under Section 322, subsection (h)(1)(B)(i) of the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). You will note 
that $1 million was designated in the report for the development of the 
Segmented Rail Phased Induction Electric Magnetic Motor (SERAPHIM). 
TEA-21 designated under the above-referenced subsection that a total of 
$5 million shall be available for ``. . . the Secretary to make grants 
for the research and development of low-speed superconductivity 
magnetic levitation technology for public transportation purposes in 
urban areas . . .'' Notwithstanding any other requirements of Section 
322, subsection (h)(1)(B)(i), it was the intent of the Conferees that 
the SERAPHIM technology be an eligible project under this section. 
Additionally, it was the intent of the conferees that the authorized 
set-aside for the low-speed magnetic levitation program be fully funded 
over the life of the TEA-21 authorization. It is the understanding of 
the Appropriations Committees that this program has not yet received 
any funding, and therefore any available funds under the Magnetic 
Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program which are not 
otherwise Congressionally directed should be made available for the 
low-speed magnetic levitation program. We respectfully request that you 
proceed to allocate the funds already designated for SERAPHIM, and that 
you give full consideration to the Colorado Intermountain Fixed 
Guideway Authority's application for the Federal Transit 
Administration's low-speed magnetic levitation technology program, as 
directed in the statement of managers language. If you have any 
questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Subcommittee staff.
            Sincerely,
                                   Richard C. Shelby,
   Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Transportation, Appropriations.
                                   Frank R. Wolf,
    Chairman, House Subcommittee on Transportation, Appropriations.
              capital investment grants unobligated funds
    Question. Please provide a list of any unobligated contract 
authority funds that have remained on the books for more than three 
years (that is, funds appropriated or authorized in or prior to fiscal 
year 1997).
    Answer. Unobligated contract authority funds that have remained on 
the books for more than three years include $1.3 million in Section 
5309, Fixed Guideway Modernization which will be redistributed by 
formula. Also, unobligated is $11.7 million in Section 5309, New Starts 
funds for projects that have been extended by legislative action. An 
example is the New Orleans Canal Street Corridor Project, the Virginia 
Railway Express, and the Hartford, CT--Griffin Line Project.
    Question. Please provide a list of recoveries by program/project 
and amount made in fiscal year 1999 and estimated for fiscal year 2000. 
Please describe how funds can be ``recovered'', and the process for 
reallocating these funds.
    Answer. A list of recoveries by program for fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1999 is provided below. We estimate a similar 
distribution of recoveries as they become available in fiscal year 
2000.
    Funds can be recovered when a project is closed or whenever there 
is a mutual agreement between the grantee and FTA that funds are no 
longer needed for a project. Recoveries for Section 5309 Bus and New 
Starts projects that were previously earmarked are reprogrammed after 
notification to and approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations. Recoveries that are formularized and have not lapsed 
remain available to the urbanized area in which they were recovered. 
Recoveries that have become lapsed and were formularized remain with 
that section and are reapportioned to all areas according to 
legislative formula.

Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Recovery 
Activities

        Program

                                                        Fiscal year 1999
Capital Investment Grants:
    Sec. 5309, Capital Program, Bus.....................      $1,482,126
    Sec. 5309, Capital Program, New Starts..............      18,905,850
    Sec. 5309, Capital Program, Fixed Guideway 
      Modernization.....................................          29,777
    Sec. 5309, Capital Program, Rail Mod................         602,357
    Sec. 5309, Capital Program, Oversight...............       3,693,679
    Sec. 5309, Capital Program, Technology Introduction.         296,091
    Sec. 5303, Special Studies..........................          43,458
    Sec. 5313, State Planning and Research..............             967
    Sec. 5314, National Planning and Research...........              15
    Sec. 5307, Urbanized Area, 9(B).....................         534,633
    Sec. 5310, Elderly and Persons with Disabilities....         105,639
    Sec. 5311, RTAP.....................................             404
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
          Total, Capital Investment Grants..............      25,694,996

    Question. Transit new starts and bus and bus facilities funds are 
subject to the ``three-year rule'', wherein earmarked appropriated 
funds not obligated after three fiscal years are available to be 
reprogrammed. Please provide two tables--a new starts table and a bus 
table--showing the updated obligation status of all projects whose 
funding has expired or will expire at the end of fiscal year 2000. 
Please note whether applications are in, what issues remain to be 
resolved, and whether it is the agency's opinion whether the project 
will be obligated before the end of the fiscal year.
    Answer. The following tables lists the transit new starts and bus 
and bus facilities funds:

                       CAPITAL PROGRAM--BUS AND BUS RELATED--STATUS OF FISCAL YEAR 1998 UNOBLIGATED EARMARKS AS OF MARCH 31, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      OBLIGATION   FEDERAL
               REG.                          AREA               PROJECT NO.        PROJECT DESCRIPTION   AVAILABLE      STATUS     DOLLARS   UNOBLIGATED
                                                                                                          FUNDING       (DATE)    OBLIGATED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................  NEW HAVEN, CT........  CT-03-O109-01........  BUS GARAGE/            $1,172,636  ...........  .........   $1,172,636
                                    IN FINAL PROCESSING;                           MAINTENANCE
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          FACILITY, FISCAL
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.                             YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                                                                   EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    VERMONT (STATEWIDE)    VT-03-0028...........  9 BUSES/FACILITY           76,420  ...........  .........       76,420
                                     (VAOT).                                       IMPROVEMENTS,
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     IN FOURTH QUARTER;                            APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    BURLINGTON, VT.......  VT-03-0031...........  MULTIMODAL CENTER,      1,465,794  ...........  .........    1,465,794
                                    APPLICANT REQUESTING                           FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     CONGRESSIONAL                                 APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     APPROVAL TO EXTEND
                                     FISCAL YEAR1998
                                     FUNDS.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.................................  BUFFALO, NY (NFTA)...  NY-03-0342...........  HUBLINK PROGRAM,          977,196  ...........  .........      977,196
                                    APPLICATION IN; UNDER                          FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     REVIEW; WILL BE                               APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     APPROVED IN FISCAL
                                     YEARY 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NEW ROCHELLE, NY.....  NY-03-00XX...........  INTERMODAL FACILITY.
                                    ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES;
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 1997
                                     EARMARK EXTENDED.
                                                                                  FISCAL YEAR 97          1,235,000  ...........  .........    1,235,000
                                                                                   APPROP. EARMARK.
                                                                                  FISCAL YEAR 1998        1,465,794  ...........  .........    1,465,794
                                                                                   APPROP. EARMARK.
                                                                                                       -------------                        ------------
                                                                                      TOTAL...........    2,700,794                            2,700,794
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    POUGHKEEPSIE, NY       NY-03-0362...........  INTERMODAL FACILITY,    1,954,393  ...........  .........    1,954,393
                                     (MTA).                                        FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                    IN FINAL PROCESSING.                           APPROP. EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    STATEN ISLAND/         NY-03-0XXX...........  MOBILITY PROJECT,         977,196  ...........  .........      977,196
                                     BROOKLYN, NY.                                 FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                    DESIGN WORK FOR HOV                            APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     LANES OBLIGATION
                                     EXPECTED IN FOURTH
                                     QUARTER.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    YONKERS, NY..........  NY-03-0361...........  INTERMODAL FACILITY/    1,954,393  ...........  .........    1,954,393
                                    IN FINAL PROCESSING..                          PARKING FACIL. AT
                                                                                   LARKIN PLAZA,
                                                                                   FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                                                                   APPROP. EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.................................  FAYETTE & SOMERSET,    PA-03-0292...........  2 30FT EXPAN. BUSES/      125,998  ...........  .........      125,998
                                     PA.                                           2 RADIOS FOR
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           FAYETTE CTY; 2 30FT
                                     IN FISCAL YEAR 2000;                          EXPAN. BUSES/1 VAN
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          AND RADIO COMM.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.                             SYSTEM FOR SOMERSET
                                                                                   CTY, FISCAL YEAR
                                                                                   1998 APPROP.
                                                                                   EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    TOWANDA BOROUGH, PA..  PA-03-0311...........  INTERMODAL BUS          1,954,393  ...........  .........    1,954,393
                                    APPLICATION IN;                                FACILITY, FISCAL
                                     ANTICIPATED FISCAL                            YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     YEAR 2000                                     EARMARK.
                                     OBLIGATION. APPROVAL
                                     EXPECTED IN FISCAL
                                     YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    WILKES BARRE, PA.....  PA-03-0XXX...........  INTERMODAL FACILITY,    1,465,794  ...........  .........    1,465,794
                                    PROJECT IN TIP/STIP;                           FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     APPLICATION EXPECTED                          APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     IN FISCAL YEAR 2000;
                                     MAY LAPSE.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    PENNSYLVANIA           PA-03-0XXX...........  BUSES AND INTERMODAL      244,299  ...........  .........      244,299
                                     (STATEWIDE).                                  FACILITIES, FISCAL
                                    RED ROSE TRANSIT                               YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     AUTHORITY (PART OF                            EARMARK.
                                     STATEWIDE); APPROVAL
                                     EXPECTED IN FISCAL
                                     YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    HUNTINGTON, WV.......  WV-03-0026...........  INTERMODAL FACILITY     6,440,374  ...........  .........    6,440,374
                                    APPLICATION UNDER                              AND BUSES, FISCAL
                                     REVIEW. OBLIGATION                            YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     EXPECTED IN FISCAL                            EARMARK.
                                     YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    ALEXANDRIA, VA         VA-03-00XX...........  EXTEN. OF CANOPY TO       244,299  ...........  .........      244,299
                                     (WMATA).                                      PROVIDE WEATHER
                                    NO APPLICATION;                                PROTECTION TO BUS
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          PATRONS AT
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.                             CLARENDON METRO
                                                                                   STATION, FISCAL
                                                                                   YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                                                                   EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    DULLES, VA (WMATA)...  VA-03-00XX...........  8-10 BUSES TO           2,442,991  ...........  .........    2,442,991
                                    NO APPLICATION;                                SUPPORT EXPRESS
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          SERVICE, FISCAL
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.                             YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                                                                   EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    RICHMOND, VA.........  VA-03-0059-01........  MULTIMODAL CENTER,      2,442,991  ...........  .........    2,442,991
                                    APPLICATION UNDER                              FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     REVIEW; ANTICIPATED                           APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000
                                     OBLIGATION.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NEW CASTLE, DE (DDOT)  DE-03-00XX...........  BUSES AND BUS           1,465,794  ...........  .........    1,465,794
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           FACILITIES, FISCAL
                                     IN FISCAL YEAR 2000;                          YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          EARMARK.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.................................  TAMPA, FL              FL-03-0XXX...........  BUSES AND BUS           1,465,794  ...........  .........    1,465,794
                                     (HILLSBOROUGH                                 FACILITIES, FISCAL
                                     COUNTY).                                      YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                    NO APPLICATION;                                EARMARK.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    N. CAROLINA (NCDOT)    NC-03-0036-01........  BUSES AND BUS           3,340,000  ...........  .........    3,340,000
                                     (STATEWIDE).                                  FACILITIES, FISCAL
                                    STATE PROJECT FOR 8                            YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     AREAS; APPLICATION                            EARMARK.
                                     EXPECTED FY 2000;
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
                                     FY 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    ATLANTA, GA            GA-03-0048-04........  BUSES, FISCAL YEAR      2,060,830  ...........  .........    2,060,830
                                     (MARTA)ANTICIPATED                            1998 APPROP.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000                              EARMARK.
                                     OBLIGATION.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SAVANNAH/CHATHAM,      GA-03-0058...........  BUS FACILITY, FISCAL    3,908,785  ...........  .........    3,908,785
                                     AREA TRANSIT, GA.                             YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           EARMARK.
                                     IN FOURTH QUARTER;
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    COLUMBIA, SC.........  SC-03-00XX...........  BUSES & FACILITIES,     1,954,393  ...........  .........    1,954,393
                                    ISSUES CENTER ON                               FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     TAKEOVER OF TRANSIT                           APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     SYSTEM; MAY LAPSE.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    FLORENCE, SC (PEE DEE  SC-03-0015-02........  INTERMODAL              1,143,908  ...........  .........    1,143,908
                                     RTA).                                         FACILITIES, FISCAL
                                    APPLICATION ON HOLD                            YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     PENDING OUTCOME OF                            EAR-  MARK.
                                     OIG INVESTIGATION;
                                     LACK OF LOCAL SHARE;
                                     MAY LAPSE.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    JACKSON, MS..........  MS-03-00XX...........  MAINTENANCE &           1,954,393  ...........  .........    1,954,393
                                    NO APPLICATION;                                ADMINISTRATION
                                     GRANTEE DEVELOPING                            FACILITY PROJECT,
                                     PROJECT SCOPE;                                FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    BIRMINGHAM/JEFFERSON   AL-03-00XX...........  BUSES, FISCAL YEAR      2,931,588  ...........  .........    2,931,588
                                     CTY, AL.                                      1998 APPROP.
                                    NO APPLICATION;                                EARMARK.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    BIRMINGHAM, AL.......  AL-03-00XX...........  DOWNTOWN INTERMODAL     5,863,178  ...........  .........    5,863,178
                                    NO APPLICATION;                                TRANSP. FACIL.,
                                     DEVELOPING COST                               PHASE 2, FISCAL
                                     ALLOCATION; APPROVAL                          YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     EXPECTED IN FISCAL                            EARMARK.
                                     YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    MOBILE, AL...........  AL-03-0020...........  SOUTHERN MARKET           977,196  ...........  .........      977,196
                                    APPLICATION IN; NEEDS                          HISTORIC INTERMODAL
                                     CLARIFICATION ON                              CENTER, FISCAL YEAR
                                     TRANSIT ELEMENT;                              1998 APPROP.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          EARMARK.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    MOBILE, AL...........  AL-03-0021...........  MUNICIPAL PIER            977,196  ...........  .........      977,196
                                    APPLICATION IN; NEEDS                          INTERMODAL
                                     CLARIFICATION ON                              WATERFRONT ACCESS
                                     TRANSIT                                       REHAB PROJECT,
                                     ELEMENT;APPROVAL                              FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     EXPECTED IN FISCAL                            APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    MOBILE, AL (CITY)....  AL-03-00XX...........  BUSES, FISCAL YEAR        200,448  ...........  .........      200,448
                                    OBLIGATION EXPECTED                            1998 APPROP.
                                     IN FISCAL YEAR 2000.                          EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    MOBILE, AL...........  AL-03-0022...........  INTERMODAL FACILITY,    5,374,579  ...........  .........    5,374,579
                                    ANTICIPATED THIRD                              FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     QUARTER FISCAL YEAR                           APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     2000 OBLIGATION.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.................................  MINNESOTA (METRO       MN-03-00XX...........  BUSES AND BUS           8,794,766  ...........  .........    8,794,766
                                     COUNCIL TRANSIT                               FACILITIES, FISCAL
                                     OPERA-  TORS).                                YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                    NO APPLICATION;                                EARMARK.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    ST. PAUL, MN.........  MN-03-0064...........  SNELLING BUS GARAGE,    1,465,794  ...........  .........    1,465,794
                                    IN FINAL PROCESSING;                           FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          APPROP. EAR-  MARK.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    MILWAUKEE, WI........  WI-03-00XX...........  RAIL STATION REHAB./      977,196  ...........  .........      977,196
                                    NO APPLICATION;                                INTERMODAL FACILITY
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          REHAB, FISCAL YEAR
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.                             1998 APPROP. EAR-
                                                                                   MARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.................................  EL PASO, TX (CITY)...  TX-03-0206...........  EQUIP. FOR DEMAND         977,196  ...........  .........      977,196
                                    APPLICATION IN;                                RESPONSE FACIL.,
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.                             APPROP. EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    GALVESTON, TX........  TX-03-0XXX...........  AFI VEHICLES/BUSES      1,486,665  ...........  .........    1,486,665
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           AND FACILITIES,
                                     MAY 1; APPROVAL                               FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     EXPECTED IN FISCAL                            APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    BRAZOS, TX (BTA).....  TX-03-0205...........  BUSES AND BUS             409,748  ...........  .........      409,748
                                    COMBINED W/FISCAL                              FACILITIES, FISCAL
                                     YEAR 1997 EM                                  YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     (LIBERTY/MONTGOMERY/                          EARMARK.
                                     POLK COUNTIES);
                                     EXPECT APPLICATION
                                     IN THIRD QUARTER.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    MONROE, LA...........  LA-03-0075-01........  BUSES AND BUS-            781,757  ...........  .........      781,757
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           RELATED FACILITIES,
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000;                             FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    ST. TAMMANY PARISH,    LA-03-00XX...........  BUSES AND BUS-            293,159  ...........  .........      293,159
                                     LA.                                           RELATED FACILITIES,
                                    APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                           FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.                             APPROP. EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NEW MEXICO ST. HWY...  NM-03-0024-01........  PARK AND RIDE           1,615,117  ...........  .........    1,615,117
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           PROJECT & TRANSP.
                                     IN THIRD QUARTER;                             DEPT., FISCAL YEAR
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          1998 APPROP.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.                             EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NEW MEXICO             NM-03-00XX...........  BUSES AND BUS           1,069,745  ...........  .........    1,069,745
                                     (STATEWIDE).                                  FACILITIES, FISCAL
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     IN FISCAL YEAR 2000;                          EARMARK.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.................................  SALT LAKE CITY,        UT-03-0028-01........  3 INTERMODAL            1,539,057  ...........  .........    1,539,057
                                     OGDEN, UT & WEST                              TERMINALS, FISCAL
                                     VALLEY, UT (UTA).                             YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                    APPLICATION                                    EARMARK.
                                     INCOMPLETE; APPROVAL
                                     EXPECTED IN FISCAL
                                     YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    MURRAY CITY & SANDY,   UT-03-0033-01........  TWO PARK AND RIDE         788,553  ...........  .........      788,553
                                     UT (UTA).                                     LOTS, FISCAL YEAR
                                    APPLICATION IN;                                1998 APPROP.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          EARMARK.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    COLORADO (STATEWIDE).  CO-03-00XX...........  BUS AND BUS                60,043  ...........  .........       60,043
                                    IN FINAL PROCESSING..                          FACILITIES, FISCAL
                                                                                   YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                                                                   EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.................................  TUCSON, AZ...........  AZ-03-00XX...........  INTERMODAL CENTER,        977,196  ...........  .........      977,196
                                    NO APPLICATION; NEEDS                          FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     EA; APPROVAL                                  APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     EXPECTED IN FISCAL
                                     YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SONOMA COUNTY, CA....  CA-03-0503...........  3 PARK AND RIDE           977,196  ...........  .........      977,196
                                    NO APPLICATION;                                LOTS, FISCAL YEAR
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          1998 APPROP. EAR-
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.                             MARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    FOLSOM, CA...........  CA-03-0500...........  MULTIMODAL FACILITY,    1,465,794  ...........  .........    1,465,794
                                    APPLICATION IN;                                FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     INCOMPLETE; APPROVAL                          APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     EXPECTED IN FISCAL
                                     YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    INGLEWOOD, CA........  CA-03-0XXX...........  TRANSIT CENTER            488,598  ...........  .........      488,598
                                    NO APPLICATION;                                PROJECT, FISCAL
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.                             EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    LAKE TAHOE, CA.......  CA-03-0XXX...........  INTERMODAL TRANSIT        977,196  ...........  .........      977,196
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           CENTERS, FISCAL
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000;                             YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     ANTICIPATED FISCAL                            EARMARK.
                                     YEAR 2000 OBLIGATION.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA   CA-03-00XX...........  BUSES AND FACILITIES      977,196  ...........  .........      977,196
                                     (SCAG).                                       & ITS APPLICATIONS,
                                    APPLICATION                                    FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     SUBMITTED; APPROVAL                           APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     EXPECTED IN FISCAL
                                     YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    MODESTO, CA..........  CA-03-0XXX...........  BUS MAINTENANCE         1,710,093  ...........  .........    1,710,093
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           FACILITY, FISCAL
                                     IN FOURTH QUARTER;                            YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          EARMARK.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    RIALTO, CA             CA-03-0XXX...........  METROLINK DEPOT,        1,074,916  ...........  .........    1,074,916
                                     (OMNITRANS).                                  FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     IN THIRD QUARTER;
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SACRAMENTO, CA.......  CA-03-0XXX...........  BUS FACILITY, FISCAL      977,196  ...........  .........      977,196
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     IN THIRD QUARTER;                             EARMARK.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SAN JOAQUIN, CA        CA-03-0485...........  BUSES & BUS             1,954,393  ...........  .........    1,954,393
                                     (SMART).                                      FACILITIES, FISCAL
                                    ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES;                          YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     MAY LAPSE.                                    EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SANTA CLARA, CA......  CA-03-0512...........  BUSES & BUS             2,442,991  ...........  .........    2,442,991
                                    OBLIGATION EXPECTED                            FACILITIES, FISCAL
                                     IN FISCAL YEAR 2000;                          YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          EARMARK.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    DOWNEY, CA...........  CA-03-0517...........  FACILITIES, FISCAL      1,942,991  ...........  .........    1,942,991
                                    PORTION OF I-95                                YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     CONSORTIUM CITIES                             EARMARK.
                                     JOINT POWERS FISCAL
                                     YEAR 1998 EM;
                                     APPLICATION IN;
                                     ANTICIPATED FISCAL
                                     YEAR 2000 OBLIGATION.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    BUENA PARK, CA.......  CA-03-0XXX...........  FACILITIES, FISCAL      1,942,990  ...........  .........    1,942,990
                                    PORTION IF I-95                                YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     CONSORTIUM CITIES                             EARMARK.
                                     JOINT POWERS FISCAL
                                     YEAR 1998 EM; NO
                                     APPLICATION.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10................................  EVERETT, WA..........  WA-03-0113...........  MULTIMODAL              2,442,991  ...........  .........    2,442,991
                                    APPLICATION PENDING.                           TRANSPORTATION
                                     OBLIGATION EXPECTED                           CENTER, FISCAL YEAR
                                     IN THIRD QUARTER.                             1998 APPROP.
                                     LAPSING FUND LETTER                           EARMARK.
                                     FORWARDED TO EVERETT
                                     JANUARY 2000.
                                     ENVIRONMENT DONE.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    KING COUNTY/SEATTLE,   WA-03-0112-01........  MULTIMODAL FACILITY/    2,442,990  ...........  .........    2,442,990
                                     WA (METRO KING).                              METRO COMMUTER
                                    2 KING COUNTY FISCAL                           INTERMODAL
                                     YEAR 1998 EM'S                                CONNECTOR, FISCAL
                                     COMBINED;                                     YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     APPLICATION IN;                               EARMARK.
                                     OBLIGATION EXPECTED
                                     IN FOURTH QUARTER.
                                     LAPSE LETTER TO KING
                                     COUNTY JANUARY 2000.
                                     ENVIRONMENT DONE.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    KING COUNTY, WA......  WA-03-0XXX...........  PARK & RIDE             1,400,261  ...........  .........    1,400,261
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           EXPANSION, FISCAL
                                     IN THIRD QUARTER;                             YEAR 1998 APPROP.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          EARMARK.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                     LAPSE LETTER SENT TO
                                     KING COUNTY JANUARY
                                     2000. PROJECT FOR
                                     ROW AND CONSTRUCTION
                                     COMPLETING ENV'T.
                                     EXPECT ENVIRONMENTAL
                                     DETERMINATION MAY
                                     2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    CORVALLIS, OR........  OR-03-00XX...........  BUSES & BUS               678,164  ...........  .........      678,164
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           FACILITIES,
                                     IN THIRD QUARTER;                             AUTOMATED PASSENGER
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          INFORMATION SYSTEM,
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.                             FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     LAPSING FUND LETTER                           APPROP. EARMARK.
                                     MAILED JANUARY 2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         STATUS OF FISCAL YEAR 1998 UNOBLIGATED NEW START EARMARKS--NEW SYSTEMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                   FEDERAL
               REG.                          UZA                PROJECT NO.       PROJECT  DESCRIPTION    CONGRESS      STATUS     DOLLARS     UNOBLIG.
                                                                                                          EARMARK                   OBLIG.     EARMARK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................  BURLINGTON-ESSEX, VT.  VT-03-0027...........  BURLINGTON ESSEX       $4,843,828  ...........  .........   $4,843,828
                                    APPLICATION FOR                                COMMUTER RAIL,
                                     ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS                          FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     IS EXPECTED IN THE                            EARMARK.
                                     THIRD QUARTER OF
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                     GRANTEE WILL REQUEST
                                     CONGRESSIONAL
                                     APPROVAL TO EXTEND
                                     $4,342,828 BALANCE
                                     OF FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     FUNDS.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.................................  NEW YORK.............  NY-03-00XX...........  ST. GEORGE FERRY        2,491,914  ...........  .........    2,491,914
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           TERMINAL PROJECT,
                                     IN FISCAL YEAR 2000,                          FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     APPROVAL IN FISCAL                            EARMARK.
                                     YEAR 2000..
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NASSAU COUNTY, NY....  NY-03-0342...........  NASSAU HUB RAIL LINK      498,383  ...........  .........      498,383
                                    IN FINAL PROCESSING.                           EIS, FISCAL YEAR
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          1998 EARMARK.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NEW JERSEY (NJT).....  NJ-03-00XX...........  BURLINGTON TO           1,488,750  ...........  .........    1,488,750
                                    NO APPLICATION;                                GLOUCESTER LINE,
                                     GRANTEE WILL NOT                              FISCAL YEAR 1995
                                     APPLY FOR THESE                               EARMARK \1\.
                                     FUNDS; LIGHT RAIL TO
                                     BE LOCALLY FUNDED.
                                     WILL NOT BE
                                     OBLIGATED IN FISCAL
                                     YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.................................  PITTSBURGH, PA (PAT).  PA-03-0227-08........  PITTSBURGH AIRPORT      4,983,828  ...........  .........    4,983,828
                                    RECOVERY PLAN/                                 BUSWAY, FISCAL YEAR
                                     ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW                          1998 EARMARK.
                                     COMPLETED. FUNDS MAY
                                     LAPSE SINCE PROJECT
                                     IS UNDER BUDGET AND
                                     FUNDS NOT NEEDED.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    VIRGINIA (PRTC)......  VA-03-0066...........  VIRGINIA RAILWAY        2,979,069    OBLIGATED   $700,000    2,279,069
                                    FD AND CONSTRUCTION    VA-03-0066-01           EXPRESS--WOODBRIDGE
                                     OF SECOND BRIDGE                              STATION
                                     OVER QUANTICO CREEK                           IMPROVEMENTS,
                                     FOR VRE NEED                                  FISCAL YEAR 1997
                                     ENVIRONMENTAL                                 EARMARK.
                                     DOCUMENTATION.
                                    APPLICATION UNDER      VA-03-0067...........  FISCAL YEAR 1998        1,993,530      7-20-99  .........    1,993,530
                                     REVIEW. REHAB PARK                            EARMARK.
                                     AND RIDE LOT AT
                                     WOODBRIDGE AND
                                     ALEXANDRIA KING
                                     STREET. NEED
                                     ENVIRONMENTAL
                                     DOCUMENTATION.
                                     ANTICIPATE
                                     OBLIGATION IN 3RD OR
                                     4TH QUARTER IN
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.................................  MIAMI, FL (MDTA).....  FL-03-0183...........  METRO DADE EAST-WEST    4,983,828    OBLIGATED  .........    4,983,828
                                    DUE TO FAILED SALES                            CORRIDOR PROJECT PE/                11-20-98
                                     TAX REFERENDUM                                EIS, FISCAL YEAR
                                     PROJECT IS ON HOLD.                           1998 EARMARK.
                                     FEIS NEEDS TO BE RE-
                                     EVALUATED. GRANTEE
                                     WANTS TO REPROGRAM
                                     FOR EXTENSION OF
                                     EXISTING BUSWAY
                                     (SOUTH DADE).
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    MEMPHIS, TN (MATA)...  TN-03-0040...........  MEMPHIS MEDICAL                 2  ...........  .........            2
                                    IN FINAL STAGES OF                             CENTER RAIL PLAN
                                     ENVIRONMENTAL                                 EXTENSION PROJECT,
                                     REVIEW. EXPECT                                FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     APPROVAL IN FISCAL                            EARMARK.
                                     YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NORTH CAROLINA         NC-03-0037-01........  TRIANGLE TRANSIT       11,961,188    OBLIGATED  .........   11,961,188
                                     (RALEIGH-DURHAM).                             PROJECT, FISCAL
                                    IN FINAL PROCESSING;                           YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    JACKSON, MS..........  MS-03-0013...........  INTERMODAL CORRIDOR,    2,990,300    OBLIGATED  .........    2,990,300
                                    NO APPLICATION;                                FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     WARNED OF LAPSE IN                            EARMARK.
                                     SEPTEMBER 2000.
                                     WORKING WITH GRANTEE
                                     TO DEFINE PROJECT.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000
                                     OBLIGATION NOT
                                     EXPECTED.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.................................  CLEVELAND, OH........  OH-03-0185...........  BEREA RED LINE            697,736  ...........  .........      697,736
                                    NO APPLICATION                                 EXTENSION TO
                                     SUBMITTED. MIS                                HOPKINS INT.
                                     UNDERWAY; EARLY IN                            AIRPORT, FISCAL
                                     PROJECT DEVELOPMENT                           YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
                                     STAGE POSSIBLE LAPSE.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    MINNEAPOLIS, MN (TWIN  MN-03-0058-01........  HIAWATHA CORRIDOR       6,589,188    OBLIGATED  6,467,000      122,188
                                     CITIES).                                      PROJECT, FISCAL                       7-2-99
                                    PENDING APPROVAL OF                            YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
                                     FINAL DESIGN.
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.................................  HOUSTON, TX (METRO)..  TX-03-0150-04........  REGIONAL BUS PLAN,     50,934,727    OBLIGATED  .........   50,934,727
                                    FFGA; IN FINAL                                 FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     PROCESSING; APPROVAL                          EARMARK.
                                     EXPECTED IN FISCAL
                                     YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    AUSTIN, TX...........  TX-03-0XXX...........  CAPITAL METRO             996,766  ...........  .........      996,766
                                    APPLICATION IN;                                PROJECT, FISCAL
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                          YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    DALLAS, TX (DART)....  TX-03-0153-02........  DALLAS-FORT WORTH       7,974,126    OBLIGATED  .........    7,974,126
                                    APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                           RAILTRAN PROJECT,
                                     3RD QUARTER OF                                FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.                             EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    GALVESTON, TX........  TX-03-0XXX...........  RAIL TROLLEY            1,993,530  ...........  .........    1,993,530
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           (DIESEL) SYSTEM
                                     IN 3RD QUARTER FOR                            PROJECT, FISCAL
                                     $1 MILLION OF                                 YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
                                     EARMARK AND WILL
                                     REQUEST CONGRESS TO
                                     EXTEND PERIOD
                                     AVAILABILITY FOR
                                     REMAINDER.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NEW ORLEANS, LA (RTA)  LA-03-0072-02........  NEW ORLEANS CANAL
                                    APPLICATION NOT                                STREET, CORRIDOR
                                     SUMBITTED.                                    PROJECT AA/EIS.
                                     ADDITIONAL
                                     ENVIRONMENTAL WORK
                                     POSSIBLE LAPSE.
                                                                                  FISCAL YEAR 1997        7,944,183  ...........  .........    7,944,183
                                                                                   EARMARK (extended).
                                                                                  FISCAL YEAR 1998        5,980,594  ...........  .........    5,980,594
                                                                                   EARMARK.
                                                                                                       -------------                        ------------
                                                                                      Total...........   13,924,777                           13,924,777
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NEW ORLEANS, LA......  LA-03-0074-01........  DESIRE STREETCAR        1,993,530  ...........  .........    1,993,530
                                    GRANT APPLICATION                              PROJECT, FISCAL
                                     EXPECTED IN 3RD                               YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
                                     QUARTER OF FISCAL
                                     YEAR 2000. NEEDS TO
                                     ENTER PE. POSSIBLE
                                     LAPSE.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.................................  COLORADO (PITKIN       CO-03-0082...........  ROARING FORK VALLEY     1,993,530    OBLIGATED  1,200,000      793,530
                                     COUNTY).                                      RAIL, ASPEN TO                       6-18-99
                                    NEEDS PE APPROVAL;                             GLENWOOD SPRINGS,
                                     TIGHT TIME SCHEDULE                           FISCAL YEAR 1998
                                     FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000                          EARMARK.
                                     OBLIGATION.
                                     DIFFICULTIES IN
                                     COMPLETING AA/DEIS.
                                     MAY LAPSE.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SALT LAKE CITY, UT     UT-03-0034...........  REGIONAL COMMUTER       3,987,062    OBLIGATED  1,200,000    2,787,062
                                     (UTA).                                        RAIL, FISCAL YEAR                    8-5-99
                                    UTA SEEKING TO REVISE                          1998 EARMARK.
                                     EARMARK LANGUAGE TO
                                     FUND GATEWAY
                                     INTERMODAL TERMINAL.
                                     MAY LAPSE.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.................................  SAN DIEGO, CA........  CA-03-0531...........  MID-COAST CORRIDOR      1,495,150    OBLIGATED  .........    1,495,150
                                    APPROVAL EXPECTED IN                           PROJECT, FISCAL
                                     FISCAL YEAR 2000.                             YEAR 1998 EAR-
                                                                                   MARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SAN DIEGO, CA........  CA-03-0XXX...........  MISSION VALLEY EAST       996,766  ...........  .........      996,766
                                    IN FINAL DESIGN; FFGA                          LRT CORRIDOR
                                     PENDING; 3RD QUARTER                          PROJECT, FISCAL
                                     APPROVAL EXPECTED.                            YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SAN DIEGO, CA........  CA-03-0XXX...........  OCEANSIDE-ESCONDIDO     2,990,300  ...........  .........    2,990,300
                                    IN FINAL DESIGN;                               PASSENGER RAIL
                                     APPLICATION                                   PROJECT, FISCAL
                                     SUBMITTED; 3RD                                YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
                                     QUARTER APPROVAL
                                     EXPECTED.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SAN BERNARDINO, CA...  CA-03-0XXX...........  METROLINK EXTENSION       996,766  ...........  .........      996,766
                                    APPLICATION EXPECTED                           PROJECT, FISCAL
                                     4/2000. APPROVAL                              YEAR 1998 EAR-
                                     EXPECTED IN FISCAL                            MARK.
                                     YEAR 2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Extended by Congress.

            STATE BY STATE BREAKOUT OF FEDERAL TRANSIT FUNDS

    Question. For fiscal year 2001, please prepare a table that 
includes all firewall formula program funds, new starts funds as 
included in the administration's budget, and TEA-21 (Section 3031) 
earmarked bus funds, breaking out the funding distribution by state and 
category. Show a total at the bottom, and note what percentage of that 
total is represented by each state's subtotal.
    Answer. For the Formula program and Capital Investments New Starts 
and Bus and Bus Facilities earmarks, the following table lists the 
fiscal year 2001 funding distribution by state and category:

                                              FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 2001 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENTS/ALLOCATIONS BY STATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Section 5310
                                   Section 5307    Section 5311      elderly &     Section 5309    Section 5309    Section 5309    Metropolitan   State planning   RTAP section    State  total
              State                  urbanized     non-urbanized   persons with     new starts    fixed guideway  bus allocation     planning      section 5313        5311        selected FTA
                                       area            area        disabilities                    modernization                   section 5303                                      programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................     $13,046,848      $4,974,114      $1,363,957  ..............  ..............  ..............        $456,460        $119,192        $110,266     $20,070,837
Alaska..........................   \1\ 7,433,414         741,748         197,821  \2\ $5,161,000  ..............  ..............         208,454          54,432          71,750      13,868,619
American Samoa..................  ..............         105,722          52,867  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          10,962         169,551
Arizona.........................      33,260,503       2,177,536       1,200,201  ..............      $1,886,447  ..............         830,166         172,054          84,816      39,611,723
Arkansas........................       5,119,390       3,976,597         946,967       5,672,000  ..............  ..............         208,454          54,432         101,188      16,079,028
California......................     482,887,208       9,705,577       7,477,863     251,248,165     105,855,347     $50,000,000       8,884,840       1,649,677         153,323     917,862,000
Colorado........................      37,142,854       2,071,753         926,429      40,203,485       1,399,669  ..............         678,052         154,034          83,853      82,660,129
Connecticut.....................      52,359,019       1,879,275       1,064,511  ..............      38,394,771  ..............         609,211         159,078          82,102      94,547,967
Delaware........................       6,122,420         468,834         308,825  ..............         933,856  ..............         208,454          54,432          69,266       8,166,087
District of Columbia............      28,364,148  ..............         306,385  ..............      53,515,908   \3\ 4,813,625         281,035          54,432  ..............      87,335,533
Florida.........................     146,712,613       6,239,173       5,039,527      38,800,000      17,274,352  ..............       2,841,705         659,300         121,778     217,688,448
Georgia.........................      51,231,289       7,272,683       1,774,590      25,000,000      21,678,953  ..............       1,005,971         211,224         131,183     108,305,893
Guam............................  ..............         300,966         134,536  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          12,739         448,241
Hawaii..........................      25,780,183         816,248         398,306   \2\ 5,161,000         777,032  ..............         208,454          54,432          72,428      33,268,083
Idaho...........................       3,072,028       1,646,756         408,081  ..............  ..............  ..............         208,454          54,432          79,986       5,469,737
Illinois........................     206,007,568       6,672,281       3,250,600      45,800,000     119,210,579  ..............       3,045,133         549,244         125,719     384,661,124
Indiana.........................      32,873,659       6,445,272       1,695,963  ..............       8,801,272  ..............         739,263         174,430         123,653      50,853,512
Iowa............................       9,360,438       4,145,662       1,019,530  ..............  ..............  ..............         233,854          61,064         102,726      14,923,274
Kansas..........................       7,996,681       3,297,743         851,478  ..............  ..............  ..............         270,342          65,984          95,010      12,577,238
Kentucky........................      17,131,642       5,443,854       1,306,330  ..............  ..............  ..............         323,818          82,714         114,540      24,402,898
Louisiana.......................      27,667,179       4,502,461       1,310,621  ..............       2,789,416  ..............         559,575         144,329         105,973      37,079,554
Maine...........................       2,203,751       2,172,613         515,251  ..............  ..............  ..............         208,454          54,432          84,771       5,239,272
Maryland........................      77,392,198       2,712,403       1,316,914      30,000,000      25,244,770  ..............       1,209,890         232,005          89,683     138,197,863
Massachusetts...................     115,219,238       2,906,872       1,905,644      35,969,249      66,655,030  ..............       1,475,688         306,431          91,453     224,529,605
Michigan........................      62,637,557       7,872,306       2,778,229  ..............         567,771  ..............       1,901,088         376,528         136,640      76,270,119
Minnesota.......................      29,392,604       4,530,057       1,335,764      20,000,000       3,264,028  ..............         771,946         153,588         106,225      59,554,212

Mississippi.....................       4,618,496       4,420,748         919,424  ..............  ..............  ..............         208,454          54,432         105,230      10,326,784
Missouri........................      33,532,798       5,276,351       1,720,175      60,000,000       2,105,783  ..............         853,487         180,264         113,016     103,781,874
Montana.........................       2,324,606       1,334,002         372,751  ..............  ..............  ..............         208,454          54,432          77,140       4,371,385
Nebraska........................       8,078,023       2,012,840         594,428  ..............  ..............  ..............         208,454          54,432          83,317      11,031,494
Nevada..........................      18,703,029         657,162         437,100  ..............  ..............  ..............         226,025          59,020          70,980      20,153,316
New Hampshire...................       3,256,965       1,739,992         411,825  ..............  ..............  ..............         208,454          54,432          80,834       5,752,502
New Jersey......................     176,774,768       2,487,820       2,291,863     131,000,000      89,510,699  ..............       2,583,534         429,457          87,640     405,165,781
New Mexico......................       6,743,181       1,955,803         520,371  ..............  ..............  ..............         208,454          54,432          82,798       9,565,039
New York........................     511,629,103       8,757,424       5,337,074      15,000,000     334,423,700  ..............       5,246,297         914,428         144,694     881,452,720
North Carolina..................      26,423,807       9,302,971       2,020,953  ..............  ..............  ..............         623,394         162,782         149,659      38,683,566
North Dakota....................       2,266,047         986,554         314,324  ..............  ..............  ..............         208,454          54,432          73,978       3,903,789
Northern Marianas...............  ..............          97,974          52,619  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          10,892         161,485
Ohio............................      86,171,474       9,471,071       3,393,254       8,800,000      16,555,990  ..............       1,795,921         431,234         151,189     126,770,133
Oklahoma........................      10,888,938       4,048,785       1,124,568  ..............  ..............  ..............         335,987          87,733         101,845      16,587,856
Oregon..........................      26,177,070       3,214,771       1,044,095      40,209,232       3,583,779  ..............         377,404          91,990          94,255      74,792,596
Pennsylvania....................     141,740,405      10,565,079       4,072,337      20,000,000     100,145,538   \4\ 2,977,500       2,329,261         466,897         161,145     282,458,162
Puerto Rico.....................      42,415,576       3,157,178         989,437     118,000,000       2,503,755  ..............         564,864         137,673          93,731     167,862,214
Rhode Island....................      10,057,038         404,440         456,412  ..............       1,785,542  ..............         208,454          54,432          68,680      13,034,998
South Carolina..................      10,959,566       4,656,183       1,086,351  ..............  ..............  ..............         353,947          92,423         107,372      17,255,842
South Dakota....................       1,634,658       1,202,532         341,032  ..............  ..............  ..............         208,454          54,432          75,943       3,517,051
Tennessee.......................      21,984,782       6,010,601       1,614,124      22,974,990          88,672  ..............         550,245         143,681         119,698      53,486,793
Texas...........................     158,452,230      12,690,049       4,206,514      80,744,873       6,149,522  ..............       3,541,065         736,686         180,482     266,701,421
Utah............................      19,572,743         911,586         483,564      15,718,006  ..............      35,000,000         327,355          85,480          73,296      72,172,030
Vermont.........................         821,531       1,075,168         278,448  ..............  ..............  ..............         208,454          54,432          74,784       2,512,817
Virgin Islands..................  ..............         230,121         137,109  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          12,094         379,324
Virginia........................      58,221,090       5,328,980       1,679,979  ..............       5,863,181  ..............       1,164,748         248,088         113,495      72,619,561
Washington......................      82,706,220       3,733,949       1,504,629      35,000,000      18,695,054  ..............         928,346         208,249          98,980     142,875,427
West Virginia...................       3,960,684       3,174,933         788,425  ..............  ..............  ..............         208,454          54,432          93,893       8,280,821
Wisconsin.......................      35,490,834       5,485,912       1,536,567  ..............         801,584  ..............         649,965         159,663         114,923      44,239,448
Wyoming.........................       1,135,107         767,267         233,859  ..............  ..............  ..............         208,454          54,432          71,982       2,471,101

Unallocated.....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  \5\ 382,814,87  ..............  ..............  ..............     382,814,875
                                                                                                                               5
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................   2,987,155,201     208,236,752      78,850,801   1,050,462,000   1,050,462,000     475,606,000      52,113,600      10,886,400       5,250,000   5,919,022,754
Oversight.......................      15,010,830       1,046,416  ..............       7,938,000       7,938,000       3,594,000  ..............  ..............  ..............      35,527,246
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................   3,002,166,031     209,283,168      78,850,801   1,058,400,000   1,058,400,000     479,200,000      52,113,600      10,886,400       5,250,000   5,954,550,000
                                 ===============================================================================================================================================================
Clean Fuels.....................      50,000,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............      50,000,000  ..............  ..............  ..............     100,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility.       4,700,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       4,700,000
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total...............   3,056,866,031     209,283,168      78,850,801   1,058,400,000   1,058,400,000     529,200,000      52,113,600      10,886,400       5,250,000   6,059,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,825,700 for the Alaska Railroad.
\2\ Amount for Alaska/Hawaii Ferries distributed one-half to Alaska and one-half to Hawaii.
\3\ Includes $4,850,000 for the Fuel Cell Bus activities (excluding Oversight the total is $4,813,625).
\4\ Includes $3,000,000 for Bus Testing (excluding Oversight the total is $2,977,500).
\5\ Includes $15,000,000 for transit service for the Mississippi Delta Region.

    Question. For fiscal year 2000 enacted, please prepare a table that 
includes all firewall formula program funds, new starts funds as 
earmarked in the fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill 
(before project management oversight is subtracted), and all earmarked 
bus funds (before project management oversight is subtracted), breaking 
out the funding distribution by state and category. Show a total at the 
bottom, and note what percentage of that total is represented by each 
state's subtotal.
    Answer. For the Formula Grants and Capital Investments New Starts 
and Bus and Bus Facilities earmarks, the following table lists the 
fiscal year 2000 apportionments and allocations by state:

                                                  FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Sections 5303 &
                                                   5313(b)                         Section 5311     Section 5310                      Section 5309                      State total      State
                    State                        metropolitan     Section 5307    non-urbanized     elderly and      Section 5309    fixed guideway    Section 5309     selected FTA    percent
                                                  and state      urbanized area        area         persons with      new starts     modernization    bus allocation      programs      of total
                                                   planning                                         disabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................         $548,405      $12,150,687       $4,626,529       $1,263,045       $2,965,736  ...............      $25,762,347      $47,316,749        0.8
Alaska.......................................          250,444    \1\ 7,278,545          689,915          191,890       15,026,397  ...............       15,495,348       38,932,539        0.7
American Samoa...............................  ...............  ...............           98,334           52,634  ...............  ...............  ...............          150,968  .........
Arizona......................................          954,765       30,975,905        2,025,373        1,112,627        4,942,894       $1,537,626        6,920,044       48,469,234        0.9
Arkansas.....................................          250,444        4,767,749        3,698,718          880,019  ...............  ...............        5,101,063       14,697,993        0.3
California...................................       10,035,627      449,718,653        9,027,365        6,878,982      192,772,850       96,152,878       37,744,718      802,331,073       14.3
Colorado.....................................          792,693       34,591,586        1,926,982          861,153       38,554,570        1,228,501        9,762,209       87,717,694        1.6
Connecticut..................................          731,925       48,762,579        1,747,954          987,989          988,579       37,176,188        6,672,902       97,068,116        1.7
Delaware.....................................          250,444        5,701,883          436,072          293,852          988,579          761,099        2,471,444       10,903,373        0.2
District of Columbia.........................          319,582       25,303,653  ...............          291,611  ...............       46,733,862        7,266,050       79,914,758        1.4
Florida......................................        3,335,263      136,635,219        5,803,188        4,639,244       20,265,864       13,928,047       14,581,527      199,188,352        3.6
Georgia......................................        1,159,565       47,712,313        6,764,478        1,640,232       45,615,004       17,654,104       21,501,572      142,047,268        2.5
Guam.........................................  ...............  ...............          279,935          133,760  ...............  ...............  ...............          413,695  .........
Hawaii.......................................          250,444       24,009,395          759,209          376,045        5,140,609          630,723        4,201,456       35,367,881        0.6
Idaho........................................          250,444        2,861,016        1,531,683          385,025  ...............  ...............  ...............        5,028,168        0.1
Illinois.....................................        3,424,159      191,857,322        6,206,031        2,996,023       31,634,518      115,365,239        8,748,916      360,232,208        6.4
Indiana......................................          870,439       30,615,633        5,994,885        1,568,010        4,942,894        7,719,142        9,144,347       60,855,350        1.1
Iowa.........................................          280,960        8,717,488        3,855,969          946,671  ...............  ...............       10,464,100       24,265,188        0.4
Kansas.......................................          320,405        7,447,404        3,067,301          792,307          988,579  ...............        6,702,560       19,318,556        0.3
Kentucky.....................................          387,289       15,954,904        5,063,445        1,210,112  ...............  ...............        5,931,471       28,547,221        0.5
Louisiana....................................          670,586       25,766,777        4,187,835        1,214,053          988,579        2,729,493        4,942,891       40,500,214        0.7
Maine........................................          250,444        2,052,381        2,020,794          483,465          494,289  ...............  ...............        5,301,373        0.1
Maryland.....................................        1,373,617       70,753,720        2,522,864        1,219,834       11,569,350       22,803,052       11,368,647      121,611,084        2.2
Massachusetts................................        1,697,739      107,305,062        2,703,744        1,760,613       55,256,605       63,712,167       12,241,067      244,676,997        4.4
Michigan.....................................        2,169,767       58,335,107        7,322,200        2,562,126  ...............          443,456       27,185,880       98,018,536        1.8
Minnesota....................................          881,709       27,373,685        4,213,503        1,237,149       45,276,905        2,895,851       23,986,424      105,865,226        1.9
Mississippi..................................          250,444        4,301,261        4,111,832          854,719  ...............  ...............        5,140,607       14,658,863        0.3
Missouri.....................................          984,805       31,229,498        4,907,646        1,590,250       51,900,383        1,897,058       14,532,097      107,041,737        1.9
Montana......................................          250,444        2,164,933        1,240,784          352,572  ...............  ...............          593,147        4,601,880        0.1
Nebraska.....................................          250,444        7,523,160        1,872,185          556,193  ...............  ...............          996,241       11,198,223        0.2
Nevada.......................................          271,553       17,418,357          611,240          411,680        3,460,025  ...............        5,387,751       27,560,606        0.5
New Hampshire................................          250,444        3,033,251        1,618,404          388,463          988,579  ...............        2,965,735        9,244,876        0.2
New Jersey...................................        2,870,292      165,948,966        2,313,974        2,115,374      113,192,257       86,282,903       10,775,501      383,499,267        6.8
New Mexico...................................          250,444        6,280,007        1,819,134          488,168        9,885,787  ...............        8,650,058       27,373,598        0.5
New York.....................................        5,868,960      476,486,339        8,145,467        4,912,556        6,425,761      319,167,476       26,884,383      847,890,942       15.1
North Carolina...............................          748,964       24,608,809        8,652,892        1,866,530       11,862,945  ...............        7,247,266       54,987,406        1.0
North Dakota.................................          250,444        2,110,397          917,615          298,904  ...............  ...............          988,579        4,565,939        0.1
Northern Marianas............................  ...............  ...............           91,127           52,406  ...............  ...............  ...............          143,533  .........
Ohio.........................................        2,121,724       80,252,528        8,809,245        3,127,059        5,437,184       15,660,310       13,603,082      129,011,132        2.3
Oklahoma.....................................          403,664       10,140,999        3,765,861        1,043,154  ...............  ...............        4,942,891       20,296,569        0.4
Oregon.......................................          447,175       24,379,019        2,990,127          969,236       11,429,952        2,889,741        8,353,486       51,458,736        0.9
Pennsylvania.................................        2,663,758      130,688,045        9,826,805        3,750,831       23,231,600       97,354,625       28,562,002      296,077,666        5.3
Puerto Rico..................................          669,281       39,502,140        2,936,559          919,030       31,634,519        1,983,748          593,147       78,238,424        1.4
Rhode Island.................................          250,444        9,366,240          376,178          429,419  ...............        1,457,827        3,256,377       15,136,485        0.3
South Carolina...............................          425,242       10,206,774        4,330,816        1,008,050        2,471,447  ...............        8,669,829       27,112,158        0.5
South Dakota.................................          250,444        1,522,376        1,118,501          323,437  ...............  ...............        1,482,867        4,697,625        0.1
Tennessee....................................          661,081       20,474,689        5,590,588        1,492,836        3,954,315           71,620        3,460,023       35,705,152        0.6
Texas........................................        4,075,207      147,568,466       11,803,288        3,874,080      107,033,398        5,177,110       16,163,255      295,694,804        5.3
Utah.........................................          393,295       18,228,330          847,886          454,360       47,380,600  ...............       14,136,666       81,441,137        1.5
Vermont......................................          250,444          765,102        1,000,036          265,950  ...............  ...............        4,201,456        6,482,988        0.1
Virgin Islands...............................  ...............  ...............          214,041          136,122  ...............  ...............          350,163  ...............  .........
Virginia.....................................        1,345,942       56,656,783        4,956,598        1,553,327       27,877,920          994,643       10,562,959      103,948,172        1.9
Washington...................................        1,082,785       77,025,296        3,473,026        1,392,260       31,634,519       15,347,558       19,573,845      149,529,289        2.7
West Virginia................................          250,444        3,688,632        2,953,073          734,389  ...............  ...............       21,254,427       28,880,965        0.5
Wisconsin....................................          771,303       33,053,041        5,102,564        1,421,596          988,579          643,953       20,018,705       61,999,741        1.1
Wyoming......................................          250,444        1,057,139          713,651          224,993  ...............  ...............  ...............        2,246,227  .........
                                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................       60,017,074  \2\ 2,782,329,2  \3\ 193,685,449   \4\ 72,986,415  \5\ 969,202,571      980,400,000  \6\ 541,193,365    5,599,814,117      100.0
                                                                             43
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,849,950 in funds appropriated for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations.
\2\ Includes $4,589,012 in reapportioned recoveries.
\3\ Includes $72,481 in reapportioned recoveries.
\4\ Includes $39,614 in reapportioned recoveries.
\5\ Includes a reduction of $11,197,429 as part of Public Law 106-113.
\6\ Includes $1,199,750 of reallocated bus funds as part of Public Law 106-69; and a net reduction of $6,206,385 as part of Public Law 106-113.

                           ELIGIBILITY ISSUES

    Question. Please provide a list of any of the fiscal year 2000 bus 
and bus facilities projects or new starts grantees who have encountered 
problems with having grants released because the project name listed in 
the appropriations legislation does not precisely match the description 
of the project forwarded by the grantee in their application.
    Answer. The bus and bus facilities projects and new start grantees 
who have encountered problems because the project name listed in the 
appropriations legislation does not precisely match the description of 
the project forwarded by the grantee are listed below:
  --Fiscal year 2000 New Starts Earmark: AK Girdwood, Alaska Commuter 
        Rail Project ($9,810,787) Desired Change: AK Special Olympics, 
        South Anchorage double track, North Anchorage Commuter rail 
        service and track improvements
  --Fiscal year 2000 Bus Earmark: AK Whittier Intermodal facility and 
        pedestrian overpass ($1,133,165) Desired Change: AK Whittier 
        Intermodal facility and pedestrian underpass
  --Fiscal year 2000 Bus Earmark: AL Baldwin Rural Area Transportation 
        System buses ($981,096) Desired Change: AL Baldwin Rural Area 
        Transportation System vehicles, amenities and equipment
  --Fiscal year 2000 Bus Earmark: Huntsville Space and Rocket Center 
        intermodal center ($3,433,833) Desired Change: Huntsville Space 
        and Rocket Center Intermodal Centers, vehicles and facilities
  --Fiscal year 2000 Bus Earmark: MA Swampscott, buses ($63,772) 
        Desired Change: MA Saugus, buses
  --Fiscal year 2000 Bus Earmark: MI Michigan statewide buses 
        ($22,074,625) Desired Change: MI Michigan statewide buses and 
        bus facilities
                     bus and bus-related facilities
    Question. Are there any fiscal year 2001 bus and bus facilities 
earmarks in TEA-21? If so, please list the projects and locations, and 
the amount which is designated in TEA-21.
    Answer. There are three fiscal year 2001 TEA-21 bus and bus 
facilities earmarks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Project                      Location          TEA-21 amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleans Fuels Formula Program...  .......................     $50,000,000
Fuel Cell Bus..................  Georgetown University..       4,850,000
Bus Testing Facility...........  Altoona, Pennsylvania..       3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. FTA has requested that $50,000,000 of the fiscal year 
2001 bus and bus facilities funds be made available in Los Angeles to 
implement the Bus Consent Decree issued by the Special Master. How much 
in Section 5307 formula funds has the LACMTA received in fiscal years 
1999 and 2000, and will be receiving in fiscal year 2001? Can't these 
funds be used to comply with the Bus Consent Decree?
    Answer. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the LACMTA received $137 
million and $91 million, respectively, in Section 5307 formula funds. 
It is projected that in fiscal year 2001, LACMTA will receive $96 
million in Section 5307 funds.
    The $50 million requested could help the LACMTA accelerate the 
purchase of 2,095 buses under its Accelerated Bus Procurement Program. 
The MTA has options on current procurements, which it could exercise 
immediately rather than wait a year or two when additional funds are 
projected to be available. Under its 5-year capital program, MTA (the 
programming agency for Los Angeles County) has chosen to apply fiscal 
year 2000 and 2001 Section 5307 funds to the capitalized preventive 
maintenance program and to capital improvements to bus facilities. New 
buses for these years will be purchased with other sources of federal 
funds, including CMAQ and STP. The MTA believes that this is the most 
efficient use of its federal funding.
    Question. Please specify all eligible activities for the 
$35,000,000 in bus and bus facilities funds requested for the 2002 
Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games.
    Answer. Capital Investment Bus category funds can be used for any 
eligible purpose under U.S.C. Section 5309, including planning, bus 
lease or purchase, park-and-ride facilities, maintenance facilities and 
preventive maintenance expenses. Operational costs would not be 
eligible. The Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC) recently submitted 
preliminary information outlining funding needs in fiscal year 2001 for 
the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Funding is proposed as follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Planning..........................................................     2
Venue Loading and Unloading.......................................     5
Transit Bus.......................................................     8
Bus Maintenance Facilities........................................     2
Park-and-Ride.....................................................    18
                                                                  ______
      Total.......................................................    35

    Question. Please provide a complete summary of all federal transit 
funding provided in support of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia.
    Answer. The following table provides a summary of FTA funding for 
the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta Georgia:

                                                 SUMMARY OF FTA FUNDS: 1996 OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Obligation
           Project Number                 Grantee            Date               Description           Local share    Percent    Federal share   Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           FTA FUNDED PROJECTS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE 1996 ATLANTA OLYMPIC GAMES

GA-90-X094.........................  MARTA............         7/25/95  Operating Assistance:       ..............  .........     $10,400,000        100
                                                                         delivery, preparation,
                                                                         maintenance, fuel, tire
                                                                         lease, insurance, clean
                                                                         up, and return of 1600
                                                                         buses.

                                         FTA FUNDED PROJECTS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE 1996 ATLANTA PARALYMPIC GAMES

GA-90-X094.........................  MARTA............         7/25/95  Operating Assistance:       ..............  .........       4,350,000        100
                                                                         Paralympic transit
                                                                         expenses.
                                                                        Planning Assistance:        ..............  .........         250,000        100
                                                                         Prepare Paralympic's
                                                                         operations plan.
GA-90-X090.........................  ARC..............         3/14/95  Planning Assistance:        ..............  .........       1,000,000        100
                                                                         Paralympics
                                                                         transportation planning.
                                                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------
      Total........................  .................  ..............  ..........................  ..............  .........       5,600,000        100
                                                                                                   =====================================================

                                      FTA FUNDED PROJECTS ACCELERATED IN SUPPORT OF THE 1996 ATLANTA OLYMPIC GAMES

GA-03-0036.........................  MARTA............         9/30/91  Capital Assistance: North       23,125,000         20      92,500,000         80
                                                                         Line Rail Ext./ Medical
                                                                         Center to Dunwoody.
GA-03-0050.........................  MARTA............        12/08/94  Capital Assistance: AUC/           750,000         20       3,000,000         80
                                                                         MARTA Pedestrian Walkways.
GA-03-0053.........................  MARTA............         7/25/95  Capital Assistance: MARTA        3,325,000         20      13,300,000         80
                                                                         ITS Project.
                                                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------
      Total........................  .................  ..............  ..........................      27,200,000         20     108,800,000         80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What states have traditionally submitted a consolidated 
statewide bus and bus facilities grant request to FTA?
    Answer. Alabama, Illinois, Iowa,, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, 
Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, 
Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have 
traditionally submitted a consolidated statewide bus and bus facilities 
request to FTA.

                               NEW STARTS

    Question. Please provide a table broken out alphabetically by state 
that shows all new start projects that received appropriated federal 
funds in fiscal year 2000, with a federal funding history for each 
project back to the first year of federal funding, and total for each 
project.
    Answer. The table below contains the information requested for all 
New Starts projects that received appropriated federal funds in fiscal 
year 2000.

                                                           FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION--CAPITAL NEW STARTS--DISPOSITION OF EARMARKS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                              Annual Earmarks
                                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                Fiscal year                                               Total
                    State                        Project location and description  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- earmarks
                                                                                     1991 &
                                                                                     prior     1992     1993     1994   1993 \1\    1995     1996     1997     1998     1999     2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK/HI........................................  Alask or Hawaii Ferry Projects.....  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......   $10.32   $10.20    $20.52
AK...........................................  Girwood, Alaska Commuter Rail        .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     9.81      9.81
                                                Project (under study).
AL...........................................  Birmingham--Transit Center.........  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     2.94      2.94
AZ...........................................  Phoenix--Metropolitan Area Transit.  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......    $3.99    $4.96     4.91     13.86
CA...........................................  Sacramento--South LRT Extension....  .......  .......    $0.99    $0.99  ........  .......    $1.98    $5.96    20.23    23.31    24.53     77.99
CA...........................................  San Franciso BART to the Airport     .......   $22.50    18.25    14.75  ........  .......     1.11    27.31    29.80    39.70    63.77    217.19
                                                (Under Construction].
CA...........................................  San Jose (San Jose LRT)--(Under      .......    34.77    25.97    13.24  ........   $20.00     8.77  .......    21.33    26.80    19.62    170.50
                                                Construction).
CA...........................................  San Diego--Mission Valley-East LRT.  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......     1.00     1.49    19.62     22.11
CA...........................................  San Diego--Mid-Coast (2 (3)........    $0.40     1.05  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......     1.49     1.50     1.99     4.91     11.33
CA...........................................  San Diego--Oceanside-Escondido LRT   .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......     2.99     2.98     1.96      7.93
                                                Project.
CA...........................................  Los Angeles--North Hollywood         .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    49.05     49.05
                                                Extension Project.
CA...........................................  Los Angeles--East Side & Mid-City    .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     7.94     3.92     11.86
                                                projects.
CA...........................................  Los Angeles-San Diego CR (LOSSAN)..  .......    10.00  .......  .......  ........  .......     8.40     1.49  .......  .......     0.98     20.87
CA...........................................  Orange County--Transitway Project..  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.98      0.98
CA...........................................  Stockton-Altamont Commuter Rail      .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.98      0.98
                                                Project.
CA...........................................  San Bernardino Metrolink Project...  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......     1.00     0.99     0.98      2.97
CO...........................................  Denver--Southwest LRT Extension....  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......     2.83    22.93    39.70    34.34     99.80
CO...........................................  Denver--Southeast Multimodal         .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.50     2.94      3.44
                                                Corridor.
CO...........................................  Roaring Fork Valley Rail...........  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......     1.99  .......     0.98      2.97
CT...........................................  Stamford, CT--Fixed Guideway         .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.99     0.98      1.97
                                                Connector.
DE...........................................  Wilmington--Downtown Transit         .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.98      0.98
                                                Connector.
FL...........................................  Ft. Lauderdale-Tri-County Commuter   .......  .......     4.64     9.93  ........     9.93     9.88     8.94     7.97     3.97     9.81     65.07
                                                Rail.
FL...........................................  Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade   .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.49      0.49
                                                Counties Rail Corridor.
FL...........................................  Miami--East/West Corridor Project..  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......     1.49     4.98     2.98     1.47     10.92
FL...........................................  Tampa Bay Regional Rail............  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........     0.49     0.49     1.99     1.00     0.99     0.98      5.94
FL...........................................  Pinellas County-Mobility Inititive   .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     2.45      2.45
                                                Project.
FL...........................................  Orlando--I-4 LRT Project...........  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......     1.99    31.70    17.37     4.91     55.97
GA...........................................  Atlanta--DeKalb County Light Rail    .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......     0.66     1.00     0.99     0.98      3.63
                                                Project.
GA...........................................  Atlanta--Dunwoody--North Springs...    10.00  .......    29.46  .......  ........  .......    60.27    63.96    44.46    51.72    44.29    304.16
IL...........................................  Chicago--Metra Com. Rail Exts. &     .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     5.96    24.53     30.49
                                                Upgrades Projs.
IL...........................................  Chicago--Ravenswood & Douglas Br.    .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     2.98  .......      2.98
                                                Lines Projs.
IL...........................................  Chicago--Ravenswood................  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     3.43      3.43
IL...........................................  Chicago--Douglas Branch Line.......  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     3.43      3.43
IN...........................................  Indianapolis--Northeast Corridor     .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......     1.25  .......     0.98      2.23
                                                Project.
IN...........................................  Northern Indiana Commuter Rail.....  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......     0.50     3.99     2.98     3.92     11.38
KS/MO........................................  KC Area--Johnson Cnty, KS-I-35       .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.99     0.98      1.97
                                                Commuter Rail.
LA...........................................  New Orleans--Canal Street LRT......  .......  .......  .......     3.57  ........     9.93     4.94     7.94     5.98    21.84     0.98     55.18
ME...........................................  Branch Rail Line Regional Transit    .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.49      0.49
                                                Program Calais (plan & env.).
MA...........................................  Boston--S. Boston Piers Transitway-- .......    10.75    37.96     9.93    $10.00    23.82    19.95    29.79    46.10    53.58    52.88    294.76
                                                Phase 1 (MOS-2).
MA...........................................  Boston Metropolitan Urban Ring.....  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........     1.09  .......  .......     1.00     0.74     0.98      3.81
MA...........................................  Boston--North Shore Corridor         .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.99     0.98      1.97
                                                Project.
MA/NH........................................  Lowell, Ma-Nashua, NH Commuter Rail  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.98      0.98
                                                Project.
MD...........................................  MARC System-wide Improvements......  .......  .......     9.93    23.32  ........    13.90     9.88    32.96    30.90    16.91     0.69    138.49
MD...........................................  MARC--Expansion Projects--Silver     .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     1.47      1.47
                                                Spring Intermodal and Penn-Camden
                                                Rail Connection.
MD...........................................  Baltimore--Double Tracking Project.  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.99     4.66      5.65
MD...........................................  Washington, DC/MD--Largo Extension.  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.99     4.66      5.65
MN...........................................  Twin Cities--Transitways [other]     .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......     1.50  .......     2.94      4.44
                                                Projects.
MN...........................................  Twin Cities--Transitway [Hiawatha]   .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......    10.46    16.87    41.99     69.32
                                                Project.
MO/IL........................................  St. Louis--St. Clair LRT Extension      4.45     2.05     1.99  .......  ........     5.95     1.98    31.77    29.90    34.74    49.05    161.88
                                                (1).
MO...........................................  St. Louis--Metrolink...............   275.71    17.92    41.29     7.05  ........     6.05    10.37    13.40  .......  .......     2.45    374.24
NC...........................................  Charlotte--South Corridor            .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......     1.00     2.98     3.92      7.90
                                                Transitway Project.
NC...........................................  North Carolina--Research Triangle    .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......     1.99    11.96     9.93     7.85     31.73
                                                Transit Plan.
NJ...........................................  New Jersey Urban Core--Newark--Rail  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     5.96    11.77     17.73
                                                Link.
NJ...........................................  New Jersey Urban Core--Hudson-       .......  .......    21.86    16.74  ........    50.49  .......     9.93    59.81    69.48    97.13    325.43
                                                Bergen LRT.
NJ/NY........................................  Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor......  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     4.91      4.91
NJ...........................................  New Jersey--West Trenton--Commuter   .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......     0.50  .......     0.99     0.98      2.47
                                                Rail.
NM...........................................  Albuquerque--Light Rail Project....  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     4.96     6.87     11.83
NM...........................................  Santa Fe/El Dorado Rail Link.......  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     2.94      2.94
NV...........................................  Las Vegas Clark Cnty--Fixed          .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......     4.98     3.97     3.43     12.38
                                                Guideway Project.
NY...........................................  New York--Whitehall Ferry Terminal.  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........     2.48     2.47     3.72     2.49  .......     1.96     13.12
NY...........................................  New York--East Side Access (LIRR to  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......    19.94    23.82     1.96     45.72
                                                GCT).
OH...........................................  Dayton--Light Rail Study...........  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.99     0.98      1.97
OH...........................................  Cincinnati--Northeast Corridor.....  .......  .......  .......     1.34  ........     1.19     0.99     2.98     0.50     1.79     0.98      9.76
OH...........................................  Cleveland--Euclid Ave Corridor/         4.73     1.00  .......     0.79  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     1.99     0.98      9.49
                                                Berea Ext. (2 (3).
OH...........................................  Ohio--Canton-Akron-Cleveland         .......  .......  .......     0.99  ........  .......     4.20     3.48     1.99     2.18     2.45     15.30
                                                Commuter Rail.
OR...........................................  Portland--Westside/Hillsboro            1.00    13.31    67.49    82.87     10.38    89.62   128.58   137.04    63.20    25.53    10.85    629.84
                                                Extension.
OR...........................................  Portland-Wilsonville to Washington   .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.49      0.49
                                                County, OR Connec. To Westside.
PA...........................................  Harrisburg--Corridor One Project...  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.99     0.49      1.48
PA...........................................  Pittsburgh--Stage II LRT             .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     3.97     7.84     11.81
                                                Reconstruction.
PA...........................................  Pittsburgh--North Shore CBD Transit  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.99     9.81     10.80
                                                Options MIS.
PA...........................................  Philadelphia--Cross County Metro     .......     0.51     0.70  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.99     0.98      3.18
                                                Study.
PA...........................................  Philadelphia--Schuylkill Valley      .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     2.98     3.92      6.90
                                                Metro Project.
PR...........................................  San Juan-Tren Urbano Phase I.......  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........     4.96     7.41     6.06    14.95    19.85    31.39     84.62
SC...........................................  Charleston--Monobeam Rail Project..  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......     1.50     2.18     2.45      6.13
TN...........................................  Memphis--Regional Rail.............  .......  .......  .......     0.50  ........  .......     1.23     3.02     1.00     2.18     2.45     10.38
TN...........................................  Knoxville-Memphis Commuter Rail      .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.49      0.49
                                                Feasibility Study.
TN...........................................  Nashville--Regional Commuter Rail    .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.99     0.98      1.97
                                                Project.
TX...........................................  Austin--Capital Metro..............  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......     1.00     0.99     0.98      2.97
TX...........................................  Dallas--North Central..............  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........     2.48     2.96    10.92    10.96    15.88    49.05     92.25
TX...........................................  Galveston--Rail Trolley System       .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......     1.99  .......     1.47      3.46
                                                Extension.
TX...........................................  Houston--Regional Bus..............   146.07    15.36    33.75    38.71      1.00    29.77    22.36    40.31    50.94    59.23    51.77    489.27
TX...........................................  Houston--Advanced Regional Transit   .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......     1.00     1.99     2.94      5.92
                                                Project.
UT...........................................  Salt Lake City--South LRT..........    15.52     2.56     2.98     2.98  ........     4.96     9.64    34.75    63.20    69.48    37.21    243.28
UT...........................................  Salt Lake City--Olympic Transport.   .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     9.81      9.81
                                                Infrastructure Investments.
VA...........................................  Norfolk--Tidewater Rail Project....  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......     1.99     7.94     0.98     10.91
VA...........................................  Washington, DC/VA--Dulles Corridor   .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......    16.87    24.53     41.40
                                                Project.
VA...........................................  Virginia Railway Express- Commuter   .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......     2.98     1.99     1.99     2.16      9.12
                                                Rail Project.
WA...........................................  Seattle--Link LRT Project..........  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......     2.98     8.97     4.96    24.53     41.44
WA...........................................  Seattle--Sounder Commuter Rail       .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......     8.97    40.69     4.91     54.57
                                                Project.
WA...........................................  Spokane, WA--Light Rail Project....  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.99     1.96      2.95
WI...........................................  Wisconsin--Ken.-Rac.-Milw. Commuter  .......  .......  .......  .......  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......     0.50     0.98      1.48
                                                Rail.
                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals......................................................................   457.88   131.78   297.26   227.70     21.38   277.11   317.86   495.13   663.24   811.46   961.76  4,662.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This column reflects the FY 93 Reallocated Earmarks.

    Question. Please provide a table detailing by existing FFGA the 
amount of the FFGA, the actual amounts received through fiscal year 
2000, the schedule 6 amounts through fiscal year 2000, any shortfalls 
or overages to date, the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the fiscal 
year 2001 schedule 6 amount, the amount of shortfall included in the 
fiscal year 2001 budget, and total fiscal year 2001 budget request.
    Answer. The following table lists the existing FFGA's and any 
shortfalls or overages:

                                                             FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, EXISTING FFGAs SECTION 5309 NEW STARTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        Fiscal year                                  Shortfall
                                                               Total           Total        Cummulative  ------------------------------------------------------------------------   included in
           Geographic location             Section 5309    appropriated    attachment 6      shortfall                                     2000           2001                      fiscal year
                                            FFGA amount     fiscal year     fiscal year     fiscal year   2000 enacted      2000        shortfalls/     proposed        2001        2001 budget
                                                           2000 & prior    2000 & prior    2000 & prior       level     attachment 6     overages        budget     attachment 6      request
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing FFGAs:
    CA--Los Angeles-North Hollywood         $681,037,000    $581,819,469    $621,747,443   ($39,927,974)   $49,053,936   $50,000,000      ($946,064)   $50,000,000   $50,000,000  ..............
     (FFGA).............................
    CA--Sacramento--LRT Extension.......     111,200,000      76,000,550      77,297,998     (1,297,448)    24,526,968    25,000,000       (473,032)    35,199,450    33,902,002    ($1,297,448)
    CA--BART Extension to the SFO            750,000,000     217,198,700     298,317,849    (81,119,149)    63,770,116    84,000,000    (20,229,884)    80,000,000    80,000,000  ..............
     Airport............................
    CA--San Jose Tasman West LRT Project     182,750,000     170,501,285     182,750,000    (12,248,715)    19,621,574    20,000,000       (378,426)    12,248,715  ............    (12,248,715)
    CO--Denver SW Corridor LRT..........     120,000,000      99,796,515     108,000,000     (8,203,485)    34,337,755    35,000,000       (662,245)    20,203,485    12,000,000     (8,203,485)
    GA--Atlanta-North Springs...........     305,010,000     304,820,496     305,010,400       (189,904)    44,287,860    52,103,000     (7,815,140)    25,000,000    25,000,000  ..............
    MA--Boston-S. Boston Piers               330,726,320     294,757,071     330,726,320    (35,969,249)    52,875,235    53,961,528     (1,086,293)    35,969,249  ............    (35,969,249)
     Trainsitway........................
    MD--MARC--Commuter Rail Improvements     105,251,373     105,237,766     105,251,373  ..............       689,701  ............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............
    MO--St. Louis--MetroLink St. Clair       243,930,961     153,403,949     159,707,693     (6,303,744)    49,053,936    50,000,000       (946,064)    60,000,000    60,000,000  ..............
     Extension..........................
    NJ--Hudson--Bergen (MOS-1)..........     604,088,750     325,430,406     332,018,979     (6,588,573)    97,126,786    99,000,000     (1,873,214)   121,000,000   121,000,000  ..............
    OR--Portland--Westside/Hills-  boro.     630,060,336     629,851,104     630,060,336       (209,232)    10,852,698  ............  ..............       209,232  ............       (209,232)
    PR--San Juan--Tren Urbano...........     307,409,845      79,665,280     189,409,854   (109,744,574)    31,394,519    82,000,000    (50,605,481)   118,000,000   118,000,000  ..............
    TX--Houston--Regional Bus Plan......     500,000,000     489,255,128     499,988,475    (10,733,347)    51,771,504    52,770,000       (998,496)    10,744,873        11,525     10,733,348
    TX--Dallas--North Central LRT Exten-     333,000,000      92,267,653      92,838,717       (571,064)    49,053,936    49,625,000       (571,064)    70,000,000    70,000,000  ..............
      sion..............................
    UT--Salt Lake City--South LRT.......     237,393,530     236,675,524     237,393,530       (718,006)    37,210,353    60,000,000    (22,789,647)       718,006  ............       (718,006)
                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total--existing FFGAs.............   5,441,858,115   3,274,861,427   3,173,155,677   (313,824,464)   615,626,877   713,459,528   (109,375,050)   639,293,010   569,913,527    (69,379,483)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please prepare a table that provides by project the 
capital cost, federal share (dollars and percentage), and local share 
(dollars and percentage) for each FFGA, those projects proposed for 
FFGAs in the budget request, and the fifty remaining projects that are 
furthest along in the planning and preliminary engineering process. Use 
estimates where necessary.
    Answer. The table below contains the information requested on New 
Starts projects. It is based on the project sponsors requests for FTA 
funds made during the submission of Section 5309 New Starts criteria 
for the fiscal year 2001 Annual Report on New Starts as of November 
1999. Thus, the federal and local share of project costs may be revised 
subject to negotiations of proposed Full Funding Grant Agreements. The 
table provides information regarding 33 additional projects rather than 
the 50 since the information requested is only available for projects 
approved for final design or preliminary engineering.

                                                                     FTA FFGA STATUS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                New                  Federal
                                                                                              starts                  funds                      Non-
                                                                               Section 5309    share      Other      percent    Non-federal     federal
           City/Project               Overall project rating         Total      new starts    percent    federal     of the      share of     percent of
                                                                 Project Cost      share     of total     funds       total    project cost      total
                                                                                 requested    project    proposed    project                    project
                                                                                               cost                   cost                       cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing full funding grant
 agreements:
    Atlanta--North Springs.......  FFGA........................       $463.18       $370.54        80  ...........        80          $92.64          20
    Boston--South Boston Piers     FFGA........................        413.40        330.73        80  ...........        80           82.67          20
     Transitway Phase 1.
    Dallas--North Central LRT      FFGA........................        517.20        333.00        64  ...........        64          184.20          36
     Extension.
    Denver--Southwest Corridor     FFGA........................        176.32        120.00        68       $18.88        79           37.44          21
     LRT.
    Houston--Regional Bus Plan...  FFGA........................        625.00        500.00        80  ...........        80          125.00          20
    Los Angeles--North Hollywood.  FFGA........................      2,781.09      1,416.49        51       377.15        64          987.45          36
    Maryland--MARC Extension to    FFGA........................        131.56        105.25        80  ...........        80           26.31          20
     Frederick.
    Northern New Jersey--Hudson-   FFGA........................        992.14        604.09        61       281.65        89          106.40          11
     Bergen LRT MOS-1.
    Portland--Westside/Hillsboro   FFGA........................        963.72        630.07        65        74.00        73          259.65          27
     LRT.
    Sacramento--South LRT          FFGA........................        222.00        113.19        51  ...........        51          108.81          49
     Extension.
    Salt Lake City--North-South    FFGA........................        312.49        243.99        78         4.00        79           64.50          21
     LRT.
    San Francisco--BART Extension  FFGA........................      1,510.20        750.00        50  ...........        50          760.20          50
     to SFO Airport.
    San Jose--Tasman West LRT....  FFGA........................        325.00        182.75        56        57.94        74           84.31          26
    San Juan--Tren Urbano........  FFGA........................      1,653.00        307.40        19       400.90        43          944.70          57
    St. Louis--Metrolink St.       FFGA........................        339.20        252.41        74  ...........        74           86.79          26
     Clair Extension.
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.................................................     11,425.50      6,259.93        55     1,214.52        65        3,951.05          35
                                                                ========================================================================================
Pending full funding grant
 agreements:
    Fort Lauderdale--Tri-Rail      Recommended.................        327.00        110.50        34        91.41        62          125.09          38
     Commuter Rail Upgrade.
    Newark Rail Link (MOS-1......  Highly Recommended..........        207.70        142.00        68        25.30        81           40.40          19
    San Diego--Mission Valley      Highly Recommended..........        431.00        330.00        77        13.70        80           87.30          20
     East LRT Extension.
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.................................................        965.70        582.50        60       130.41        74          252.79          26
                                                                ========================================================================================
Proposed full funding grant
 agreements:
    Baltimore--Central LRT Double- Recommended.................        153.70        120.00        78         2.95        80           30.75          20
     Tracking.
    Chicago--Douglas Branch        Highly Recommended..........        450.80        320.10        71         0.03        71          130.67          29
     Reconstruction.
    Chicago--Metra South West      Highly Recommended..........        165.50        103.90        63  ...........        63           61.60          37
     Corridor Commuter Rail.
    Denver--Southeast Corridor     Recommended.................        882.50        525.00        59  ...........        59          357.50          41
     LRT.
    Memphis--Medical Center        Recommended.................         69.10         55.30        80  ...........        80           13.80          20
     Extension.
    Minneapolis--Hiawatha          Recommended.................        548.60        274.30        50  ...........        50          274.30          50
     Corridor LRT.
    Northern New Jersey--Hudson-   Recommended.................      1,112.80        721.60        65       273.85        89          117.35          11
     Bergen MOS-2.
    Pittsburgh--Stage II LRT       Recommended.................        383.70        100.20        26        10.23        29          273.27          71
     Reconstruction.
    Portland--Interstate MAX LRT   Highly Recommended..........        350.00        257.50        74        24.00        80           68.50          20
     Extension.
    Salt Lake City--CBD to         Recommended.................        105.80         84.60        80  ...........        80           21.20          20
     University LRT.
    Seattle--Central Link LRT      Highly Recommended..........      1,500.00        500.00        33  ...........        33        1,000.00          67
     (MOS).
    Washington DC/MD--Largo        Recommended.................        433.90        260.30        60         3.20        61          170.40          39
     Extension.
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................  6,156.40....................      3,322.80         54       314.26        59     2,519.34           41
                                                                ========================================================================================
Final Design:
    Dallas-Ft. Worth (Trinity      Recommended.................        160.60         62.40        39        52.40        71           45.80          29
     Railway Express- Phase II).
    Little Rock (River Rail        Not Rated...................         13.2           8.6         65         2.00        80            2.60          20
     Project) \1\.
    Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN  Not Rated...................         35.7          24.1         68  ...........        68           11.57          32
     Rail Corridor Imp. Project)
     \1\.
    New Orleans (Canal Streetcar   Not Recommended.............        139.40        111.50        80  ...........        80           27.88          20
     Spine).
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................  348.90......................       $206.70         59        54.40        75        87.85           25
                                                                ========================================================================================
Preliminary Engineering:
    Austin (Austin Area LRT        Recommended.................        739.00        369.50        50  ...........        50          369.50          50
     System).
    Boston (South Boston Piers     Not Recommended.............        363.70        291.00        80  ...........        80           72.70          20
     Transitway Phase II).
    Chicago (CTA Ravenswood Line   Highly Recommended..........        327.1         245.5         75        14.00        79           67.56          21
     Expansion).
    Chicago (Metra Central Kane    Recommended.................         93.00         54.3         58  ...........        58           38.73          42
     Corridor).
    Chicago (Metra North Central   Recommended.................        177.90        110.90        62  ...........        62           66.98          38
     Corridor).
    Cincinnati (I-71 Corridor)...  Not Recommended.............        874.70        431.20        49  ...........        49          443.50          51
    Cleveland (Euclid Corridor     Recommended.................        220.00        135.00        61        50.00        84           35.00          16
     Improvement Project).
    Hartford (New Britain-         Recommended.................         80.00         51.60        65        12.38        80           16.02          20
     Hartford Busway).
    Houston (Downtown to           Recommended.................        300.00         64.90        22        36.00        34          199.12          66
     Astrodome Corridor Light
     Rail).
    Kansas City, Johnson County    Not Rated...................         30.90         24.80        80  ...........        80            6.10          20
     (I-35 Commuter Rail) \1\.
    Las Vegas (Resort Corridor     Recommended.................        568.00        155.00        27        95.00        44          318.00          56
     Fixed Guideway MOS).
    Maryland (MARC Commuter Rail   Not Rated...................         85.10         40.90        48        13.50        64           30.70          36
     Improvements Projects) \1\.
    Miami (East-West Multimodal    Not Recommended.............      2,023.00       $808.00        40  ...........        40        1,215.00          60
     Corridor).
    Miami (North Corridor).......  Not Recommended.............        615.20        430.60        70  ...........        70          184.56          30
    Miami (South Miami-Dade        Recommended.................         87.80         61.30        70         5.65        76           20.90          24
     Busway Extension).
    Nashville (East Commuter Rail  Not Rated...................         30.00         20.90        70         3.00        80            6.10          20
     Project) \1\.
    New York (Long Island Rail     Recommended.................      4,350.00     $2,175.00        50  ...........        50        2,175.00          50
     Road East Side Access
     Project).
    Norfolk (Norfolk-Virginia      Not Recommended.............        524.60        288.50        55        29.40        61          206.70          39
     Beach Corridor LRT).
    Orange County (The Centerline  Recommended.................      2,015.80      1,009.10        50       405.38        70          601.34          30
     Orange County Rail Corridor).
    Phoenix (East Valley Light     Not Recommended.............        883.90        441.90        50  ...........        50          442.00          50
     Rail Transit).
    Raleigh (Phase I Triangle      Not Recommended.............        284.00        111.00        39        45.00        55          128.00          45
     Regional Rail Project).
    San Diego (Mid Coast Corridor  Highly Recommended..........        123.00         48.30        39  ...........        39           74.65          61
     Project).
    San Diego (Oceanside           Highly Recommended..........        253.50        152.10        60  ...........        60          101.40          40
     Escondido Rail Project).
    San Francisco (Third Street    Recommended.................        500.10  ............  ........        51.11        10          448.99          90
     Light Rail Project Phase 1.
    San Juan (Tren Urbano,         Recommended.................        478.30        382.60        80  ...........        80           95.70          20
     Minillas Ext).
    Seattle (Everett to Seattle    Not Rated...................        104.00         24.90        24  ...........        24           79.10          76
     Commuter Rail) \1\.
    Seattle (Lakewood-to-Tacoma--  86.00.......................         24.90         29     ........        29        61.10           71
     Commuter Rail) \1\Not Rated.
    Tampa (Tampa Bay Regional      Not Recommended.............        953.80        476.90        50  ...........        50          476.92          50
     Rail).
    Washington DC (Dulles          Recommended.................        279.70        217.80        78         6.00        80           55.95          20
     Corridor Rapid Transit).
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................  17,452.20...................      8,648.40         50       766.42        54     8,037.31           46
                                                                ========================================================================================
      Total New Starts Pipeline..  ............................     36,348.67     19,020.31        52     2,480.01        59       14,848.35          41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These projects are not rated based upon the exemption granted to projects where the anticipated Section 5309 New Starts share of the total estimated
  Capital Cost is below $25 million.

    Question. Please detail by fiscal year and project how the FTA 
plans to allocate the $10,400,000 provided for Alaska or Hawaii 
projects. Include in your answer the total cost and the local/federal 
share of each project (in both dollar and percentage).
    Answer. The amount available for Alaska and Hawaii projects is 
$10,203,219, after applying the government-reduction required by the 
fiscal year 2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and the oversight 
take-down. FTA plans to allocate the funds equally (50/50) between the 
two states as was done in fiscal year 1999. If an allocated amount 
remains unobligated by either state at the end of the period of fund 
availability--the year of appropriation plus two years--then funds may 
be reallocated to the other state. To date, no funds have been 
obligated by either state.
    Applications from the State of Alaska have been received for a 
total project cost amount of $13.5 million ($10.8 million or 80 percent 
Federal share) to date. The applicant, in light of New Starts and other 
legislative requirements, is currently revising its applications.
    Question. What is the ``lifespan'' of a Record of Decision? Does it 
lapse, or need to be renewed if a project does not go forward after a 
length of time?
    Answer. An environmental Record of Decision (ROD) does not have a 
lifespan; however, the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) upon 
which a ROD is grounded does. If, after release of the final EIS, there 
is a lull of three or more years in major project activities such as 
final design, major work on land or vehicle acquisition, substantial 
site preparation or other construction activities, then, prior to any 
new FTA approvals or grants for the project, the final EIS must be re-
evaluated. The purpose of this reevaluation is to determine whether 
there have been changes in the project, in the affected communities or 
in the affected natural environment, or changes in relevant laws and 
regulations such that the project would cause new, significant impacts 
not evaluated in the final EIS. If new, significant impacts are not 
found, the original ROD stands. This reevaluation and the resulting 
conclusions must be done in writing. If new, significant impacts are 
found, then a supplemental environmental review would have to be 
conducted to reconsider the earlier decisions on the project itself, on 
the project design, and on the mitigation of adverse impacts. The new 
environmental review would have to be documented in a supplemental EIS 
and a new or revised ROD.
    Question. What new starts projects does FTA anticipate will be 
requesting an amended full funding grant agreement during the balance 
of this calendar year:
    Answer. FTA anticipates requests for amendments to the following 
FFGAs in calendar year 2000:
  --BART--Extension to San Francisco Airport--The Amendment will delete 
        rail cars and add maintenance facility improvements. There is 
        no increase in the Section 5309 share of the project.
  --South Boston Piers Transitway--The Amendment will add formula funds 
        to the project to cover cost increases. There is no increase in 
        the Section 5309 share of the project.
  --Houston--Regional Bus Plan--The Amendment will delete some bus 
        projects and add other new bus projects. There is no increase 
        in the Section 5309 share of the project.
    Question. Please list those current FFGA projects which have 
undergone significant change in scope or cost increases beyond and 
above the original project scope and baseline cost estimate. Please 
provide a brief summary of the project's description, current status, 
reason for cost increases or scope changes, and pending issues.
    Answer. The following FFGA projects have undergone significant 
scope change:
  --New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) Hudson-Bergen Waterfront Light 
        Rail Transit System first Minimum Operable Segment (MOS-1).--
        The New Jersey Corporation Hudson-Bergen Waterfront Light Rail 
        Transit System Minimum Operable Segment (MOS-1) is a 9.3 miles, 
        16-station light rail system from 34th Street in Bayonne on the 
        south to Hoboken Terminal on the north. Opening April 15, 2000, 
        on schedule and under budget, is Phase A, from Exchange Place 
        south to 34th Street in Bayonne and West Side Avenue in Jersey 
        City. Phase B, covering the last 2.0 miles between Exchange 
        Place and Hoboken Terminal is in construction and will open for 
        revenue service in April 2002. Because of Hoboken community 
        preference, the alignment changed in 1997 from the East Side to 
        the West Side of Hoboken (Phase B) necessitating further 
        environmental work and delaying construction on the last two 
        miles of the project. No issues are pending and there is no 
        increase in the Federal share of the project.
  --Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Extension to San Francisco 
        Airport.--The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Extension 
        to San Francisco Airport project consists of 8.7 miles double 
        track (6.0 miles is subway, 1.5 miles at grade and 1.2 miles 
        elevated), 3000 parking spaces and transfer to Caltrain 
        commuter rail at Millbrae, 1,000 parking spaces at San Bruno 
        and 1,330 parking spaces at South San Francisco. Construction 
        of the airport extension is about 50 percent complete. Project 
        cost increases resulted from: 1) cost increases for material 
        and labor because of a booming local economy and heavy 
        competition for materials and labor; 2) rising real estate 
        costs and difficulty in negotiating settlements with 7 local 
        cemeteries; and 3) an increase in financing costs stemming from 
        shortfall in Federal appropriations scheduled in Full Funding 
        Grant Agreement. The proposed scope change consists of 
        substituting a $70 million shop and yard improvement program in 
        place of the originally planned acquisition of twenty-eight 
        (28) vehicles. This substitution will change the Revenue 
        Operation Date (ROD) from September 1, 2001 to July 1, 2002, 
        with an overall project completion date of January 31, 2003. 
        The financing arrangements for the project will increase the 
        local funding by $316 million, for a revised budget of $1,483 
        million and establish a new Capital Reserve Account (CAPRA) 
        capable of providing up to $27 million of local funds for any 
        future potential cost increases. No issues are pending and 
        there is no increase in the Federal share of the project.
  --Tren Urbano.--This corridor is a 17-kilometer (10+ miles) fixed 
        guideway transit system that includes 16 stations. The project 
        Construction is 62.5 percent complete as of March 2000. The 
        FFGA was modified on July 19, 1999 to amend the scope and the 
        special terms and conditions and to recognize the increase in 
        total project cost from $1,250.3 million to $1,653.6 million. 
        The modification authorized the use of urban area formula and 
        flexible funds for the project ($141 million formula funds and 
        $259.9 million flexible funds); extended the revenue operation 
        date until May 31, 2002; and referenced the standard terms and 
        conditions applicable to this project. The reason for the cost 
        increases was largely due to contract bid over the costs 
        estimates, the addition of two stations and increased 
        construction management fees. Pending issues include several 
        Quality Assurance/Quality Control items and the Settlement and 
        Forbearance Agreement for Centro Medico and there is no 
        increase in the Federal share of the project.
  --South Boston Piers Transitway.--This project is a 1-mile 
        underground transit tunnel from the existing South Station to 
        the World Trade Center. Three underground Transitway stations 
        are at South Station, the new Federal Courthouse/Fan Pier, and 
        the World Trade Center will provide connections to the existing 
        Red Line as well as commuter and inter-city rail and bus 
        services. The operating vehicle is a 60-foot, dual-powered, 
        trackless electric trolley/diesel articulated bus.
    --An important feature of the Transitway Project is that the 
            underground alignment in the vicinity of South Station as 
            well as the World Trade Center area is coincident with the 
            $13.1 billion Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Project that is 
            currently in construction. This approach provides 
            significant savings and reduced disruption for the local 
            community. The project is in final design and construction. 
            To date, six of the nine construction contracts are 
            underway, including the work associated with the three 
            joint CA/T contracts. Bids for vehicle procurement were 
            received in September 1999. The MBTA expects a vehicle 
            procurement award in late April 2000. The three remaining 
            construction contracts are to be advertised and awarded by 
            the MBTA by the second quarter of 2001, and have an 
            estimated value of approximately $60 million. To date, $231 
            million has been expended.
    --The baseline estimate for the full funding grant agreement in 
            1993 dollars was estimated to be $413 million, and an 
            original revenue operation date of December 31, 2000. The 
            MBTA has submitted a ``recovery plan'' in January 1999 and 
            a draft ``Restated Project Budget, Scope of Work, and 
            Schedule'' in March 2000. These documents indicate the 
            project budget has increased to $601 million and the 
            revised revenue operation date is December 31, 2003. The 
            FTA has requested and received a ``Finance Plan'' in late 
            February 2000. A review by FTA, GAO and the OIG is ongoing; 
            however, there is no increase in the Federal share of the 
            project.
    --Although the project scope has not changed, the MBTA has managed 
            to enhance the level of service that this project will 
            provide when revenue service begins in 2003. In lieu of 
            transit service from South Station to the World Trade 
            Center, the Transitway project will provide for enhanced 
            service with the integration of Massport's Airport 
            Intermodal Transit Connector project. This will result in 
            service from South Station to Logan Airport via the CA/T's 
            Ted Williams Tunnel.
    --Also, as a result of a ``Restated Project Budget, Scope of Work, 
            and Schedule'', coupled with three CA/T joint construction 
            contracts, prevalent area bidding market conditions, 
            impacts of encountering differing site conditions and 
            complications during design, the budget has now grown to 
            $601 million.
    --The outstanding issues are both technical and procedural. 
            Technically the project depends on the successful 
            completion of the CA/T joint construction contracts, as 
            well as the sophisticated work associated with constructing 
            a tunnel under existing historic structures. Procedural 
            issues include completion of the review and acceptance of 
            the MBTA's Finance Plan for this project and the 
            finalization of the amended FFGA.
  --Los Angeles MTA.--The Los Angeles Metro Transit Authority Red Line 
        Project was planned, programmed and constructed in phases 
        through a series of ``minimum operable segments'' (MOSs). The 
        4.4 mile, 5 station segment of MOS-1 opened for revenue service 
        in January 1993. A 2.1 mile, three station segment of MOS-2 
        opened along Wilshire Boulevard in July 1996. An additional 4.6 
        mile, 5 station segment in MOS-2 opened along Vermont Avenue & 
        Hollywood Boulevard in June 1999. The 6.3 mile North Hollywood 
        segment of MOS-3 is currently under construction.
    --Currently Segments 1 and 2 are in operation carrying 
            approximately 60,000 passengers per day. The Segment 3, 
            North Hollywood Extension is in the system test and start-
            up phase with some surface construction work remaining at 
            the station locations. Revenue operations for this 
            extension are currently anticipated in the June/July 2000 
            timeframe, well in advance of the December 2000 FFGA date.
    --The original MOS-3 consists of three extensions, North Hollywood, 
            East Side and Mid City, all funded under a single FFGA and 
            each planned with separate revenue operations dates. The 
            East Side and Mid City extensions as originally planned 
            have been indefinitely suspended and those corridors are 
            the subject of ongoing alternative alignment studies. As a 
            result of LACMTA's financial condition, the FTA took action 
            to segregate the Segment 3 scope, schedule and budget in 
            the three distinct project elements. This action has 
            resulted in the establishment of a Revised and Restated 
            FFGA for the North Hollywood Extension. Like action for the 
            remaining two project elements is pending LACMTA's ongoing 
            corridor studies and project re-evaluations. This may 
            ultimately result in three separate FFGAs pending MTA's 
            ability to demonstrate financial and technical capacity; 
            however, there is no increase in the Federal share of the 
            project.
    --The MTA has undertaken a series of regional transit alternatives 
            analysis studies addressing the reformulation of the East 
            Side, Mid City and other transit Corridors. On February 24, 
            2000, the MTA Board addressed the results of the studies to 
            date for the East Side Corridor. The Board voted to 
            continue and narrow the study of an alignment for the East 
            Side that begins at Union Station and terminates at the 
            intersection of Beverly and Atlantic Boulevard. This 
            alignment includes a section of tunnel through the Boyle 
            Heights area between First and Boyle and First and Lorena 
            streets. In the February meeting, the Board also directed 
            the continuation of studies in the other corridors. Further 
            action addressing the studies was taken at the March 2000 
            Board meeting, modifying the `Exposition Right-Of-Way' 
            alignment to be studied for the Mid City/West Side 
            corridor. This alignment is in addition to the alignment 
            designated at the February Board meeting.
    --The Bus Consent Decree was established in October 1996 to resolve 
            a law suit brought by the `Bus Riders Union'. The Decree 
            requires that the bus loading along heavily traveled 
            corridors be reduced in three steps. Initially the loading 
            was to be reduced to a factor of 1.35 (in other words no 
            more than 35 percent of the seated capacity of the bus 
            could be standees) by December 1997. Defining the exact 
            methodology for determination of compliance has been the 
            subject of several hearings before the `Special Master' 
            identified in the Decree and the Federal Court. The second 
            step is to achieve a load factor of 1.25 by June 2000. The 
            third step requires that the MTA achieve a load factor of 
            1.2 by June 2001.
    --As a result of the interpretation of the load factor 
            requirements, the Special Master ordered the MTA to procure 
            532 additional buses over the 2,095 it had already planned 
            to purchase. MTA petitioned the Special Master for relief. 
            In May 1999 the Special Master reduced the requirement to 
            481 additional buses. The MTA has further appealed to the 
            9th Circuit Court, which has issued a `stay' of the lower 
            Court's order while it considers the MTA's appeal. The 
            hearing process is anticipated to continue through the June 
            2000 timeframe.
    Question. What triggers a baseline financial review of a new starts 
full funding grant agreement by Inspector General?
    Answer. The OIG has indicated to FTA that there are no specific 
factors that trigger an audit. Departmental and congressional inquiries 
are given priority. The OIG attempts to survey projects on a continuing 
basis to see if any emerging issues such as large cost increases or 
lengthy schedule delays may indicate vulnerabilities.
    Question. Please list all current, pending or anticipated full 
funding grant agreement projects (those expected to be signed by the 
end of fiscal year 2001, and included in the administration's budget 
request). Please also note whether or not each project has a record of 
decision, when the ROD was approved, and if no ROD, when the ROD is 
anticipated. Note the date the FFGA was approved, or if pending or 
anticipated, what approximate date FTA believes the FFGA will be 
approved. Note the project total cost estimate, the federal share, the 
local share, and a summary of the most recent project evaluation.
    Answer. The following table lists all current, pending or 
anticipated FFGAs expected to be signed by the end of fiscal year 2001:

                                                            CURRENT FFGAs AND PROPOSED FFGAs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          FFGA approval date    Project   Requested
                                     ROD approval date     or anticipated 60     total     federal    Non-5309    Local
             Project                actual/ anticipated      day letter to        cost       5309     federal     share          Project evaluation
                                                               congress         estimate    share      share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under FFGA:
    Atlanta--North Springs.......  ....................  20-Dec-94...........    $463.18    $370.54  .........     $92.64  .............................
    Los Angeles--North Hollywood.  ....................  14-May-93...........   2,781.09   1,416.49    $377.15     987.45  .............................
    Boston--Piers--MOS-2 (So.      ....................  5-Nov-94............     413.40     330.73  .........      82.67  .............................
     Sta. to Wo. Tr.).
    Portland--Westside/Hillsboro   ....................  29-Sep-92...........     963.72     630.07      74.00     259.65  .............................
     extension.
    Houston--Regional Bus Plan...  ....................  30-Dec-94...........     625.00     500.00  .........     125.00  .............................
    MARC--Commuter Rail            ....................  19-Jun-95...........     131.56     105.26  .........      26.31  .............................
     Improvements.
    Salt Lake City--South LRT....  ....................  2-Aug-95............     312.49     243.99       4.00      64.50  .............................
    San Juan--Tren Urbano........  ....................  19-Jul-99...........   1,653.00     307.40     400.90     944.70  .............................
    Denver SW Corridor LRT.......  ....................  9-May-96............     176.32     120.00      18.88      37.44  .............................
    SF Area--San Jose Tasman West  ....................  2-Jul-96............     325.00     182.75      57.94      84.31  .............................
     LRT.
    St. Louis St. Clair MetroLink  ....................  17-Oct-96...........     339.20     252.41  .........      86.79  .............................
     Extension [Phase IIa].
    NJ Urban Core--Hudson-Bergen   ....................  15-Oct-96...........     992.14     604.09     281.65     106.40  .............................
     LRT.
    Sacramento LRT Extension.....  ....................  20-Jun-97...........     222.00     113.19  .........     108.81  .............................
    SF Area--BART Airport          ....................  30-Jun-97...........   1,510.20     750.00  .........     760.20  .............................
     Extension.
    Dallas--North Central LRT      ....................  6-Oct-99............     517.20     333.00  .........     184.20  Recommended.
     Extension.
                                                                              --------------------------------------------
      Subtotal--under FFGA.......  11,425.50...........  6,259.92............   1,214.52   3,951.07  .........
                                                                              ============================================
Fiscal year 2000 proposed FFGAs:
    San Diego--Mission Valley      Aug. 1998...........  17-Mar-00 \1\.......     431.00     330.00      13.70      87.30  Highly Recommended.
     East LRT Extension.
    Newark Rail Link (MOS-1).....  Nov. 1998...........  May 2000............     207.70     142.00      25.30      40.40  Highly Recommended.
    Fort Lauderdale--Tri-Rail      Nov. 1999...........  23-Feb-00 \1\.......     327.00     110.50      91.41     125.09  Recommended.
     Commuter Rail Upgrade.
                                                                              --------------------------------------------
      Subtotal--Fiscal year 2000   965.70..............  582.50..............     130.41     252.79
       proposed FFGAs.
                                                                              ============================================
Fiscal year 2001 proposed FFGAs:
    Portland--Interstate MAX LRT   Jan 2000............  Sep 2000............     350.00     257.50      24.00      68.50  Highly Recommended.
     Extension.
    Seattle--Central Link LRT....  Jan 2000............  Sep 2000............   1,500.00     500.00  .........   1,000.00  Highly Recommended.
    Chicago--Douglas Branch        May 2000............  Nov 2000............     450.80     320.10       0.03     130.67  Highly Recommended.
     Reconstruction.
    Northern NJ--Hudson-Bergen     Oct 1996............  May 2000............   1,112.80     721.60     273.85     117.35  Recommended.
     LRT--MOS-2.
    Pittsburgh--Stage II LRT       Feb 1996............  Sep 2000............     383.70     100.20      10.23     273.27  Recommended.
     Reconstruction.
    Memphis--Medical Center        Apr 2000............  Nov 2000............      69.10      55.30  .........      13.80  Recommended.
     Extension.
    Salt Lake City--CBD to         Dec 1999............  Oct 2000............     105.80      84.60  .........      21.20  Recommended.
     University LRT.
    Minneapolis--Hiawatha          Apr 2000............  Sep 2000............     548.60     274.30  .........     274.30  Recommended.
     Corridor LRT.
    Denver--Southeast Corridor     Mar 2000............  Nov 2000............     882.50     525.00  .........     357.50  Recommended.
     LRT.
    Baltimore--Central LRT Double- Summer 2000.........  Nov 2000............     153.70     120.00       2.95      30.75  Recommended.
     Tracking.
    Washington, DC/MD--Largo       Feb 2000............  Oct 2000............     433.90     260.30       3.20     170.40  Recommended.
     Extension.
    Chicago--Metra Southwest       Summer 2000.........  Dec 2000............     165.50     103.90  .........      61.60  Highly Recommended.
     Corridor Commuter Rail.
                                                                              --------------------------------------------
      Subtotal--Fiscal year 2001   6,156.40............  3,322.80............     314.26   2,519.34
       proposed FFGAs.
                                                                              ============================================
      Grand totals...............  18,547.60...........  10,165.22...........   1,659.19   6,723.20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Submitted to Congress.

                     NEW STARTS EVALUATION CRITERIA

    Question. How has FTA's application of the TEA-21 new starts 
project evaluation criteria been modified over the last year? Please 
discuss any changes in how the evaluation process is performed and how 
the resulting ratings translate into a funding recommendation from the 
FTA, or in recommendation to proceed to a full funding grant agreement.
    Answer. FTA's application of the New Starts criteria has not been 
significantly modified over the last year. As was done last year, FTA 
analyzes the information submitted by project sponsors and assigns a 
rating of high, medium-high, medium, low-medium, or low to each of the 
individual project justification criteria and to the measures for local 
financial commitment. These criteria/measure-specific ratings are then 
combined into summary project justification and finance ratings. These 
summary ratings are in turn used to determine overall project ratings 
according to the following decision rule:
  --Highly Recommended.--Projects must be rated at least medium-high 
        for both finance and project justification;
  --Recommended.--Projects must be rated at least medium for both 
        finance and project justification;
  --Not Recommended.--Projects not rated at least medium in both 
        finance and justification will be rated as not recommended.
    These ratings serve as inputs to Federal budget decisions, but do 
not in and of themselves translate directly into a funding 
recommendation or commitment. Rather, FTA must also consider (1) the 
readiness of projects to enter into full funding grant agreements 
(FFGAs), and (2) the amount of commitment authority available on an 
annual basis, and where that commitment is allocated. It is these 
considerations which have been modified and enhanced since last year, 
as described below:
    1. FTA's ``project readiness'' screen reflects project sponsor's 
technical capability to construct the project (as required by both 
ISTEA and TEA-21), and ensures that projects proposed for an FFGA will 
be ready to enter into such an agreement during the fiscal year for 
which it is proposed. FTA used such a screen for development of the 
fiscal year 2000 budget; however, the fiscal year 2001 screen has been 
enhanced to reflect key project development milestones and issues:
  --the anticipated dates for a Record of Decision (ROD) or Finding of 
        No Significant Impact (FONSI) for each project (thus signifying 
        the completion of all Federally-required environmental work); 
        and
  --the date that the project sponsor could adequately demonstrate its 
        technical capability to be approved by FTA to advance into 
        final design. Specifically, FTA considered the anticipated date 
        for a Record of Decision (ROD) or Finding of No Significant 
        Impact (FONSI) for each project (thus signifying the completion 
        of all Federally-required environmental work); approval of a 
        project's management plan (PMP); and acceptance of a fleet 
        management plan, and
  --the identification of all other outstanding issues and concerns--
        and actions to be taken by the project sponsor to resolve 
        them--before FTA will enter into an FFGA on the project. Such 
        concerns may include reaching an acceptable level of design to 
        finalize project costs; securing any uncommitted local funding; 
        and addressing all outstanding right-of-way and real estate 
        issues.
    For the fiscal year 2001 budget, FTA used its project management 
oversight resources to carefully review the reasonableness of project 
development schedules, and established an earlier readiness threshold 
of summer 2000 to be in final design than for fiscal year 2000 (ROD/
FONSI by October 1999). This readiness threshold is consistent with 
guidance in the Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2000 
Department of Transportation Appropriations Act. The result of this 
enhanced readiness review is that FTA is much more confident that all 
outstanding local issues will have been adequately addressed for each 
project prior to execution of an FFGA.
    2. FTA also considers the overall level of New Starts funding made 
available in metropolitan areas and states. FTA is hesitant to 
administer multiple concurrent FFGAs to a single grantee or in a single 
region, as FTA wants to ensure that a grantee is not be overburdened by 
multiple commitments and has the financial resources and technical 
capacity to carry out a project.
    Question. Please prepare a table indicating the projects that are 
likely to be ready for FFGAs in the near term (fiscal years 2000 
through 2003). Include current stage of project development, project 
description, estimated record of decision date, and estimated federal 
share.
    Answer. Nineteen projects are likely to be ready for FFGAs in the 
near term. These include the 15 projects (pending and recommended 
FFGAs) in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request and 4 
additional projects expected to be ready in fiscal year 2002. The table 
follows:

                                         PENDING, RECOMMENDED, AND POSSIBLE FUTURE FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Actual or  estimated     Requested
               Project                           Stage            record  of decision    section 5309                      Description
                                                                          date              funding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego--Mission Valley East LRT     FD......................  Aug. 1998............    $329,958,000  A 5.9-mile, 4-station light rail extension of
 Extension.                                                                                              existing Blue Line, from east of I-15 to La
                                                                                                         Mesa, where it will connect to existing Orange
                                                                                                         Line; includes elevated, at-grade, and tunnel
                                                                                                         portions; includes 2 park and ride lots and a
                                                                                                         new access road.
Newark Rail Link (MOS-1).............  FD......................  Nov. 1998............     141,950,000  A 1-mile light rail extension of existing Newark
                                                                                                         City Subway to be built mostly at-grade from
                                                                                                         Newark's Penn Sta. to Newark's Broad St. Sta.;
                                                                                                         will add 4 stations to existing 11-station
                                                                                                         system; MOS-I is first segment of a proposed
                                                                                                         8.8-mile, 15-station extension from downtown
                                                                                                         Newark to downtown Elizabeth, with a stop at
                                                                                                         Newark International Airport; will connect two
                                                                                                         major rail lines that serve downtown Newark
                                                                                                         with light rail service.
Fort Lauderdale--Tri Rail Commuter     Completed PE............  Nov. 1999 \1\........     110,500,000  Will double-track 44.31 miles of 71.1-mile
 Rail Upgrade.                                                                                           commuter rail corridor (26.79 miles of double-
                                                                                                         tracking included in Segments 1-4; includes
                                                                                                         construction/replacement of bridges and
                                                                                                         modification/renovation of stations to
                                                                                                         accommodate second mainline track, right-of-way
                                                                                                         and easement acquisitions, design/construction
                                                                                                         of new maintenance and layover facility, and
                                                                                                         revenue rolling stock acquisition; includes
                                                                                                         safety improvements on entire 71.7 mile
                                                                                                         corridor.
Hudson-Bergen MOS-2..................  FD......................  Oct. 1996............     721,600,000  A 6.1-mile, 7-station extension connecting 3
                                                                                                         intermodal transfer sites and 2 park and ride
                                                                                                         lots; will be constructed in 3 phases: 5.1-
                                                                                                         miles extending north from Hoboken Terminal
                                                                                                         through the Weehawken Tunnel below Bergenline
                                                                                                         Ave. to an at-grade station at Tonnelle Ave. in
                                                                                                         Jersey City, the tunnel itself, and a 1-mile
                                                                                                         southerly extension from 34th St. to 21st St.
                                                                                                         in Bayonne; the second of 3 minimum operable
                                                                                                         segments of a $2 billion, 20.1-mile, 30-station
                                                                                                         LRT.
Portland--Interstate MAX LRT           FD......................  Jan. 2000............     257,500,000  A 5.6-mile, 10-station extension of the
 Extension.                                                                                              Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) light rail
                                                                                                         system, connecting Portland's CBD with the
                                                                                                         regional Exposition Center in north Portland;
                                                                                                         will connect with existing 33-mile East/West
                                                                                                         MAX line at Rose Quarter Sta.
Seattle--Central Link LRT MOS-1......  FD......................  Jan. 2000............     500,000,000  A 7.2-mile, 10-station light rail transit
                                                                                                         project (Link LRT) running southeast from NE
                                                                                                         45th St. to South Lander St., operating through
                                                                                                         the 1.6-mile Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel;
                                                                                                         first minimum operable segment of a 23.5-mile,
                                                                                                         23-station LRT system running north to south
                                                                                                         from Northgate, through downtown Seattle,
                                                                                                         Southeast Seattle and the cities of Tukwila and
                                                                                                         SeaTac; LRT is one element of a $3.914 billion
                                                                                                         regional transit plan.
Chicago--Douglas Branch                Completed PE............  May 2000.............     320,100,000  Complete reconstruction of 6.6-mile, 11-station
 Reconstruction.                                                                                         Douglas Branch of Blue Line, extending from
                                                                                                         Cermack Avenue to a point just west of downtown
                                                                                                         Chicago; addresses high maintenance and
                                                                                                         operating costs resulting from age-related
                                                                                                         deterioration since segments on line opened
                                                                                                         from 1896 to 1910, with upgrades made through
                                                                                                         mid-80s.
Pittsburgh Stage II LRT                FD......................  Feb. 1996 \1\........     100,200,000  First segment of second phase of reconstruction
 Reconstruction.                                                                                         of old 25-mile trolley lines to modern LRT
                                                                                                         standards; includes reconstruction of 6.3 miles
                                                                                                         on both the Overbrook Line and a portion of the
                                                                                                         Library Line, construction of 2,400 park-and-
                                                                                                         ride spaces, and purchase of 28 LRT vehicles.
Memphis--Medical Center Extension....  PE......................  Apr. 2000 \1\........      55,300,000  A 2.5-mile, 6-station light rail extension to
                                                                                                         the Main St. Trolley/Riverfront Loop village
                                                                                                         rail system, expanding service from the CBD
                                                                                                         east to the Medical Center area; will be
                                                                                                         designed to accommodate light rail vehicles but
                                                                                                         vintage rail cars will be used until proposed
                                                                                                         regional LRT line is implemented and fleet of
                                                                                                         modern LRT vehicles is acquired.
Salt Lake City--CBD to University LRT  FD......................  Dec. 1999............      84,600,000  A 2.5-mile, 4-station light rail extension in
                                                                                                         eastern Salt Lake City, from the downtown area
                                                                                                         to Rice-Eccles Stadium on the University of
                                                                                                         Utah campus; will connect with existing 15-mile
                                                                                                         North/South LRT line at Main Street.
Minneapolis--Hiawatha Corridor LRT...  Completed PE............  Apr. 2000............     274,300,000  An 11.5 mile, 15-station light rail line linking
                                                                                                         downtown Minneapolis, the Minneapolis-St. Paul
                                                                                                         International Airport, and the Mall of America
                                                                                                         in Bloomington; will operate along the corridor
                                                                                                         following Hiawatha Avenue and Trunk Highway 55;
                                                                                                         will tunnel under runways and taxiways for .8
                                                                                                         miles.
Denver--Southeast Corridor LRT.......  Completed PE............  Mar. 2000............     525,000,000  A 19.4-mile, 14-station double-tracked light
                                                                                                         rail line between downtown Denver and Lincoln
                                                                                                         Ave. in Douglas Cnty. along I-25, with a spur
                                                                                                         along I-225 to Parker Rd. in Arapahoe Cnty.;
                                                                                                         will operate over an exclusive right-of-way and
                                                                                                         connect with existing Central Corridor LRT in
                                                                                                         downtown Denver and Southwest LRT currently
                                                                                                         under construction; part of a multimodal
                                                                                                         program of highway and transit improvements.
Baltimore--Central LRT Double-         FD......................  Summer 2000..........     120,000,000  Will double-track 8 single-track sections
 Tracking.                                                                                               totaling 9.4 miles of 29-mile Central Corridor
                                                                                                         Light Rail Line, all of which are almost
                                                                                                         entirely in existing right-of-way and located
                                                                                                         between Timonium and Cromwell Station/Glen
                                                                                                         Burnie; includes construction of second station
                                                                                                         platforms at 4 stations, bridge and crossing
                                                                                                         improvements, bi-directional signal system with
                                                                                                         traffic signal preemption on Howard St., and
                                                                                                         catenary and other equipment and systems.
Washington, DC/MD--Largo Extension...  Completed PE............  Feb. 2000............     260,300,000  A 3.1-mile, 2-station extension of the Blue Line
                                                                                                         from Addison Rd. to Largo Town Center in Prince
                                                                                                         George's Cnty., MD; Maryland Mass Transit
                                                                                                         Administration managed project through PE,
                                                                                                         WMATA will undertake final design/construction
                                                                                                         and operate as an integral part of regional
                                                                                                         Metrorail system.
Chicago--Metra Southwest Corridor      PE......................  Summer 2000..........     103,860,000  An 11-mile, 2-station extension to South West
 Commuter Rail.                                                                                          commuter rail line, a 29-mile line providing
                                                                                                         service from Orland Park, IL to downtown
                                                                                                         Chicago; extends from existing station at 179th
                                                                                                         St. in Orland Park southwest to Manhattan, IL;
                                                                                                         includes 3 miles of double-tracking, parking
                                                                                                         facilities, track/signal/station improvements,
                                                                                                         expansion of 2 existing rail yards,
                                                                                                         construction of third rail yard, rehab of
                                                                                                         bridges, purchase of 2 diesel locomotives and
                                                                                                         13 bi-level passenger cars, and relocation of
                                                                                                         downtown Chicago terminal from Union Sta. to
                                                                                                         LaSalle St. Sta.
San Diego--Oceanside-Escondido Rail    PE......................  Mar. 1997 \1\........     152,100,000  A 23.7-mile, 15-station rail transit line using
 Project.                                                                                                diesel multiple unit rail vehicles; 22 miles in
                                                                                                         on existing freight railroad corridor running
                                                                                                         east from Oceanside through Vista and San
                                                                                                         Marcos to Escondido; includes 1.7 miles of new
                                                                                                         right-of-way to serve campus of California
                                                                                                         Statue University San Marcos.
Chicago CTA--Ravenswood Line           PE......................  Aug. 2000 \1\........     245,500,000  Station expansions and tracking improvements to
 Expansion.                                                                                              increase capacity on the 9.3-mile, 19-station
                                                                                                         Ravenswood Line (AKA Brown Line); built between
                                                                                                         1900 and 1907, line extends from Ravenswood on
                                                                                                         the north side of Chicago, past Wrigley Field
                                                                                                         to the downtown Loop.
Miami--South Miami-Dade Busway         PE/FD...................  Aug. 2000 \1\........      61,300,000  An 11.5-mile, 12-station busway extension to
 Extension.                                                                                              existing 8.3-mile South Busway; will run along
                                                                                                         US Route 1, between Cutler Ridge Mall near SW
                                                                                                         200 St. and Florida City; final design on 5-
                                                                                                         mile portion is underway and remaining 6.5-mile
                                                                                                         segment is in preliminary engineering.
Cleveland--Euclid Corridor             PE......................  Aug. 2000 \1\........     135,000,000  A 9.8-mile transit corridor along Euclid Ave.
 Improvement Project.                                                                                    from Public Square in downtown Cleveland east
                                                                                                         to University Circle; includes creation of a
                                                                                                         2.43-mile exclusive bus rapid transit segment
                                                                                                         (BRT), improvements to two streets, and
                                                                                                         creation of a Transit Zone with exclusive
                                                                                                         transit lanes on two streets; BRT will be
                                                                                                         served by 60-foot electric trolleybuses with
                                                                                                         doors on both sides of bus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fining of no significant impact instead of ROD.
PE--Preliminary Engineering.
FD--Final Design.

                              TIFIA LOANS

    Question. Please list any new starts projects or other transit 
grantees that received TIFIA loans in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and 
the amount of each loan. What are the terms of these loans? What 
transit projects currently have pending applications for the next round 
of TIFIA loans?
    Answer. To date, only two transit projects have been approved to 
receive credit assistance through TIFIA. The Washington Metropolitan 
Area Transit Authority (WMATA) received a $600 million guarantee on a 
loan made by Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. The guarantee allows WMATA 
to advance several major contracts for its capital improvement program. 
The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA), is 
currently negotiating a $300 million loan for the Tren Urbano, Phase I 
(a FFGA project). The purpose of the loan is to assure timely 
completion of the project and to lower the capital cost of the local 
matching funds. The next phase (FY-2000) of the TIFIA program has not 
been announced to date, so there are no pending applications. However, 
FTA has received expressions of interest from major transit projects in 
New York, New Jersey, and California.

                      LOS ANGELES TRANSIT PROJECTS

    Question. On February 24, 2000, Los Angeles County MTA (LACMTA) 
Board selected and approved locally preferred alternatives for the 
Eastside, Mid City/Westside, and San Fernando Valley corridors of the 
Los Angeles Metro project. Please describe each of the three corridor 
project alternatives that were selected, and summarize the current 
level of completion, federal funding received thus far, estimated total 
project cost, federal share, local match percentage and amount, and 
estimated construction/completion schedule for each.
    Answer. The LACMTA Board selected bus rapid transit (BRT) options 
for the Mid City and San Fernando Valley corridors and approved further 
consideration of BRT and Light Rail Transit (LRT) in the Eastside 
corridor. The next step is for the Board to formally identify the 
Locally Preferred Alternatives (LPA) in accordance with FTA's major 
investment requirements. The following excerpt from the Board meeting 
provides additional description of the corridor alternatives:
  --Eastside.--Light Rail Transit (LRT) from Union Station to Atlantic 
        via First Street with the specific choice of tunneling through 
        Boyle Heights from 1st and Boyle to 1st and Lorena, then 
        transitioning to Third Street and proceeding east via Third 
        Street/Beverly Boulevard to Atlantic, with the policy direction 
        from the Board that the preferred mode of transportation would 
        be light rail.
  --Mid-City/Westside.--Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on Wilshire Boulevard 
        from Vermont Avenue to downtown Santa Monica, with 
        consideration of minimal operable segments to San Vicente 
        Boulevard (east of La Cienega), Santa Monica Boulevard and San 
        Vicente Boulevard (west of I-405), including a study of a 
        busway route
  --San Fernando Valley.--Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along the Burbank-
        Chandler right-of-way from the North Hollywood Red Line Station 
        to Warner Center, with consideration of a minimal operable 
        segment between Woodman Avenue and Balboa Boulevard with rapid 
        bus connections at each end. With completion of the Regional 
        Alternatives Analysis and identification of LPA's, LACMTA can 
        request FTA approval to enter Preliminary Engineering and 
        develop the Draft and Final Environmental Impacts. A Section 
        5309 grant of $11.9 million was provided to MTA to support the 
        planning effort for the reformulated Mid City and East Side 
        projects.
    The capital funding plan adopted by the MTA Board at its February 
24 meeting is displayed below. As the projects are yet to be defined, 
no schedule for their completion has been developed and the Total Cost 
figures should be viewed as very rough order estimates.

                 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL FUNDING PLAN EXCERPT FROM 2/24/00 MTA BOARD MEETING MINUTES
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Total
                                                            cost in
                         Corridor                            fiscal    Federal    SB45 \1\    Local    New state
                                                           year 2004     FFGA
                                                            dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Side................................................        704        352        116  .........        236
Mid-City.................................................        590        295         44  .........        251
San Fernando Valley......................................        291  .........  .........       $146        145
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Total..............................................       1585        647        160        146       632
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State SB45 funds in the amount of $116 million for the East Side and $44 million for Mid City reserved by
  prior Board action will be applied to those corridors.

                      LOS ANGELES TRANSIT PROJECTS

    Question. Does the total combined federal cost of the selected 
panel of projects for Eastside, Mid City/Westside, and San Fernando 
Valley match the remaining amount of federal contingent commitment 
authority for Los Angeles Metro?
    Answer. Los Angeles MTA has not selected a panel of projects 
therefore the federal cost estimate of the projects for Eastside, Mid 
City/Westside, and San Fernando Valley is not known at this time.
    Question. What is FTA's official position on the remaining federal 
contingent commitment authority for Los Angeles Metro? What is the 
amount, excluding those funds associated with the North Hollywood FFGA?
    Answer. All ``contingent'' commitments made during ISTEA were no 
longer ``contingent'' once the FTA new starts program was re-authorized 
by TEA-21. Thus, in principle, all the Full Funding Grant Agreements 
transacted during ISTEA that included ``contingent'' commitments will 
be honored with the 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5309 new starts commitment authority 
currently available under TEA-21.
    Insofar as the Mid-City and Eastside corridors of Los Angeles MOS-
3, however, former FTA Administrator Linton wrote to LACMTA on October 
28, 1999, stating ``As you know, we advised you on July 15, 1999 that 
FTA no longer had a Federal commitment in either the Eastside or Mid-
City corridors because both corridors lacked active projects.'' The 
letter further stated that FTA would consider the prior Federal 
commitment as an ``other factor'' in evaluating the identified projects 
once the LACMTA identified viable projects in those corridors but the 
projects will have to go through the rating process and be evaluated 
against competing uses of the funds. There remains $647.11 million of 
the original commitment to the projects that has not been appropriated.

                      ST. LOUIS METROLINK PROJECT

    Question. Please update the Committee on what steps FTA and the 
project sponsors for the proposed St. Clair extension to Scott Air 
Force Base are taking to address concerns raised by the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees and the Senate Banking Committee.
    Answer. FTA is continuing to work with the Bi-State Development 
Agency to provide further evidence of the benefits of the project, 
including anticipated economic development at and around the proposed 
Scott-Shiloh station. Acting Administrator Fernandez and the Inspector 
General Ken Meade met with local officials on April 20 to further 
discuss how the Committee's concerns can be satisfactorily addressed.

                    SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT PROJECTS

    Question. Please list all the Salt Lake Organizing Committee 
requests for funding in fiscal year 2001. Which of these projects have 
been requested in the administration's budget?
    Answer. The Department and FTA are supporting up to $50 million in 
Federal Transit funding to assist mass transportation for the 2002 
Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Salt Lake City. The fiscal year 2000 
Departmental Appropriations Act provided approximately $15 million for 
Olympics and Paralympics transportation activities, thus, the 
administration's budget is requesting $35 million in appropriations 
under the Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities program, consistent with 
the limit on the Department's and FTA's support for the games. The 
administration's budget does not request funding for particular 
projects, per se, but recently, in response to our request, the Salt 
Lake Organizing Committee submitted preliminary information outlining 
its Federal transit funding requests for fiscal year 2001 for the 2002 
Winter Olympics and Paralympics, as follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Planning..........................................................     2
Venue Loading and Unloading.......................................     5
Transit Bus.......................................................     8
Bus Maintenance Facilities........................................     2
Park-and-Ride.....................................................    18
                                                                  ______
      Total.......................................................    35

                              TREN URBANO

    Question. Please prepare a table showing the annual sources and 
uses of funds to pay for the capital costs of Tren Urbano at the 
current $1,676,000,000 cost to complete. Identify the specific amounts 
and sources of local and federal funding (Section 3, FHWA flex funding, 
block grant transfers, or other federal) planned to complete the 
current construction program, on an annual basis.
    Answer. The table showing the annual sources and uses of funds to 
pay for the capital costs of Tren Urbano at the current $1,676,000,000 
cost to complete is below.

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Section    Section                Total
                                                   5309       5307       FHWA     Federal     State      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996..........................................        7.4       20.8  .........       28.2        8.4       36.6
1997..........................................        6.1       20.2  .........       26.3       87.2      113.5
1998..........................................       15.0       20.0       31.7       66.7      268.3      335.0
1999..........................................       19.8       20.0      108.2     148.00      180.9      328.9
2000..........................................       82.0       20.0       40.0      142.0      199.8      341.8
2001..........................................      118.0       20.0       40.0      178.0      153.7      331.7
2002..........................................       59.1       20.0       40.0      119.1       47.0      166.1
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................      307.4      141.0      259.9      708.3      945.3    1,653.6
Prior to FFGA.................................  .........        5.0  .........        5.0       17.0       22.0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...................................      307.4      146.0      259.9      713.3      962.3    1,675.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please prepare a table showing the annual sources and 
uses of funds to pay for the capital costs of the Minillas extension of 
Tren Urbano. Identify the specific amounts and sources of local and 
federal funding (Section 3, FHWA flex funding, block grant transfers, 
or other federal) planned to complete the current construction program, 
on an annual basis.
    Answer. Per Financial Plan dated August 1999, the PRHTA proposed to 
pay for the capital costs associated with Minillas from two sources: 
(1) Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA) funds, 
including the proceeds of PRHTA bonds and short-term borrowing; and (2) 
FTA capital program funds (80 percent).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Section     Local
              Fiscal year                   5309      share      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999...................................  .........       $1.2       $1.2
2000...................................      $10.8        0.7       11.5
2001...................................       57.8       14.5       72.3
2002...................................       62.9       15.7       78.6
2003...................................       70.4       17.6       88.0
2004...................................      110.8       27.7      138.5
2005...................................       69.9       17.5       87.4
                                        --------------------------------
      Totals...........................      382.6       94.9      477.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           SAN FRANCISCO BART

    Question. What is the current schedule for completion of the BART 
extension to the San Francisco Airport? When will revenue service on 
this extension begin? How is the schedule for the on-airport project, 
which is being constructed with airport revenues, coordinated with the 
larger transit extension schedule?
    Answer. The overall completion of the Bay Area Rapid Transit 
District (BART) extension to the San Francisco Airport which includes 
the maintenance shop modifications is January 2003. The current Revenue 
Operation Date (ROD) for service on the 8.7 mile subway extension to 
the San Francisco Airport is July 1, 2002. The work at the airport 
station, which is being constructed with airport revenues, is 82 
percent complete which is ahead of the schedule for the larger transit 
extension.
    Question. Has all right-of-way acquisition been completed for the 
Colma to Millbrae BART extension?
    Answer. Approximately 95 percent of the right-of way has been 
acquired and the remaining acquisitions are not critical to the current 
schedule.
    Question. What is the current estimate of the cost to complete the 
BART extension to the San Francisco Airport? How does this estimate 
compare to the original estimate at the time the FFGA was negotiated? 
Please identify by major cost activity or element what accounts for the 
increases in cost?
    Answer. The current estimate for the Bay Area Rapid Transit 
District (BART) Extension to the San Francisco Airport is $1,483 
million. The original Cost Estimate in the Full Funding Grant Agreement 
was $1,167 million. The cost increase of $316 million resulted from 
various factors:

                        [In millions of dollars]

        Activity or element                                     Increase

Construction increased due to competitive factors, greater than 
    budgeted escalation, omission of some scope from cost 
    estimates and a premium for the risks associated with design-
    build implementation..........................................   146
Third party contracts increased due to additional oversight of the 
    design-build contractors, more services required to purchase 
    real estate than anticipated and an early start on public 
    relations efforts.............................................    63
Force account costs increased due to re-evaluation of the cost of 
    work to be performed..........................................     7
Right-of-way increased due to greater than anticipated real estate 
    escalation and unanticipated utility relocation costs.........    65
Finance costs increased due to lower than anticipated federal 
    appropriations................................................    19
Project administration increased due to extending project and 
    support staff through the revenue date and extending core 
    project staff through claims and contract closeout............    16
                                                                  ______
      Total.......................................................   316

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Question. Section 331 of Public Law 106-69 transferred funds made 
available under that Act and any prior year unobligated funds for the 
Charleston, South Carolina Monobeam Corridor project to the transit 
planning and research account. Please describe the Monobeam Corridor 
project; outline the project's funding history, including what funds 
presently remain unobligated; and explain why this project is more 
appropriately funded in the transit planning and research account than 
in the capital investment grants account.
    Answer. The City of Charleston (``City''), South Carolina teamed up 
with FUTREX, Inc. to develop and conduct a full scale demonstration of 
FUTREX's System 21 Monobeam, elevated rail transit technology on a 
segment of about 1.2 miles of track and four vehicles. FUTREX 
anticipates that capital cost of the system would be in the range of 
one-half to one-third of competing transit technologies. Some of the 
advantages claimed of the system are its low footprint and modular 
light weight design while being capable of providing two-way, bi-
directional operation on one slender elevated triangular guideway at 
passenger-carrying capacities exceeding 20,000 passengers per hour per 
direction. The full scale demonstration is estimated to cost about $35 
million, which the partnership expects to raise from public and private 
sources. When fully developed, the City intends to use System 21 to 
link major employment, commercial and population centers in the greater 
Charleston area such as the Charleston International Airport, a new 
intermodal transportation center, the coliseum/convention center 
complex, various commercial complexes and hotels, and the Charleston 
Visitor and Regional Transportation center.
    In fiscal year 1998, Congress earmarked $1.5 million for 
Charleston, SC Monobeam rail project. The conference agreement provided 
the $1.5 million for conceptual planning and engineering, and related 
work for a full-scale demonstration monobeam rail line in the 
Charleston, South Carolina area. The available funding of $1,495,150 
has been obligated with Futrex, Inc. providing $403,431 (approximately 
21 percent match) as local share. Prior to the earmark, FUTREX and the 
City built a one-quarter scale model of the system with partial funding 
of $1,250,000 from the Economic Development Administration of the U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
    In fiscal year 1999, Congress earmarked $2.2 million ($2,183,615 
available after setting aside 0.75 percent for oversight). Obligation 
of this increment is pending.
    Charleston Area Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA), the 
recipient of federal transit funds for the City of Charleston, and 
FUTREX are proposing to use the fiscal year 1999 earmark for the 
purpose of completing approximately 45,000 hours of final design and 
engineering of System 21 monobeam vehicles. Provided there are 
sufficient funds available upon completion of final design and 
engineering, the Monobeam Partnership will commission the fabrication 
of at least one of the four vehicles required for the demonstration of 
a 1.25-mile System 21 Prototype installation in Charleston. Futrex will 
provide a minimum of fifty percent local match for a total project 
budget of $4.4 million for the vehicle initiative.
    For fiscal year 2000, Congress earmarked $2,500,000 ($2,452,697 
available takedown of 0.75 percent for oversight and a reduction of 
1.15 percent per the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
2000). Obligation of fiscal year 2000 funds is awaiting development of 
the project scope of work.
    Funding the Monobeam under the Transit Planning and Research 
Account would minimize Federal requirements as compared to those 
required under the New Starts program.
    Question. Section 323 of Public Law 106-69 permanently amended TEA-
21 to provide that Vermont and Oklahoma are authorized to use transit 
formula grants for capital improvements to, and operating assistance 
for, intercity passenger rail service. Have either of these States 
applied transit formula funds for intercity passenger rail purposes in 
fiscal years 1998, 1999, or 2000?
    Answer. Vermont used $668,000 of formula funds in fiscal year 1999 
and plans to use additional formula funds in fiscal year 2000 for 
intercity passenger rail purposes. To date, Oklahoma has not used 
formula funds for intercity passenger rail service.
    Question. Please explain what the effect of the proposed new 
general provision section 327 in the budget request, regarding tribal 
governments, will be.
    Answer. This General Provision is requested as part of the Job 
Access and Reverse Commute program set-aside for Indian Tribes. This 
change in Section 3037 of TEA-21 will allow tribal entities to apply 
for job access grants directly without being sponsored by the State. 
This will allow them sovereignty in receiving job access funds.
    Question. Please explain what the effect of the proposed new 
general provision section 328, regarding technical direction and 
documentation of research and technology projects, will be.
    Answer. The effect will be that sufficient funds will be set aside 
from every project to enable FTA to exercise responsible stewardship 
over project implementation and to ensure that the results are fully 
documented and shared with the transit community. Currently, that 
expense is negotiated with the grantee. This method is not always 
successful, depending on the flexibility of the grantee's internal 
budget. In the case where the grantee is not willing to set aside third 
party project review and reporting funds, the project may or may not be 
reviewed depending on the availability of project managers in FTA 
headquarters or regional offices and will likely not be documented in a 
report. This provision will require all grantees to make provisions for 
an outside review along with full documentation of the project. This 
process follows the requirements outlined in the Government Performance 
and Results Act (GPRA) mandating fully documented project planning, 
implementation, and review.
                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted to the Research and Special Programs Administration

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                             NEW POSITIONS

    Question. Please prioritize all the new positions requested for 
RSPA, including positions for Pipeline Safety.
    Answer. The positions are identified as follows: (Funding for all 
new positions are requested at one-half of a FTE for fiscal year 2001.)
  --Five positions, Office of Emergency Transportation. First position 
        for a Regional Emergency Transportation Manager
  --Second position for a Operations Chief
  --Third position for a National Security Planner
  --Fourth position for a National and International Disaster 
        Specialist
  --Fifth position for a Mitigation and Recovery Specialist
  --Four positions, Office of Pipeline Safety. All four positions are 
        for Inspectors to inspect new construction and to distribute 
        greater volume of inspector time to damage prevention.
  --Two positions, Office of Research and Technology. Both positions 
        support the University Marine Transportation Grants Program.

             HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

    Question. Please prepare a table indicating various measures of 
both the overall performance and the impacts of your program, showing 
statistical trends for each of the last ten years. Please include data 
on the number of serious releases (or an equivalent measure), 
fatalities, injuries, costs, compliance measures, etc.
    Answer. The following table is provided:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Total    Serious \1\
                       Year                        incidents   incidents   Fatalities   Injuries      Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990.............................................      8,879         402            8        423     $32,353,276
1991.............................................      9,110         405           10        439      38,350,611
1992.............................................      9,310         376           16        604      35,164,057
1993.............................................     12,830         358           15        627      22,801,551
1994.............................................     16,087         427           11        577      44,185,413
1995.............................................     14,743         408            7        400      30,903,281
1996.............................................     13,950         466          120      1,175      46,849,243
1997.............................................     13,995         422           12        225      33,393,764
1998.............................................     15,349         432           13        198      45,796,084
1999.............................................     16,977         365            9        483     31,443,336
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RSPA defines a serious hazardous materials incident as one that involves a fatality or major injury due to a
  hazardous material, closure of a major transportation artery or facility or evacuation of six or more persons
  due to the presence of a hazardous material, or a vehicle accident or derailment resulting in the release of a
  hazardous material.

                PERSONNEL ISSUES AND OPERATING EXPENSES

    Question. What steps have been taken to comply with the staffing 
level that was approved by the conferees in fiscal year 2000? What is 
your current FTE strength? Why does the budget justification reflect a 
funding level of \1/2\ work year per position for the annualization of 
fiscal year 2000 new positions?
    Answer. The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS)and the 
Research and Special Programs Administration's (RSPA) personnel office 
worked to recruit suitable candidates for all current and anticipated 
vacancies. Enacted appropriations for fiscal year 2000 gave OHMS a 
full-time permanent (FTP) position ceiling of 129 and full-time 
equivalent (FTE) funding for 125.5 positions. We currently are funding 
121 FTE on board and are actively recruiting to fill the remaining 
positions, including new regional technical assistance positions and 
recent attrition vacancies. OHMS' new positions were requested and 
funded at one-half FTE each to reflect hiring no sooner than April of 
this fiscal year. Funding new positions for one-half of the first 
fiscal year is typically requested and enacted to allow time to fulfill 
administrative requirements (e.g., construction of work space, 
development of position descriptions and standards) for selecting 
highly qualified people.
    Question. Please provide a table showing the authorized number of 
inspectors for each of the last three fiscal years, and the actual 
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997............................................          37          36
1998............................................          37          34
1999............................................          37          37
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. For each of the key offices under the Associate 
Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, please prepare a breakout 
of the number of personnel assigned to each office 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
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            1998--as of 4/15/98     1999--as of 4/5/99      2000--as of 4/5/00
                 Office                  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            No. of                  No. of                  No. of
                                          positions/     Grade    positions/     Grade    positions/     Grade
                                           vacancies    levels     vacancies    levels     vacancies    levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Administrator & Int'l                  6/1       2-SES         6/0       2-SES         6/1       1-SES
 Standards..............................                    1-15                    1-15                    1-15
                                                            1-14                    1-14                    1-14
                                                            1-13                    1-13                    1-13
                                                             1-7                     1-8                     1-8
                                                                                                             1-7
Standards...............................        20/1        2-15        19/3        2-15        17/2        2-15
                                                            5-14                    5-14                    3-14
                                                            2-13                    3-13                    3-13
                                                            4-12                    4-12                    4-12
                                                            3-11                    1-11                     2-9
                                                             3-7                     1-9                     2-7
                                                             1-6                     2-7                     1-6
                                                                                     1-6
Technology..............................        18/1        2-15        18/1        2-15        19/0        2-15
                                                            3-14                    3-14                    3-14
                                                            8-13                   11-13                   11-13
                                                            2-12                     1-7                     1-7
                                                            1-11                     1-6                     1-6
                                                             1-7
                                                             1-6
Exemptions & Approvals..................        15/2        1-15        15/2        1-15        17/0        1-15
                                                            1-14                    2-14                    2-14
                                                            6-13                    6-13                    6-13
                                                            3-12                    4-12                    5-12
                                                            1-11                    1-11                     1-7
                                                             1-9                     1-6                     1-6
                                                             1-7
                                                             1-6
Enforcement.............................        35/3        1-15        35/3        1-15        39/0        1-15
                                                            7-14                    7-14                    7-14
                                                            5-13                    5-13                    5-13
                                                           10-12                   17-12                   22-12
                                                           10-11                    3-11                    2-11
                                                             1-9                     1-9                     1-7
                                                             1-7                     1-7
Initiative s & Training.................         9/2        1-15        10/1        1-15        10/7        1-15
                                                            2-14                    2-14                    2-14
                                                            1-13                    2-13                    2-13
                                                            4-12                    3-12                    3-12
                                                             1-7                     1-9                    1-11
                                                                                     1-7                     1-7
Planning & Analysis.....................        14/2        2-15        14/2        2-15        14/0        2-15
                                                            1-14                    1-14                    1-14
                                                            5-13                    5-13                    6-13
                                                            4-12                    4-12                    3-12
                                                             1-7                     1-7                     1-7
                                                             1-6                     1-6                     1-6
                                         ------------            ------------            ------------
      Totals............................      117/12                  117/12              122 \1\/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 2 positions for student employees working part time.

                          INFORMATION SYSTEMS

    Question. Is intrastate incident data now being reflected in your 
hazardous materials information system analyses? If so, what is the 
value of this information and how is it being disseminated to the 
states and local governments that might benefit from this resource?
    Answer. RSPA has received an increased number of reports concerning 
intrastate shipments--2,512 in 1999, compared with 2,031 in 1997. We 
expect this number to continue to grow as more intrastate carriers 
become aware of the reporting requirement.
    The addition of intrastate incident data will enhance RSPA's 
ability to increase safety. We expect that the new reports may reveal 
risks specific to intrastate hazardous materials shipments. These new 
data will be used to design new outreach, enforcement, and rulemaking 
activities.
    State and local government agencies have several alternatives in 
accessing RSPA's hazardous materials incident data. Those agencies can 
request data directly from RSPA. In 1999, 51 state and local government 
agencies requested incident data from RSPA, compared to 20 agencies in 
1998. They can also establish accounts with RSPA, and access the 
incident data directly. Currently, 63 state and local government 
agencies (from 27 different states) have direct access to the HMIS. 
Lastly, state and local government agencies can access summarized 
incident data through the Hazmat Web page on the Internet. These data 
are updated monthly and are available to all Internet users.

                         RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

    Question. What was accomplished with the additional funds provided 
in fiscal year 1999 for research to address regulatory issues involving 
propane gas services?
    Answer. In support of a negotiated rulemaking (HM-225A), RSPA 
contracted with the Volpe Center to provide technical assistance to the 
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) during the development of 
new regulations governing the transportation and unloading of liquefied 
compressed gases. This support addressed issues related to automatic 
controls that minimize product discharge during hose rupture of MC 330 
and MC 331 vehicles (HM-225A). A computer model was developed to 
determine whether pressure or flow sensing devices installed to detect 
hose failure would always detect significant changes in pressure or 
flow rate due to a hose failure. Results were documented in a report 
entitled ``Analyses Investigating Hose/Pipe Shear Failures on Propane 
Bob-Tail Delivery Trucks''. In addition, Volpe provided general 
technical assistance during the negotiated rulemaking process. The 
Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Illinois also applied 
the HMIS database to model cargo tank motor vehicle accident scenarios 
and to estimate average fatalities and injuries associated with the 
transportation of liquified compressed gases over extended periods of 
time using computer simulations. This work was a key component to risk 
analyses performed by RSPA in support of the rulemaking.
    RSPA is continuing to work with the Volpe Center, and the regulated 
industry to monitor the development and testing of emergency discharge 
control technology during the two-year implementation period authorized 
in the final rule issued under HM-225A.

                   INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

    Question. What has RSPA done, in conjunction with Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration, to develop an electronic intrastate 
database to determine the effectiveness and impacts of HM-200? What is 
RSPA's technical and financial involvement? What is the status of that 
project? Are funds requested for that activity in fiscal year 2001? 
What is the status of this intrastate database?
    Answer. We have worked with FMCSA as it develops an intrastate 
database intended to support 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. RSPA staff have participated in meetings addressing the 
planning of the new database to ensure cross- compatibility with other 
hazardous materials data sources. RSPA has not provided funds for this 
effort and is not requesting funding for the project in fiscal year 
2001.
    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 
those hazmat cases. Please provide data comparable to those provided 
last year.
    Answer:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     1997 \1\     1998 \1\     1999 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penalties Proposed...............   $1,613,295   $2,053,196   $2,152,534
Penalties Collected..............   $1,167,154   $1,412,593   $1,512,323
Percentage Collected.............           72           69          70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include tickets.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       1997         1998         1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ticket Proposed..................     $183,075     $301,343     $342,204
Penalties Ticket Collected.......     $179,925     $300,602     $340,897
Penalties Percentage Collected...           98         99.8         99.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please discuss improvements in your training and outreach 
program since last year. How were the new positions that were approved 
last year used? How will they be used in the future? With the new 
positions that were just approved, why is it necessary to contract for 
part-time staff support for each of the five regional offices?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1999 RSPA enhanced its training and outreach 
efforts by partnering with state drivers license issuing offices to 
promote compliance by providing informational materials and technical 
assistance. We also increased cooperative efforts with State Emergency 
Response Commissions and Local Emergency Planning Committees, the 
primary beneficiaries of the HMEP grants program, and developed multi-
modal information packages and field compliance guides to educate 
entities on areas of high risk and noncompliance. We increased industry 
awareness of human error as a major cause of incidents.
    RSPA is currently advertising to fill the new fiscal year 2000 
technical assistance positions. RSPA will target high visibility 
activities aimed toward industry, labor unions and employee 
organizations and associations through partnering to develop training 
materials and aids. RSPA will specifically target hazmat operations 
through national and local industry associations. Our broad based 
approach will assure the widest possible coverage of this critical 
information. Over 50 percent of the new materials developed will be 
targeted at areas of noncompliance, high risk, and new regulatory 
requirements.
    The new positions in each regional office are targeted for specific 
training and technical assistance activities and will not replace the 
support staff necessary to provide continuing administrative and 
clerical support to the offices.
    Question. Please present data on the number of times that each of 
your inspectors working in the regional offices conducted joint 
inspections or provided training for state officials.
    Answer. In 1999, RSPA hazardous materials inspectors conducted 57 
inspections with state agencies, some of which were joint inspections 
with other Federal inspectors and/or included training of state 
inspectors. RSPA also made 21 presentations to state agencies, some of 
which included inspector training, and held nine meetings with state 
inspectors on enforcement issues.

                        SAFE FOOD TRANSPORTATION

    Question. What did OHMS do since last year to implement any aspect 
of the SFTA?
    Answer. RSPA conducted limited monitoring of United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
activities and consulted with USDA and FDA staff. RSPA provided 
expertise on hazardous materials and other transportation safety issues 
in support of USDA and FDA safety activities.
    Question. What activities do you anticipate for fiscal year 2001 
and for the rest of fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. RSPA will continue the limited monitoring and support of 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) activities.

                    SHIPPER AND CARRIER REGISTRATION

    Question. Please display the total registration fees collected for 
each of the last five fiscal years by the shipper and carrier 
registration program, broken out by emergency response activities and 
administrative costs. How much do you expect to collect during fiscal 
year 2000 and during fiscal year 2001?
    Answer.

                                      EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNDS RECEIPTS
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Processing fee  Grants program
                        Registration year                            receipts        receipts     Total receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................          $1.426          $6.873          $8.299
1996............................................................           1.419           6.910           8.329
1997............................................................           1.527           7.372           8.899
1998............................................................           1.650           7.970           9.620
1999............................................................           1.582           7.635           9.218
2000 (est.).....................................................           1.200          14.300          15.500
2001 (est.).....................................................           1.200          14.300          15.500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please describe the shipper and carrier registration 
program's industry technical assistance and customer assistance 
program.
    Answer. RSPA continues to enhance its support to the regulated 
community to assist in meeting the registration requirements. RSPA 
provides materials and detailed instructions on program requirements. 
We maintain two customer assistance centers to provide direct 
assistance via telephone. We are now developing an Internet-based 
registration process, to offer on-line registration with credit card 
payment capability.
    Question. Please outline the registration fee assessment, 
collection, and grant disbursement cycle.
    Answer. In May of each year RSPA mails registration information and 
application forms to companies that have previously registered and 
companies whose names have recently been added to the FMCSA motor 
carrier and shipper census or who have recently been named as a carrier 
or shipper on a hazardous materials incident report. Between May and 
September of each year, approximately 85 percent of the companies that 
will register for the year submit the application and payment. Late in 
September of each year RSPA makes grant allocations, distributing the 
funds available to state and Indian tribal governments for their use in 
the following fiscal year.
    Question. In April 1998, the DOT Inspector General published a 
management advisory on the hazardous materials registration program 
which found that RSPA does not collect the full amount of potential 
registration fees. Please discuss your response to the IG report and 
how its recommendations were implemented. Please submit data indicating 
the amount collected before and after the IG's recommendations were 
implemented. How much of the increase from user fees can be attributed 
to improved registration fee collection that was initiated, in response 
to the recommendations? Since last year, what new strategies have you 
tried to increase the amount of collected fees?
    Answer. RSPA implemented the IG's recommendations by mailing 
registration information to companies identified as carriers or 
shippers of hazardous materials in the Office of Motor Carriers' census 
of motor carriers and shippers. We also increased the number of follow-
up mailings to companies that had registered in the past. These efforts 
identified approximately 1,000 new registrants and raised an additional 
$500,000, including collections for prior years. The increased number 
of registrants has been maintained for the 1999-2000 registration year. 
On March 22, 1999, the IG determined that our actions were timely and 
appropriate and reported the recommendations as resolved and closed. We 
have continued the increased follow-up mailings.
    We also amended the registration requirements as recommended by the 
IG. A final rule establishing a two-tiered registration fee schedule 
and expanding the requirements to all shippers and carriers of 
placarded shipments of hazardous materials, with a limited exception 
for farmers, was published on February 14, 2000, which becomes 
effective with the 2000-2001 registration year. As a result of these 
changes, RSPA expects that 45,000 companies will register for the 2000-
2001 registration year. As part of the program planned to inform the 
public of the expanded registration requirement, RSPA plans to mail 
information packets to approximately 100,000 companies.

                        RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    Question. What are the major advances that have resulted from your 
R&D program during each of the last three years? How has this 
information been reflected in improvements in your program?
    Answer. In 1999, RSPA completed a threat assessment of the 
vulnerabilities of transporting hazardous materials in aircraft cargo 
compartments in compliance and non-compliance situations, and 
identified chemicals and substances that pose the greatest hazards in 
this environment. Key recommendations have been incorporated into the 
ONE DOT Flagship Initiative on Hazardous Materials /Incidents--a high 
profile initiative consisting of 6 action areas with 16 specific 
activities. The activities include: defining and encouraging industry 
actions and developing rulemaking to increase awareness and compliance 
with hazardous materials requirements in air transportation, and 
examining the feasibility of using new non-invasive screening 
technologies to detect undeclared hazardous materials. RSPA and the FAA 
are working together to implement these tasks in accordance with 
established milestones.
    The ``National Transportation Risk Assessment for Selected 
Hazardous Materials'' is in final draft and is currently undergoing 
peer review. This multi-year research effort more accurately 
characterizes the spectrum of risks involved in the transportation of 
hazardous materials in comparison to historical data. Results of the 
study will provide a better sense and understanding of hazardous 
material transportation risk.
    In fiscal year 1999, RSPA initiated development of a ``Guidance 
Manual for Explosives Classification'' to provide explanatory and 
advisory information pertaining to all sections of the hazardous 
materials regulations dealing with classification of new explosive 
substances and articles. The manual will be used internally and 
externally as a reference and training document for RSPA employees and 
explosives laboratories approved by RSPA involved in the examination, 
recommendation, and technical review of new explosives and articles.
    As a result of two severe accidents and a National Transportation 
Safety Board recommendation, RSPA is completing a multi-phase study on 
how to increase accident survivability of front heads on MC-331 cargo 
tank motor vehicles. Results are being used to suggest improvements in 
design for heads and secondary heads. Prototype designs are slated for 
manufacture and testing during the final phase of this project, which 
will be completed in fiscal year 2000. Successful demonstrations will 
aid RSPA in rulemaking to reduce the risk associated with severe 
accidents involving MC-330 and MC-331 Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles.
    In support of publication of the Year 2000 Emergency Response 
Guidebook (ERG2000), RSPA sponsored critical research aimed at 
identifying greater numbers of water-reactive chemicals and applying 
statistical methodology to predict initial isolation and protective 
action distances. In addition, research and improved methodologies 
permitted continued refinement of recommended actions based on spill 
size as well as updating of initial isolation zones and health 
criteria.
    RSPA initiated research in fiscal year 2000 to develop methods and 
procedures to implement non-destructive testing (NDT) for DOT 
specification metallic and composite pressure vessels. The new NDT 
methods will detect fatigue cracking and stress corrosion cracking as 
well as wall thinning in a pressure vessel. This reduces environmental 
impact, potential contamination, out-of-service time, and possibilities 
of corrosion, compared to older hydrostatic test methods.
    To promote and expand the use of risk assessment techniques and 
risk management approaches, RSPA initiated a study of the applicability 
of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) or similar 
methodologies to the transportation of hazardous materials. We 
anticipate this research will lead to voluntary ``best-practices'' or 
guidelines for understanding and managing risks by all the parties 
involved in hazardous materials transportation.
    Research related to regulatory issues involving propane and other 
liquified compressed gases are addressed under a separate question.
    The enforcement program has conducted an aggressive package testing 
program, targeting packages which it believes do not comply with UN 
standards and thus present a risk to public safety. Through 
enforcement, interaction with manufacturers, and dialogue with 
industry, RSPA believes that it is enhancing the safety of UN 
performance-oriented packaging standards used in the transportation of 
hazardous materials.
    A report entitled, ``Exploration of GPS to Enhance the Safe 
Transport of Hazardous Materials,'' was completed in fiscal year 1998 
and provided information on using GPS as a safety tool to aid emergency 
response to hazmat incidents. While current deployment was seen as 
practical on a company-by-company basis, federally mandated installment 
or publicly deployed facilities were not.
    ``Identification of Factors For Selecting Modes and Routes For 
Shipping High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel,'' was 
also published in fiscal year 1998. Its compilation of risk data and 
industry transport practices improved our risk management and industry 
knowledge.
    In fiscal year 1999, consistent with a TRB recommendation that the 
Department periodically examine information technology's potential to 
improve hazmat incident management, we completed an assessment of 
current technology deployment within the emergency response community 
to support efforts at facilitating safer, more efficient emergency 
response. A report detailing the results of that research, 
``Information Technology and Emergency Response: Current Applications'' 
will be published in fiscal year 2000.
    An examination of the flows of US international hazmat traffic was 
also undertaken in fiscal year 1999 with a report published in fiscal 
year 2000 entitled, ``Hazardous Materials in U.S. Foreign Trade.'' This 
research has identified potential risks in these particular hazmat 
markets.
    A study of the operating practices, traffic volumes and modal 
shares of diagnostic specimens processed in the U.S. is scheduled to be 
completed in fiscal year 2000. Findings from this effort will help 
evaluate proposed regulations affecting the safe transport of 
infectious diagnostic substances from hospitals, clinics, and other 
health industry establishments to laboratory facilities that test the 
specimens.

                RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC GOALS

    Question. What has RSPA done since last year to implement the 
provision of TEA-21 that requires strategic planning to design a 
national surface transportation research and technology agenda? What is 
the effectiveness and value of these efforts? What impacts have recent 
federal and DOT strategic planning efforts for surface transportation 
research and technology had on decisions about cross-cutting and modal 
research projects and how they are performed?
    Answer. In May 1999 the Secretary and the President's Science 
Advisor jointly announced the Department's first Transportation 
Research and Development Plan. This document was developed in part to 
respond to a requirement in Section 5108 of TEA-21. It was developed 
through an interagency strategic planning process, focused in DOT by 
the Department's Research and Technology Coordinating Council.
    On an interagency basis, the President's National Science and 
Technology Council establishes overall directions and priorities for 
transportation research through documents like its National 
Transportation Science and Technology Strategy and related 
implementation plans. Within the Department, the DOT R&D Plan then 
links conduct of such important R&T to the achievement of DOT's overall 
Strategic Goals. The DOT R&D Plan has quickly become a resource used by 
DOT's modal R&T planners in developing their own programs and budgets. 
This process has been used again to generate an updated DOT 
Transportation R&D Plan (second edition), which is undergoing final DOT 
reviews.
    The second edition of the DOT Transportation R&D Plan (1) has a 
five year and longer time horizon for the partnerships, research, 
education, and technology transfer activities it discusses; (2) 
includes extensive and detailed coverage of DOT modal programs, 
developed with their involvement; and (3) includes a full chapter 
developed with AASHTO on state transportation research initiatives. Its 
safety elements have been the subject of a recent National Research 
Council/Transportation Research Board panel review which focused on DOT 
research that supports its safety goal. We expect the panel's findings 
in May 2000. This and subsequent texts are to be provided to the 
Congress as supplements to the Department's R&D budget requests. Most 
importantly, the text specifically links R&D priorities--emphasis 
areas--to accomplishment of DOT Strategic goals. As a result, research 
activities have become more focused and are more definitively linked to 
desired outcomes.
    The process has been accepted well by the various DOT participants. 
In fact, based on their view of the effectiveness of the process, the 
Federal Aviation Administration is modeling the approach they are 
taking to develop their next five-year research plan on that used for 
the DOT Transportation R&D Plan.
    The process of preparing the Plan, in conjunction with the 
directions provided each year by OMB/OSTP Interagency R&D Priorities 
guidance, and the NSTC interagency process, has heightened awareness of 
related activities and promoted collaborative research efforts on an 
intermodal and interagency basis. These efforts include: (1) National 
Highway Research and Technology Partnership Initiative; (2) Intelligent 
Vehicle Initiative; (3) the NHTSA Advanced Technology Program; (4) the 
Interagency Initiative on Marine Fuel Cells; (5) the DOT initiative on 
human-centered systems; (6) the Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program; 
(7) the Commercial Remote Sensing Program; (8) the Transportation 
Infrastructure Assurance R&D Program; and (9) University Marine 
Transportation Grants Program. In the longer term, an initiative on 
nanotechnology applications is under discussion.
    Question. Please list by contract and amount how comparable funds 
provided in fiscal year 1999 and in fiscal year 2000 under the activity 
R&D Planning and Management were used or will be used.
    Answer. RSPA obligated and plans to obligate funds for activities 
under R&D Planning and Management as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal year
                   Activity                    -------------------------
                                                    1999         2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Planning:
    S&T Strategy..............................      $50,000  ...........
    Peer/Merit Review.........................      150,000     $200,000
    Transportation Technology Plan............      100,000      100,000
    Private-public Partnership Outreach.......      350,000      175,000
    Strategic Research Plan...................      100,000      100,000
    Enabling Research Outreach................      150,000      100,000
    DOT R&D Plan..............................      150,000      150,000
    International S&T Assessments.............      100,000      100,000
    Sustainability............................      100,000      100,000
                                               -------------------------
      Subtotal................................    1,250,000    1,050,000
                                               =========================
Research and Technology Coordination and
 Facilitation:
    Performance Measurement...................       50,000       50,000
    Innovation Partnerships...................       50,000       50,000
    National Research Council (GUIRR).........      125,000      125,000
    TRB Annual Fee............................       50,000       50,000
    International S&T (e.g., NAFTA,US-EU).....      150,000      150,000
    DOT R&D Tracking System...................      100,000      200,000
    DOT Technology Sharing/Transfer...........      100,000      100,000
    Homepages.................................      210,000      210,000
                                               -------------------------
      Subtotal................................      835,000      955,000
                                               =========================
Intermodal and multimodal Research and              150,000      100,000
 Education: Small Business Innovative Research
                                               =========================
      Total...................................    2,235,000    2,105,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please list by contract and amount how similar funds 
requested for fiscal year 2001 will be used, being certain to list for 
each topic specified on pages 119-124 its associated funding amount.
    Answer. RSPA plans to obligate funds for activities under R&D 
Planning and Management in fiscal year 2001 as follows:

        Activity                                        Fiscal year 2001

Strategic Planning:
    Strategy..................................................  $200,000
    Peer/Merit Review.........................................   200,000
    Transportation Technology Plan............................   100,000
    Private-public Partnership Outreach.......................   180,000
    Strategic Research Plan...................................   100,000
    Enabling Research Outreach................................   100,000
    DOT R&D Plan..............................................   150,000
    International S&T Assessments.............................   100,000
    Sustainability............................................   100,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Subtotal................................................ 1,230,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Research and Technology Coordination and Facilitation:
    Performance Measurement...................................    50,000
    Innovation Partnerships...................................    50,000
    National Research Council (GUIRR).........................   135,000
    TRB Annual Fee............................................    60,000
    International S&T (e.g., NAFTA,US-EU).....................   100,000
    DOT R&D Tracking System...................................   200,000
    DOT Technology Sharing/Transfer...........................   100,000
    Homepages.................................................   210,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Subtotal................................................   905,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Intermodal and multimodal Research and Education: Small 
    Business Innovative Research..............................   100,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total................................................... 2,235,000

    Question. Please break out separately funding for any conferences, 
meetings, outreach activities, international scanning activities, or 
panel discussions sponsored by RSPA using funds appropriated under the 
research and technology subaccount for fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
    Answer. RSPA obligated and plans to obligate funds to support 
conferences, meetings, outreach, international scanning activities, and 
panel discussions as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal year
                                               -------------------------
                                                    1999         2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Research Council/Transportation           $100,000     $150,000
 Research Board Workshops.....................
Public-private Partnerships and Enabling            450,000      250,000
 Research Outreach............................
Civil Engineering Research Foundation                50,000       50,000
 Workshops....................................
International Scanning........................      100,000      100,000
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      700,000      550,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please give specific examples of key needs in cross- 
cutting or intermodal research that you plan to fund in fiscal year 
2001. Could a portion of the human-centered systems operator fatigue 
management research proposed for fiscal year 2001 be conducted under 
this subaccount?
    Answer. There are several key areas in which we plan to engage in 
cross-cutting or intermodal research:
  --Human-centered systems
  --Transportation infrastructure assurance, including aviation safety/
        security
  --Advanced vehicle technologies
  --Marine fuel cells (Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 
        Support)
  --University Transportation Research and Marine Transportation 
        Research
    RSPA does not use the R&D planning and management funds for direct 
research, other than SBIR. Direct R&D can be found in separate line 
items within our budget.
    Each of the cross-cutting areas above has been underscored as 
national research priorities in several interagency documents, 
including the NSTC National Transportation Science and Technology 
Strategy, Transportation Technology Plan, and Transportation Strategic 
Research Plan.
    The operator fatigue management activities are a subset of the 
human-centered systems research program. The human-centered systems 
research program is a critical part of the Department's cross-cutting 
research agenda. The results of that research agenda serve as a 
multimodal base of knowledge from which all DOT administrations will be 
able to profit in reducing loss of life and property from 
transportation incidents.
    Meeting the objectives of all of these research initiatives will 
require all the resources requested for these activities in the fiscal 
year 2001 budget request. This work will be critical to the 
Department's ability to support transportation goals of safety, 
mobility and security, while contributing to the reduction of adverse, 
transportation-related environmental impacts.
    Question. Did RSPA or OST obtain any funding in either fiscal year 
1999 or 2000 from FHWA's surface transportation research and 
development account for any purpose? If so, please specify the use and 
amount of any funding received.
    Answer. The FHWA provided funding to RSPA to support the 
implementation of Section 5108 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century. Specifically, FHWA provided $200,000 in fiscal year 1999 
and $250,000 in fiscal year 2000 to help accomplish the following:
    (1) Develop the second and third edition of the DOT R&D Plan 
($200,000);
    (2) Conduct a National Research Council review of the DOT R&D Plan 
and transportation R&D strategic planning process ($150,000); and
    (3) Support the development of Performance Plans and Performance 
Reports ($100,000).
    Question. Please provide an explanation of how funds requested for 
administrative expenses are used.
    Answer. We plan to use funds requested for administrative expenses 
as shown below:

          
                                                        Fiscal year 2001
                                                              (Estimated
        Administrative Expenses                             Obligations)

Training......................................................    $8,000
Printing......................................................    59,000
Supplies & Materials..........................................     9,000
Equipment.....................................................    17,000
Travel........................................................    15,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   108,000

    Question. Please list each of the recommendations of the TRB 
committee that reviews your work and RSPA's response.
    Answer. The National Research Council/Transportation Research Board 
Committee on the Federal Transportation R&D Strategic Planning Process 
has conducted five major reviews to date of the Federal transportation 
R&D strategic planning process for the National Science and Technology 
Council Committee on Technology and its Subcommittee on Transportation 
R&D. Each has been documented in a separate letter report. Four have 
focused on interagency issues:
  --The Strategic Planning Process itself (9/97)
  --Technology Partnerships (9/98)
  --Enabling Research (11/98)
  --The Partnership for Infrastructure Renewal in Transportation, and 
        Medium-/Heavy-duty Vehicle Research (9/99)
    The fifth review is the first to focus specifically on DOT 
programs, in this case those supporting the DOT Strategic Goal of 
enhancing Safety. The letter report from that review is attached for 
your information.
    The recommendations from the studies to date have been used to 
focus process improvements. For example, the first interagency review 
recommended integrating top-down and bottom-up planning, establishing 
research priorities, recognizing directions in non-Federally funded 
research, using the iterative nature of the planning process to refine 
directions, linking research plans with an end-state vision, and 
linking R&D planning with budget guidance. The new DOT R&D Plan, now in 
final preparation, reflects many of these guidelines. DOT will continue 
to incorporate insights from the reviews as research planning 
continues.

                              National Academy of Sciences,
                                    Washington, DC, March 28, 2000.
The Honorable Rodney E. Slater,
Secretary of Transportation,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Slater: At the request of Dr. Fenton Carey, Chairman of 
the Research and Technology Coordination Council of the U.S. Department 
of Transportation (DOT), the National Research Council (NRC), acting 
through the Transportation Research Board (TRB), convened the Committee 
for Review of the National Transportation Science and Technology 
Strategy (see Attachment 1 for a list of the committee members). The 
committee is charged with fulfilling the congressional request in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to review and 
comment on DOT's Strategic Plan, Performance Plan, and Program 
Performance Report (required under the Government Performance and 
Results Act [GPRA]) with respect to surface transportation research and 
technology (R&T) development.
    While Congress specified ``surface transportation research and 
technology development'' in its request, DOT asked that all modes be 
included in the committee's task; thus the committee has not limited 
its scope to surface transportation. Moreover, although many of the 
issues and questions addressed by the committee apply to the above 
documents in a general way, in some cases it was necessary to perform a 
more focused analysis of specific strategic goals and how R&T supports 
them. In particular, at the request of DOT staff, the committee 
performed such a focused analysis on the safety goal. The selection of 
safety as a focus area reflects this goal's high level of importance to 
society and to the Department. At the same time, the committee believes 
that its observations on the safety elements of the documents are valid 
for the other goal areas as well since DOT has applied the same 
structure and process for all of its strategic goals.
    The committee carried out its task by reviewing DOT's GPRA 
documents and the first edition of the Department's Research and 
Development Plan (R&D Plan), dated May 1999, as well as by holding a 
meeting in Washington, D.C., on February 3-4, 2000. During the open 
session of the meeting, the committee heard from Eugene Conti 
(Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, DOT) and Fenton Carey 
(Associate Administrator for Research, Technology and Analysis, DOT 
Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA]) about the 
Department's strategic planning efforts and how its R&T activities 
support the achievement of its strategic goals. In addition, brief 
presentations were made by research managers from several DOT operating 
administrations.

                               BACKGROUND

    Transportation makes essential contributions to the nation's 
economy and quality of life. New knowledge and innovative technologies 
derived from research have played a critical role in supporting and 
enhancing those contributions, and in helping to mitigate some of 
transportation's less desirable impacts with regard to safety and the 
environment. Now more than ever, R&T offers promise for enhancing the 
performance of the transportation system. However, resources for 
research are limited. Strategic planning and analysis are required to 
direct these resources to their most beneficial uses.
    During the last several years, DOT has made considerable progress 
in developing a strategic planning process for transportation R&T at 
the levels of both the Department and the federal government. 
Coordinating bodies at both levels--DOT's Research and Technology 
Coordinating Council (RTCC) and the National Science and Technology 
Council's (NSTC) Subcommittee on Transportation R&D, respectively--have 
been established or reinvigorated. Several partnership initiatives, 
involving federal agencies, the private sector, and state and local 
governments, have been undertaken to advance research in promising 
areas. Support for the role of R&T in enhancing transportation has been 
exhibited consistently at the highest level of the Department. It is 
the committee's hope that in the years to come, the strategic value of 
R&T will continue to be accorded significant visibility, backed by 
adequate institutional authority within the Office of the Secretary.
    This NRC committee--which has undergone a number of transformations 
since TRB coordinated the DOT-sponsored Forum on Transportation R&D in 
1995--has been privileged to participate in and witness the progress 
made to date. From 1997 through 1999, the committee reviewed elements 
of the NSTC`s strategic planning process, and that effort will 
continue. The committee's new task--focusing on DOT's use of R&T to 
support its Strategic Plan--well complements the NSTC review. The two 
tasks promise to be mutually reinforcing in a way that should enhance 
the quality and usefulness of both reviews.
    The remainder of this report contains the results of the 
committee's review of DOT's GPRA documents and R&D Plan. It begins with 
general observations regarding GPRA, research, and DOT's efforts to 
present its R&T program within the GPRA framework. This is followed by 
a description of the approach used by the committee to conduct its 
review. The committee's recommendations are then presented, arranged 
according to major topics relevant to research management. Attachment 2 
contains the committee's more detailed findings, arranged according to 
the questions that guided its review.

                          GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

    Since GPRA was passed in 1993, some questions have been raised 
about its applicability to the research activities of government 
agencies. Because the process required by GPRA is based on a 5-year 
strategic planning horizon, concern exists within the committee that 
GPRA constrains, and perhaps prohibits, the long-term thinking and 
planning that should characterize the federal role in research. This 
concern is particularly relevant for basic research, but even successes 
from highly applied research (the type sponsored by DOT) can require 
years before achieving widespread implementation. Nevertheless, the 
committee believes that if issues related to GPRA's short planning 
horizon are overcome, the requirement to align activities with 
strategic goals and to apply some form of performance measurement is 
entirely appropriate for R&T and a salutary discipline for agencies 
entrusted with the public good.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For more detailed treatment of the importance of evaluating 
research activities and the need to use appropriate measures of 
performance for different types of research, see Evaluating Federal 
Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results 
Act, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National 
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The fact that R&T is an overarching corporate management strategy 
for DOT represents a strategic decision or policy to use R&T to advance 
the Department's goals. The documents reviewed by the committee 
comprise DOT's initial attempt to plan and portray its R&T activities 
under GPRA. Summarizing and presenting a large quantity of information 
about very diverse activities in a succinct way is a difficult task. 
There is a risk of oversimplifying a highly complex activity--
transportation research--in trying to facilitate the reader's 
assimilation of the vast array of R&T that can contribute to the 
system's improved performance. Overall, the Department has made a 
commendable effort to accomplish this task. The main flaw of the 
current R&D Plan is that it does not fully articulate DOT's many 
important R&T activities and how they serve attainment of the 
Department's strategic goals. The committee understands that 
improvements are already being made in this regard for the next version 
of the R&D Plan.

                            REVIEW APPROACH

    As noted earlier, the congressional request that gave rise to this 
review requires that the NRC examine DOT's GPRA documents ``with 
respect to surface transportation research and technology development'' 
(TEA-21, Section 5108 ``Sec. 508(c)(3)''). The committee reviewed the 
following specific GPRA documents:
  --U.S. Department of Transportation Strategic Plan 1997-2002
  --U.S. Department of Transportation 1999 Performance Plan
  --U.S. Department of Transportation 2000 Performance Plan
  --U.S. Department of Transportation 2001 Performance Plan and 1999 
        Performance Report
    In addition, TEA-21 (Section 5108 ``Sec. 508(c)(1)'') requires DOT 
to develop an ``integrated surface transportation research and 
technology development strategic plan.'' Since this document--the R&D 
Plan (first edition, May 1999)--is intended to present more detail 
about the role of R&T in meeting DOT's strategic goals, it was included 
in the committee's review as well
    To perform its review, the committee began by assessing the R&D 
Plan with regard to the contents required by TEA-21 (Section 5108 
``Sec. 508(c)(2)''). In addition, the committee posed several questions 
based on the required contents of GPRA documents. Both the TEA-21 
requirements and these additional questions are used to structure the 
committee's more detailed findings in Attachment 2.

                          KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

    The committee believes the R&D Plan should articulate explicit R&T 
priorities, the methodology used to determine those priorities, and how 
each priority is reflected in the Department's budget. The committee 
formulated two key recommendations for improving the R&D Plan, as well 
as the other documents reviewed, in this regard.

Recommendation 1: Alignment of R&T with Strategic Plan
    R&T priorities and activities should be tied more explicitly to the 
Department's strategic and performance goals,\2\ and their relationship 
to these goals should be articulated more clearly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ DOT's Strategic Plan contains five ``strategic goals.'' Each of 
these goals is further broken down into ``performance goals,'' which 
reflect the specific ways in which the operating administrations will 
contribute to the strategic goals. The Department's annual Performance 
Plans and Performance Reports are focused primarily on the performance 
goals, which may evolve over time as they are met or as other ways to 
achieve the strategic goals are deemed more effective. Attachment 3 
lists the strategic and performance goals for safety, taken from DOT's 
fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The overall strategy of the Department with respect to R&T mirrors 
the NSTC strategy, the main elements of which are strategic planning, 
partnership initiatives, enabling research, and training and education. 
It is not always clear from the GPRA documents, or the R&D Plan, 
however, exactly how R&T supports the Department's strategic goals. R&T 
activities--those listed in the GPRA documents as well as the 
partnership initiatives and enabling research in the R&D Plan--should 
be tied clearly to the Department's strategic goals through 
articulation of their relationship to the performance goals associated 
with each strategic goal. While it may not be appropriate for the 
Strategic Plan or the Performance Plans to include such explanations, 
it would be appropriate for the R&D Plan to do so.
    The R&D Plan should be organized primarily in accordance with DOT 
strategic and performance goals, rather than the partnership 
initiatives and enabling research of NSTC. However, the committee 
supports the use of the NSTC categories as a way of reflecting the 
overall R&T corporate management strategy and demonstrating that DOT's 
R&T activities are consistent with the multidepartment cooperative 
perspective of the NSTC framework.
    R&T is often many steps removed from the outcome goals in the 
Strategic Plan, and the GPRA documents cover so many DOT activities 
that they cannot provide detailed rationales for specific R&T 
activities. The R&D Plan should show how the R&T activities are driven 
(directly or indirectly, in the short or the long term) by the goals of 
the Strategic Plan.

Recommendation 2: Resources
    The R&D Plan should include the funding budgeted for specific R&T 
activities and performance goals, since budgets are a tangible 
reflection of the real priorities of an agency.
    The R&D Plan contains no discussion of resource needs for R&T. 
Funding devoted to specific R&T activities and performance goals should 
be specified so the level of R&T effort toward each goal can be 
ascertained. As mentioned in Recommendation 4, below, funding should 
also be characterized according to the types of R&T activities so that 
the mission focus of DOT will be more apparent from its R&T 
investments.
    Funding is not the only resource need. Human capital is just as 
critical, particularly in the area of R&T. It is necessary to have 
people who can discover new knowledge and develop and use new 
technologies. The R&D Plan does not address the human resource needs of 
DOT to support specific R&T efforts. Without the proper knowledge base 
within DOT and its partner organizations, the promise of R&T will not 
be realized.

                         OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

    In addition to the key recommendations presented above, the 
committee formulated the following more specific recommendations.

Recommendation 3: Criteria and Methodologies for Program Development
    DOT should employ rational criteria and methodologies in 
prioritizing and budgeting for its R&T programs and should include 
these criteria and methods in the R&D Plan.
    The documents reviewed do not indicate what criteria and systematic 
methodologies, if any, were used in determining the R&T activities to 
be carried out by the Department. Alignment with strategic goals is 
necessary, but not sufficient, since it is possible to identify many 
more activities that are related to the goals than can be undertaken 
with the limited resources available. As recommended in the committee's 
previous letter report of September 3, 1999, the practices of 
technology scanning \3\ and technology mapping \4\ are useful initial 
R&T activities. In addition, in the safety area in particular, risk 
analysis based on careful analysis of statistical data can help 
identify the most promising approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Technology scanning is a review of research in a variety of 
areas that could be applied to a subject of interest.
    \4\ Technology mapping is a careful analysis that indicates those 
points in specific systems that offer the highest leveraging potential 
so the research to be undertaken can be directed toward critical 
problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Various criteria and methods can be used to prioritize R&T 
activities. The committee would like to suggest that in preparing 
future versions of the R&D Plan, DOT consider adopting a methodology 
such as that presented by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 
during the committee's meeting. A description and diagram depicting 
FRA's methodology are presented in Attachment 4. While the method was 
developed specifically to prioritize rail safety R&D, it is a good 
example of a rational approach that could be adapted to broader 
research prioritization efforts. The practice of focused and 
transparent priority setting would help increase the credibility of 
DOT's R&T programs by ensuring responsible and competent use of the 
public funds entrusted to the Department.

Recommendation 4: Types of R&T Activities Undertaken
    The documents should clearly explain DOT's role in transportation 
R&T by identifying where its R&T activities are most appropriately 
focused and demonstrating that its investments are, in fact, in areas 
not likely to be covered by other agencies or the private sector.
    The documents express a greater emphasis on ``technology'' than on 
``research.'' For instance, the Research and Development Corporate 
Management Strategy of the 1999 Performance Plan was revised for the 
2000 Performance Plan. Language referring directly to alignment and 
harnessing of research and to building of intellectual capital was 
deleted. At the same time, language focused on innovation--``capacity 
to transform new technologies, concepts, and ideas rapidly into new 
products, processes and services . . .''--was added (see pages 5-6 of 
the revisions to the final DOT fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan). 
Since DOT's specific role in transportation R&T is not explained in the 
documents, the reason for placing more emphasis on innovation than on 
research is unclear.
    It might be helpful, as the Department of Defense has done, to 
employ a taxonomy for distinguishing longer-term or more advanced 
research, shorter-term applied research, development, testing and 
evaluation, and implementation support. Then DOT could articulate which 
portions of the R&T spectrum are most clearly associated with its role 
and indicate its level of investment in each, taking into consideration 
possible variations among the operating administrations, in this 
regard. The issue of agency roles and missions is addressed further 
under Recommendation 5 below.

Recommendation 5: Public-Sector Organizational Roles and Coordination
    The roles of various public-sector participants (other federal 
agencies, DOT operating administrations, state and local governments) 
and the mechanisms for coordinating their participation should be 
described in the R&D Plan. The R&T activities DOT has chosen to pursue 
should reflect these coordination efforts.
    Although required in TEA-21, there is no general discussion in the 
R&D Plan of the missions of the various federal departments and 
agencies, their (presumably) complementary responsibilities, the 
consequent differences in their roles in R&T, and the potential for 
interaction and synergy. For instance, in 1997, approximately $5.1 
billion \5\ was invested by federal agencies in transportation-related 
R&D, of which DOT accounted for about 8 percent. The R&D Plan should 
explain how DOT's efforts fit with those of other agencies; which 
agencies, given their missions, focus more on specific portions of the 
R&T spectrum; and what is provided by DOT efforts that is not covered 
by the other agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ National Science and Technology Council, Transportation 
Strategic Research Plan, Washington, D.C., May 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The R&D Plan also contains no overall discussion of the roles of 
each operating administration within DOT over the next 5 years, as 
required by TEA-21. For instance, given that 94 percent of fatalities 
in transportation are highway-related, it would be appropriate to point 
out the primary role of particular operating administrations (Federal 
Highway Administration [FHWA], National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration [NHTSA], and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
[FMCSA]; and FRA in the case of crashes involving highway-rail grade 
crossings) in reducing transportation fatalities.
    There is also no discussion of state and local R&T activities in 
the plan. In particular, there is no acknowledgment of the role of 
these agencies as owners and operators of important parts of the 
transportation system and as major investors in research, and therefore 
as critical partners in the prioritization and conduct of research and 
the development and implementation of new technologies.
    Regarding coordination, the R&D Plan refers to the RTCC at the DOT-
wide level, and to the NSTC Subcommittee on Transportation R&D and its 
strategic planning documents at the federal government-wide level. The 
committee applauds the RTCC and DOT's interaction with the NSTC 
subcommittee; clearly, however, coordination does not take place 
through the mere existence of committees and documents, but through 
their impacts on priorities, budgets, and activities. The connection 
between the committees and the operational realities of DOT's R&T 
programs is not evident.

Recommendation 6: Outreach
    The R&D Plan should be developed with input from the public, 
private, and academic sectors. The methods of obtaining this input and 
results of the outreach should be documented in the plan itself.
    TEA-21 requires that DOT obtain comments on the R&D Plan from 
outside sources and include responses to significant comments in the 
plan itself. While comments from this NRC committee could not be 
included since the committee first met after the initial version of the 
R&D Plan had been published, it is not evident from the plan that DOT 
solicited any comments from outside sources. Even though significant 
outreach may not have been possible for this version of the plan, the 
plan could have described the nature and extent of outreach to be 
conducted for future editions. The plan would benefit from the input of 
stakeholders in the public, private, and academic sectors.

Recommendation 7: Performance Measurement
    Performance measurement of DOT's R&T activities should extend 
beyond theoretical discussion. Specific measures, methods of applying 
them and analyzing the results, and the actions to be taken in response 
should be specified in the R&D Plan.
    Chapter V of the R&D Plan, ``Measuring Success,'' provides a 
general discussion of GPRA and performance measurement, but does not 
indicate how the general theory has been applied to DOT's R&T programs. 
A list of impact-based performance measures is included in Table V-2, 
but these differ from the performance goals and indicators in the 
Department's Strategic Plan and Performance Plans. Since R&T activities 
are often far removed in time and in the chain of causality from the 
ultimate outcomes expressed in DOT's strategic goals, it may be 
necessary to establish intermediate goals for R&T activities. It should 
be made clear, however, how achievement of these intermediate goals 
will bring the Department closer to achievement of its ultimate goals.
    The Strategic Plan indicates that the Department will measure the 
impact of R&T on transportation system performance through benchmarking 
efforts. However, this activity is not mentioned in the Performance 
Plans. Instead, benchmarking efforts aimed at measuring the performance 
of DOT R&T facilities are proposed. It is not clear that an assessment 
of R&T facilities will serve as an assessment of R&T results.

                           CONCLUDING REMARKS

    These recommendations focus on a small number of the important 
issues surrounding the implementation of GPRA to research and 
technology activities. In future years, the committee may choose to 
address other issues, such as human resource requirements and the need 
to balance planning and flexibility.
    The committee is pleased to have had the opportunity to provide 
feedback on DOT's efforts to use R&T to advance national transportation 
goals, and hopes that its comments and recommendations will prove 
useful. The committee looks forward to continued participation in the 
Department's strategic planning efforts.
            Sincerely,
                                            Joseph Sussman,
Chair, Committee for Review of the National Transportation Science 
                                           and Technology Strategy.

                              Attachment 1

    COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SCIENCE AND 
                          TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY

    Joseph M. Sussman, Chairman, Japan Rail East Professor and 
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Engineering 
Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Director of 
MIT's Association of American Railroads Affiliated Laboratory.
    H. Norman Abramson [NAE], Vice Chairman, Executive Vice President 
(retired), Southwest Research Institute.
    A. Ray Chamberlain, Vice President and Area Manager, Parsons 
Brinckerhoff.
    Irwin Feller, Director and Professor of Economics, Pennsylvania 
State University Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation.
    Robert E. Gallamore, Assistant Vice President, Communications 
Technologies and General Manager of the Positive Train Control Program, 
Transportation Technology Center, Inc.
    William C. Harris, President and Executive Director, Columbia 
University's Biosphere 2 Center.
    Christopher T. Hill, Vice Provost for Research and Professor of 
Public Policy, George Mason University.
    Margaret T. Jenny, Vice President, Corporate Business Development, 
ARINC.
    C. Ian MacGillivray, Director, Engineering Division, Iowa 
Department of Transportation.
    Sue McNeil, Braun/Intertec Visiting Professor, University of 
Minnesota.
    Steve T. Scalzo, Senior Vice President, Operations, Foss Maritime 
Company.
    Dale F. Stein [NAE], President Emeritus, Michigan Technological 
University.
    Michael S. Townes, Executive Director, Transportation District 
Commission of Hampton Roads.

                              Attachment 2

                    DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF DOCUMENTS

Questions Guiding Assessment
    To conduct its review, the committee began by assessing the R&D 
Plan with regard to the contents required for this plan in TEA-21 
(Section 5108 ``Sec. 508(c)(2)''). These required elements are as 
follows:
    (A) an identification of the general goals and objectives of the 
Department for surface transportation research and technology 
development;
    (B) a description of the roles of the Department and other Federal 
agencies in achieving the goals identified under subparagraph (A), in 
order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort;
    (C) a description of the overall strategy of the Department, and 
the role of each of the operating administrations of the Department, in 
carrying out the plan over the next 5 years, including a description of 
procedures for coordination of the efforts of the operating 
administrations of the Department and other Federal agencies;
    (D) an assessment of how State and local research and technology 
development activities are contributing to the achievement of the goals 
identified under subparagraph (A);
    (E) details of the surface transportation research and technology 
development programs of the Department, including performance goals, 
resources needed to achieve those goals, and performance indicators as 
described in [GPRA--see Tab 1, Section 1115(a)], for the next 5 years 
for each area of research and technology development;
    (F) significant comments on the plan obtained from outside sources; 
and
    (G) responses to significant comments obtained from the National 
Research Council and other advisory bodies, and a description of any 
corrective actions taken pursuant to such comments.
    The committee also developed additional questions derived from the 
requirements found in GPRA. These questions are as follows:
    (1) Do the Strategic Plan and Performance Plans include R&T as 
contributors to achieving strategic goals?
    (2) If so, is the R&T related to the goals and is the relationship 
clearly explained in the documents?
    (3) Does the Performance Report or the R&D Plan include: (a) A 
summary of results of previous fiscal years' R&T? (b) An analysis of 
the relationship between R&T results and DOT's strategic goals? (c) A 
description of the methodology used for assessing results? (d) A 
description of significant changes in the R&T undertaken compared with 
what was included in that year's plan (planned R&T that was not 
performed and why, unplanned R&T that was performed and why)?
    (4) How are the following processes handled: (a) Gathering input 
from stakeholders and incorporating it into the plan and report; (b) 
Mechanisms for coordination and cooperation among public and/or private 
entities; and (c) Tracking of progress on R&T activities.
Detailed findings
    The committee's detailed findings based on the TEA-21 requirements 
and the additional questions listed on the previous page are in italics 
below.
    Conformity of the R&D Plan to the requirements specified in TEA-21, 
Section 5108 ``Sec. 508(c)(2)'':
    (A) an identification of the general goals and objectives of the 
Department for surface transportation research and technology 
development

          ``The goals and objectives of the DOT Strategic Plan are 
        stated in the R&D Plan. However, the ``impact-based performance 
        measures'' stated in Chapter V of the R&D Plan differ from the 
        performance goals in DOT's Strategic Plan and Performance 
        Plans. For instance, in the area of safety, the R&D Plan 
        includes reference to motorcycle related fatalities and 
        injuries and child occupant fatalities, which are not mentioned 
        in DOT's performance goals. Conversely, the R&D Plan does not 
        mention other DOT safety performance goals, such as those 
        related to seat belt use and large-truck fatalities and 
        injuries, or any of the safety performance measures in 
        nonhighway modes.''

    (B) a description of the roles of the Department and other Federal 
agencies in achieving the goals identified under subparagraph (A), in 
order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort

          ``The R&D Plan lists other (non-DOT) federal agencies 
        involved with each of the partnership initiatives (Chapter 
        III). A few specific interagency activities are mentioned in 
        the descriptions of the initiatives. Under ``Enabling 
        Research'' (Chapter IV there are a few references to joint 
        activities with other agencies, but there is no discussion of 
        related research that is not under DOT sponsorship. There is no 
        general discussion of the various missions of the different 
        agencies, their (presumably) complementary responsibilities, 
        the consequent differences in their roles in R&T, and the 
        potential for interaction and synergy. Chapter II mentions the 
        NSTC Subcommittee on Transportation R&D as a mechanism for 
        coordinating federal transportation R&D however, the only 
        effort of this committee that is mentioned is the production of 
        a strategic plan. It is not clear how actual coordination of 
        federal activities is to take place.
          ``Also, regarding roles, there is more focus on 
        ``technology'' than on ``research'' (see p. 6 of the 2000 
        Performance Plan, for example), which is considered more the 
        classic federal role. On the other hand, the distinction 
        between the technology partnership initiatives and the enabling 
        research is not well explained.''

    (C) a description of the overall strategy of the Department, and 
the role of each of the operating administrations of the Department, in 
carrying out the plan over the next 5 years, including a description of 
procedures for coordination of the efforts of the operating 
administrations of the Department and other Federal agencies

          ``DOT's overall strategy with respect to R&T mirrors the NSTC 
        Strategy, the main elements of which are strategic planning, 
        partnership initiatives, enabling research, and training and 
        education. It is not always clear from the GPRA documents or 
        the R&D Plan, however, exactly how R&T supports the 
        Department's strategic goals.
          ``The efforts of the operating administrations are 
        coordinated through DOT's Research and Technology Coordinating 
        Council, which is mentioned in Chapter II. No further 
        description of coordination procedures is offered. The 
        operating administrations involved in each partnership 
        initiative are listed under the initiative, and many of the 
        research activities of the operating administrations are 
        described under enabling research. There is no overall 
        discussion of the roles of each administration over the next 5 
        years. (For instance, it would be appropriate to point out the 
        primary role of FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA in reducing 
        transportation fatalities, given that 94 percent of these 
        fatalities are highway related. Other operating administrations 
        may have stronger roles in supporting other strategic goal 
        areas.)''

    (D) an assessment of how State and local research and technology 
development activities are contributing to the achievement of the goals 
identified under subparagraph (A)

          ``There is no discussion of state and local R&T activities in 
        the document. Even under the section ``Issues as Seen by the 
        Stakeholders'' there is no direct reference to state DOTs. 
        Under ``Paving the Way for R&D Implementation'' there is a 
        brief reference to ``state, tribal, county, and city government 
        agencies,'' but no acknowledgment of the role of these agencies 
        as owners and operators of important parts of the 
        transportation system, and therefore as critical partners in 
        the conduct of research and the development and implementation 
        of new technologies.''

    (E) details of the surface transportation research and technology 
development programs of the Department, including performance goals, 
resources needed to achieve those goals, and performance indicators as 
described in [GPRA--see Tab 1, Section 1115(a)], for the next 5 years 
for each area of research and technology development

          ``Chapter V, ``Measuring Success,'' provides a general 
        discussion of GPRA and performance measurement, but this 
        discussion is not applied concretely to DOT's R&T programs. A 
        list of impact-based performance measures is included in Table 
        V-2, but these differ from the performance goals and indicators 
        in the Department's Strategic Plan and Performance Plans. It 
        may be necessary to establish intermediate goals for R&T 
        activities, but it should be clear how accomplishment of these 
        intermediate goals will bring the Department closer to 
        achievement of its ultimate goals. The goals in the R&D Plan 
        are not clearly associated with the specific R&T activities 
        described in the plan; that is, it is not clear which enabling 
        research or partnership initiatives are aimed at each 
        performance goal and how they are expected to contribute to 
        achieving that goal. There is no discussion of resource needs. 
        The only reference to time frame appears to be the 
        categorization of enabling research as near-term (5 years or 
        less) or long-term (more than 5 years).''

    (F) significant comments on the plan obtained from outside sources

          ``Understandably, there are no comments from the NRC 
        committee since the committee met for the first time in 
        February 2000. However, there are also no comments from other 
        outside sources.''

    (G) responses to significant comments obtained from the National 
Research Council and other advisory bodies, and a description of any 
corrective actions taken pursuant to such comments

          ``Again, it was not possible for responses to the NRC 
        committee to be included, but if other outside sources were 
        consulted, their comments should have received responses. If 
        none were consulted, such consultation should take place before 
        the next version of the plan is published.''

    Assessment of GPRA documents and the R&D Plan with respect to the 
committee-developed questions derived from the requirements found in 
GPRA:
    (1) Do the Strategic Plan and Performance Plans include R&T as 
contributors to achieving strategic goals?

          ``The Strategic Plan and Performance Plans include R&T among 
        the activities DOT will undertake to achieve its goals. In 
        fact, R&T is identified as an overall management strategy for 
        the Department. The 1999 Performance Plan presents additional 
        R&T activities under each strategic goal area, categorizing 
        them by mode. The 2000 Performance Plan aligns R&T more 
        directly with performance goals under each strategic goal area. 
        There is little mention of research in the 2001 Performance 
        Plan. Many of the activities for 2001 are the same as or 
        similar to those in the 1999 Performance Plan. There is no 
        explanation of how the activities in each year differ.''

    (2) If so, is the R&T related to the goals and is the relationship 
clearly explained in the documents?

          ``The specific R&T activities in the Strategic Plan appear to 
        be merely illustrative since they clearly do not represent all 
        the R&T activities of the Department. It is not clear whether 
        these examples are the most closely related to DOT's strategic 
        goals.
          ``The format used in the 2000 Performance Plan gives a better 
        sense of how R&T supports the goals of the Department and 
        appears to have led to a better categorization of the R&T 
        activities. For instance, in the 1999 Performance Plan, the 
        Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles and testing of 
        intelligent transportation systems (ITS)/commercial vehicle 
        operator technologies at border crossings are categorized under 
        highway safety. While these activities may have safety 
        implications, they are more directly focused on the Human and 
        Natural Environment and Economic Growth and Trade goals, 
        respectively, which is where they are categorized in the 2000 
        Performance Plan.
          ``The relationship between specific R&T activities and the 
        performance goals is not explained in the Performance Plans; 
        however, it is probably not reasonable to expect such 
        explanation without these plans becoming overly long. A more 
        detailed explanation of how R&T activities support DOT goals 
        would more appropriately be included in the Department's R&D 
        Plan.
          ``In the R&D Plan, the descriptions of the partnership 
        initiatives provide better explanations, in some cases, of the 
        need for the technologies involved than is found in the 
        Performance Plans. However, while the partnership initiatives 
        are correlated with the strategic goals, they are not clearly 
        linked to the performance goals, which focus on more specific 
        outcomes. For instance, many of the partnership initiatives and 
        enabling research efforts are directed toward ``safety,'' but 
        it is difficult to tell whether they are oriented strategically 
        to address the issues and problems whose resolution offers the 
        most promise for reducing specific kinds of fatalities and 
        injuries. Therefore, the rationale for the R&T focus is not 
        always clear.''

    (3) Does the Performance Report or the R&D Plan include: (a) A 
summary of results of previous fiscal years' R&T?

          ``Such a summary is not included in either document.''

    (b) An analysis of the relationship between R&T results and DOT's 
strategic goals?

          ``Since the results of R&T are not included in the plan, such 
        an analysis is also not included.''

    (c) A description of the methodology used for assessing results?

          ``The R&D Plan addresses performance measurement somewhat 
        theoretically, but does not apply it to specific R&T 
        activities. The Strategic Plan (p. 64) indicates that DOT will 
        measure the impact of R&T on transportation system performance 
        through benchmarking efforts. This particular activity is not 
        mentioned in the 1999 Performance Plan, although that plan does 
        indicate that DOT will consider using International 
        Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9000 certification and 
        Malcolm Baldridge or President's Quality Award criteria to 
        perform baseline assessments of the performance of DOT R&T 
        facilities. The 2000 Performance Plan indicates that this 
        baseline assessment will be completed in fiscal year 2000. 
        However, it appears that the criteria to be used had still not 
        been chosen when the plan was written since the three mentioned 
        above are still listed as possible criteria, and a fourth 
        (Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model 
        certification) is added. Also, it is not clear that an 
        assessment of R&T facilities will encompass an assessment of 
        R&T results. The reports do not assess the contributions of DOT 
        R&T to the achievement of goals and performance measures 
        relative to the contribution of other DOT actions and programs. 
        Although not explicitly called for in TEA-21 or GPRA, DOT may 
        wish to include this type of assessment in its benchmarking 
        efforts.''

    (d) A description of significant changes in the R&T undertaken 
compared with what was included in that year's plan (planned R&T that 
was not performed and why not, unplanned R&T that was performed and 
why)?

          ``This description does not appear to be provided in any of 
        the documents.''

    (4) How are the following processes handled: (a) Gathering input 
from stakeholders and incorporating it into the plan and report

          ``Answered under (F), above.''

    (b) Mechanisms for coordination and cooperation among public and/or 
private entities

          ``Coordination among modal administrations is addressed under 
        (C), above. Coordination among federal departments is addressed 
        under (B), above. The R&D Plan also lists nonfederal entities 
        that are (or could be) involved in particular partnership 
        initiatives. Coordination with these entities is not 
        discussed.''

    (c) Tracking of progress on R&T activities

          ``There is no progress tracking in the R&D Plan. Since this 
        is the first plan of its kind under the GPRA regime, it may be 
        more reasonable to expect progress tracking in later versions 
        of the document.''
Additional Specific Comments About R&D Plan
    In reviewing the R&D Plan, the committee identified some additional 
specific areas in which the plan could be improved. Some of these are 
matters of format, structure, or editing. Others refer more to the 
substance of the plan. Addressing these observations should help create 
a document that better reflects the transportation R&T enterprise and 
is more understandable to the reader.

      CHAPTER III: PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVES AND TECHNOLOGY SHARING

    The partnership initiatives are ordered differently in the text and 
in the tables of Chapter III. This makes it somewhat difficult to 
compare the two.
    It might be clearer to list DOT programs (pp. III-33 to III-43) 
directly under the corresponding partnership initiatives (pp. III-3 to 
III-25) so that it would be easier to see how they are related.
    The Next Generation Vehicle initiative is referred to by different 
names in various parts of the document. Consistent use of one name 
would be clearer.
    Descriptions of partnership initiatives and how they are related to 
the strategic goals are not consistent. For instance, PNGV is included 
under Next Generation Surface and Marine Transportation Vehicles on 
page III-9 and under the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative on page III-34. 
Safety is indicated as a primary DOT strategic goal for the Monitoring, 
Maintenance, and Rapid Renewal of the Physical Infrastructure 
initiative, but does not figure significantly in the descriptions of 
this initiative on pages III-19 to III-20 and III-39 to III-41. Next 
Generation Global Air Transportation is said to support Mobility and 
Economic Growth and Trade on p. III-30, but the description of the 
initiative on p. III-35 suggests a significant contribution to Human 
and Natural Environment.

                     CHAPTER IV: ENABLING RESEARCH

    The distinction between short-term and long-term in this chapter is 
interesting, but somewhat confusing. Much of the research characterized 
as long-term appears to be aimed at about the same time horizon as some 
of the partnership initiatives, which might be expected to be more 
short-term in nature. Where is the truly long-term, high-risk, 
``enabling'' research being done?

            CHAPTER VI: IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND INCENTIVES

    The discussion of ``user stakeholder'' issues generally emphasizes 
user obstacles to implementation, such as liability, economic, and 
privacy concerns. This section should also include the opportunities 
for implementation and the motivations users may have to support 
implementation.
    The chapter goes into some detail on implementation of a few 
specific technologies (free flight and ITS technologies). It might make 
more sense to include these discussions under the appropriate 
partnership initiatives or enabling research areas and reserve this 
chapter for analysis of overarching issues in the implementation of 
R&T, such as institutional, procurement, educational, and liability 
issues, which tend to arise in many technology areas.
    The section on ``Paving the Way for R&D Implementation'' focuses 
solely on procurement reform. Though this is a critical implementation 
issue to address, it is not the only one. Studies have identified 
various factors that appear to be associated with successful 
implementation of R&T. For example, implementation is more successful 
when users are involved with the research from the beginning (a good 
argument for partnerships) and when there are champions at different 
levels of an organization. This chapter could address some of these 
factors.

                              Attachment 3

             DOT STRATEGIC AND PERFORMANCE GOALS FOR SAFETY

    These goals are taken from the U.S. Department of Transportation 
Performance Plan for fiscal year 2000.
    DOT has strategic goals in five areas: Safety; Mobility; Economic 
Growth and Trade; Human and Natural Environment; and National Security.
    The strategic goal for safety is: ``Promote the public health and 
safety by working toward the elimination of transportation-related 
deaths, injuries, and property damage.''
    The performance goals contributing to the achievement of the 
strategic goal for safety are:
    Highway Fatality and Injury Rates.--Reduce the rate of highway-
related fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 
1.7 in 1996 to 1.5 in 2000. Reduce the rate for injuries from 141 in 
1996 to 124 per 100 million VMT in 2000.
    Alcohol-Related Highway Fatalities.--Reduce the percentage of 
highway fatalities that are alcohol-related to less than 35 percent in 
2000, from a 1996 baseline of 40.9 percent.
    Seat Belt Use.--Increase seat belt usage nationwide to 85 percent 
by 2000 and 90 percent by 2005. Usage in 1997 was 69 percent.
    Large Truck-Related Fatality and Injury Rates.--Reduce the rate of 
fatalities involving large trucks per 100 million truck VMT from 2.8 in 
1997 to 2.5 in 2000. Reduce the rate of injuries involving large trucks 
per 100 million truck VMT from 69.3 in 1997 to 64.4 in 2000.
    Air Carrier Fatal Accident Rate.--Reduce the fatal aviation 
accident rate for commercial air carriers from a 1994-1996 baseline of 
0.037 fatal accident per 100,000 flight hours. The 2000 target is 0.033 
per 1,000,000--with the reduction to be achieved in 6 key areas 
outlined in the Safer Skies Agenda.
    General Aviation Fatal Accident Rate.--Reduce the general aviation 
fatal accident rate from a 1994-96 average of 1.67 per 100,000 flight 
hours to (specific target to be developed).
    Runway Incursions.--Reduce the number of runway incursions to a 
level 15 percent below a 1997 baseline of 318 incursions. The fiscal 
year 2000 target is at or below 270 incursions.
    Operational Errors and Deviations (Air Traffic).--Reduce the rate 
of operational errors and deviations by 10 percent from the 1994 
baselines of 0.54 errors and 0.11 deviations per 100,000 facility 
activities. The 2000 target rates are 0.486 for errors and 0.097 for 
deviations.
    Recreational Boating Fatalities.--Reduce recreational boating 
fatalities to 720 (or fewer) fatalities in 2000. The 1997 baseline in 
819 fatalities.
    Maritime Search and Rescue.--Save at least 93 percent of all 
mariners, and at least 80 percent of all property, reported in imminent 
danger.
    Passenger Vessel Safety.--Reduce the number of high-risk passenger 
vessel casualties to 47 per 1,000 vessels in 2000. The 1996 baseline is 
48 per 1,000.
    Rail Crash and Fatality Rates.--Reduce the rate of rail-related 
crashes from 3.91 per million train-miles in 1995 to 3.32 (or less) in 
2000. Reduce the rate of rail-related fatalities from 1.71 per million 
train-miles in 1995 to 1.54 (or less) in 2000.
    Rail Grade-Crossing Crash Rate.--Reduce the rate of grade-crossing 
crashes from 2.85 per the product of (million train-miles times 
trillion highway VMT) in 1995 to 2.14 (or less) in 2000.
    Rail Trespasser Fatality Rate.--Reduce the rate of rail-related 
trespasser fatalities from 2.81 per the product of (million train-miles 
times billion U.S. population) in 1995 to 2.53 (or less) in 2000.
    Transit Fatality and Injury Rates.--Reduce the transit fatality 
rate from 0.52 fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles-traveled in 
1996 to 0.50 (or less) in 2000. Reduce the injury rate from 127 per 100 
million passenger-miles-traveled in 1996 to 122 (or less) in 2000.
    Pipeline Failures.--Decrease the number of natural gas transmission 
pipeline failures from 4,933 in 1994 to 4,451 in 2000.
    Hazardous Material Incidents.--Reduce the number of serious 
hazardous materials incidents in transportation to 411 or fewer in 2000 
from a peak of 464 in 1996.

                              Attachment 4

         FRA R&D PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND SELECTION PROCESS \6\

    Currently, the FRA R&D program is developing a structured process 
to document the method by which FRA R&D management identifies research 
areas and selects specific R&D projects for funding. FRA R&D management 
currently uses such a process when identifying projects for funding and 
submitting budget requests. However, the current effort is intended to 
provide documentation of the process so it is visible to all FRA R&D 
stakeholders. FRA R&D is developing this structured approach with 
guidance from the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Committee for 
Review of the FRA R&D Program. Most recently, the FRA R&D presented the 
proposed approach to the TRB Committee during November 1999 and the 
Committee recommended the FRA R&D program employ the approach in fiscal 
year 2002 budget submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ This material was provided by the Federal Railroad 
Administration Office of Research and Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The structured approach for FRA R&D project development and 
selection is presented below. The approach consists of five logical 
steps which, initially, will be applied to the entire R&D program. 
Subsequently, as new information becomes available about sources of 
harm, the logical steps may be followed for specific types of harm to 
add to the list of potential R&D projects.
     STEP 1: REVIEW OF RAIL INDUSTRY HISTORICAL AND POTENTIAL HARM

    The first step in the FRA R&D project development and selection 
process is a review of recent rail industry harm data and an estimation 
of causes of potential for harm. Historical harm data is compiled in 
FRA rail accident databases and accident investigation reports. 
Potential for future harm can be understood by reviewing rail industry 
operating trends with expert knowledge of how railroad accidents occur.
    The four relevant databases which hold historical rail incident 
data are the FRA's Rail Accident/Incident Reporting System (RAIRS), 
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident Database, Railroad Injury 
and Illness Summary Database, and RSPA's Hazardous Materials Incident 
Database. The information in these databases is very detailed in terms 
of circumstances that contribute to accidents. However, these 
databases, typically, do not address specific causes of the harm that 
results from railroad accidents or incidents.
    Detailed accident reports from the NTSB and the FRA are the most 
important source of information, compiled by experts, about accident 
circumstances that contribute to harm. While detailed investigations 
are undertaken for relatively few railroad accidents, the most serious 
accidents, in terms of harm, have been intensively investigated and 
much can be learned through review of these reports.
    Finally, since accident databases and accident reports can only 
reflect historical accident causes and circumstances, meaningful 
countermeasures to prevent harm must also address railroad industry 
operational trends. In this way countermeasures may be developed to 
address causes for harm that are not reflected in the historical 
databases.

                    STEP 2: CONDUCT FAILURE ANALYSIS

    For a given accident cause or factor contributing to harm, fault-
tree logic is applied to identify specific items to be addressed by 
countermeasures. These specific items represent points along the 
accident chain-of-events at which the accident, or subsequent harm, or 
both, could have been prevented. Countermeasures are proposed with the 
goal of breaking the accident or harm chain-of-events at the points 
identified. These countermeasures are proposed with an understanding of 
current regulatory and industry practices for the relevant area of rail 
operations. Examples of types of contermaeasures proposed include: 
Regulation; Industry standards and best practices; Equipment and 
infrastructure improvements; Enforcement; and Education.

    STEP 3: SURVEY GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY COUNTERMEASURES AND R&D 
                              REQUIREMENTS

    Once specific countermeasures are identified, FRA R&D will review 
current and potential industry and government countermeasures to 
identify areas of opportunity for R&D. That is, FRA R&D will identify 
countermeasures that would be enabled by R&D. For example, a potential 
operating rule may need research into the train speed regimes at which 
a type of train control system affords safe operation.

              STEP 4: DEVELOP AND RATE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS

    For each countermeasure that may be aided by R&D, one or more R&D 
project summaries are developed to describe projects that provide 
information to enable the countermeasures. The project summaries are 
structured descriptions of projects that will be used to compare and 
select projects during R&D program development. Project summaries 
address expected outputs and outcomes, project costs and durations, as 
well as implementation issues for project results. Based on the project 
summaries, projects are then rated according to objective criteria for 
expected contribution to safety and likelihood of success. For a given 
program area, these project ratings are plotted in two-dimensions 
(likelihood of success versus contribution to safety) to provide a 
high-level comparison tool for the project selection process.

          STEP 5: SELECT PROJECTS AND ASSIGN TO PROGRAM AREAS

    The last step in the FRA R&D program development process entails 
selecting projects for each program area based on the two-dimensional 
plots and project summaries. The goal is to select the best research 
opportunities available to obtain the best return on investment 
possible from the FRA R&D budget. That is, the most highly rated 
projects, regardless of program area, are selected until the desired 
overall funding request level is reached. Once the list of funded 
projects is completed, each project is assigned to one of the FRA R&D 
program areas. The FRA R&D budget request, for each program area, is 
the sum of the funding required for each of the selected projects in 
the program area.
    Question. Assuming no increase in funds for fiscal year 2001, what 
could be done to initiate research on transportation infrastructure 
assurance and fatigue management?
    Answer. The Administration has no alternative proposal to fund the 
two critical, multi-modal research areas of transportation 
infrastructure assurance and human-centered systems.
    The funding requested in RSPA's budget for these two areas of 
research is intended not to substitute for other operating 
administrations' resources, but to build on and leverage these 
resources as well as investments made by other Federal agencies, the 
states and the private sector.
    Question. Please describe in detail why funds are spent on 
international science and technology assessment. Who receives those 
funds and what is done with the results of this investment?
    Answer. To ensure that the United States maintains its 
technological lead in an ever-increasing global environment, it is 
essential to understand the priorities and research activities of 
competitor nations. International corporations, travel and 
telecommunications, and the number of foreign students in institutions 
of higher learning all over the globe are growing at a unprecedented 
rate. As a result, both the practice and the propagation of 
transportation research have attained global proportions.
    RSPA released a National Science and Technology Council document 
entitled Comparison of International Transportation R&D: Expenditures 
and Priorities in September 1999. It documents research in the seven 
countries that undertake the vast majority of transportation R&D around 
the world today. The document was developed at the DOT Volpe Center, 
with inputs from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, the 
Organization for European Cooperation and Development, the National 
Academy of Sciences, and similar groups. The document is a key resource 
in establishing research priorities, as well as areas for productive 
collaboration. It is available on the Internet at http://
www.volpe.dot.gov/resref/strtplns/nstc/citrdep/index.html.
    A second edition of this report is currently under development 
covering the next tier of countries active in transportation R&D. They 
are: Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, China, India, South Korea, 
Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.
    In addition, the U.S. Library of Congress is assisting RSPA in 
developing an International Transportation Research and Technology 
Information base with information on current and future transportation 
R&T developments in other developed nations. Such a database will help 
ensure that Federal investment in transportation R&T is coordinated for 
efficient use of Federal funds, focused on identified critical 
projects, and limited to areas in which major public benefits can be 
achieved through cost-shared Federal research.
    Question. Please provide a discussion of the value and uses of 
products obtained from research planning and management projects in 
fiscal year 1999 or 2000. Please indicate which projects are ongoing 
(into 2001), or have been completed.
    Answer. As pointed out by the first NRC/TRB review of the Federal 
Transportation Research and Development Strategic Planning Process, 
this process helps leadership within the Department and across the 
Federal Government define transportation priorities and identify key 
R&D initiatives. The plans that have been developed as a result of this 
process focus our attention on the priorities and provide the framework 
for solving national transportation problems through R&D.
    All of RSPA's planning and management projects undertaken in fiscal 
year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 are ongoing and will continue in fiscal 
year 2001. Plans are revised as new knowledge is obtained, visions are 
refined and goals are adjusted.
    The variety of research planning materials that have been developed 
under this activity have already had the following effects:
  --Promoted collaborative research (e.g., aviation R&D, fuel cells)
  --Promoted consideration of longer-term research (e.g., 
        nanotechnology)
  --Raised the consciousness of senior DOT leadership of R&D as a tool 
        to achieve Departmental goals and solve transportation problems 
        (e.g., R&T is a corporate management strategy for DOT)
  --More explicitly linked research to accomplishment of Departmental 
        goals (e.g., 2001 Performance Plan and 1999 Performance Report)
  --Created a better-focused agenda of research activities and 
        priorities (e.g., DOT Transportation R&D Plan (Second Edition))
  --Identified new opportunities for co-operative implementation (e.g., 
        Transportation Infrastructure Assurance R&D, Human-centered 
        Systems, Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program)
  --More effectively involved non-Federal participants (industry, 
        State/local government, academia) in support and conduct of 
        research (e.g., Intelligent Vehicle Initiative, ITS Deployment, 
        National Highway R&T Partnership Initiative, National R&D Plan 
        on Aviation Safety, Security, Efficiency and Environmental 
        Compatibility)
              transportation infrastructure assurance r&d
    Question. Please identify all ongoing research in all DOT modes 
that identifies and/or addresses transportation infrastructure and 
security vulnerabilities. What levels of funding were appropriated for 
these programs in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and what levels are 
requested for fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. The following is a list of research in all DOT operating 
administrations that address transportation infrastructure and security 
vulnerabilities and the corresponding levels of funding.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal year
      DOT Administration           Activity    -------------------------
                                                    1999         2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA..........................  Explosive/       $41,700,000  $37,605,000
                                Weapons
                                Detection.
FAA..........................  Airport            2,708,000    2,385,000
                                Security.
FAA..........................  Human Factors..    5,282,000    5,256,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Federal Transit Administration has carried out 
limited investigations to improve personal security and property 
protection at transit facilities leveraging DOD funds in fiscal year 
1999 and fiscal year 2000.
    The following is a breakdown of all DOT operating administrations' 
funding requests for fiscal year 2001 to support the Transportation 
Infrastructure Assurance Research and Development Program:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fiscal year
         DOT Administration                 Activity             2001
                                                               funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA................................  Passenger/Cargo         $54,900,000
                                      Security and
                                      Intrusion Detection.
RSPA...............................  Chemical and              3,400,000
                                      Biological Agent
                                      Detection, Intermodal
                                      Terminal Security,
                                      and Human Factors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These activities are described in a ``DOT Transportation 
Infrastructure Assurance R&D Plan'' published in September 1999 which 
aligns R&D investments with the missions and responsibilities of each 
organization. The Transportation Infrastructure Assurance R&D Program 
is intended to integrate all DOT efforts.

               UNIVERSITY MARINE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

    Question. Please identify all ongoing research at MARAD, Coast 
Guard, and RSPA that addresses marine transportation mobility, safety, 
environmental protection and security. What levels of funding were 
appropriated for these programs in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and what 
levels are requested for fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. The levels of funding for research related to marine 
transportation mobility, safety, environmental protection and security 
within MARAD, Coast Guard and RSPA are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Fiscal year
            DOT Administration                         Activity           --------------------------------------
                                                                               1999         2000         2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARAD.....................................  N/A..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Coast Guard...............................  Improve Search & Rescue           $875,000   $1,162,000     $457,000
                                             Capability.
Coast Guard...............................  Waterways Safety & Management    2,116,000    1,444,000    1,196,000
                                             and Aids to Navigation.
Coast Guard...............................  Marine Safety................    3,198,000    3,108,000    5,448,000
Coast Guard...............................  Interagency Ship Structure         289,000      159,000      381,000
                                             Committee.
Coast Guard...............................  Marine Environmental             1,694,000    2,263,000    1,142,000
                                             Protection.
Coast Guard                                 Comprehensive Law Enforcement    1,129,000    3,213,000    4,422,000
Coast Guard...............................  Technology Investment........    4,350,000    3,746,000    3,991,000
RSPA......................................  University Marine              ...........  ...........    2,500,000
                                             Transportation Research.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                HUMAN-CENTERED SYSTEMS RESEARCH PROGRAM

    Question. Please identify all ongoing human-centered systems 
research at the Department of Transportation, within each modal 
administration and interagency program. What levels of funding were 
appropriated for these programs in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and what 
levels are requested for fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. The Department's Operating Administrations have engaged in 
modal-specific human factors research and development activities. They 
promulgate their results, typically in the form of safety regulations, 
to their specific transportation sector.
    DOT did not receive appropriated funds for human-centered systems 
research in fiscal year 1999 or fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2001, 
RSPA has requested $3,000,000 to support this One-DOT effort. FAA, 
NHTSA, FMCSA, FHWA, FRA, FTA and USCG also recognize the critical 
importance of this effort in terms of its potential to reduce 
fatalities and property loss due to human error. They are willing to 
contribute funding for this effort in fiscal year 2000.

                 ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

    Question. What is the status and accomplishments to date of the 
advanced vehicle technologies program?
    Answer. The Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program (AVP), which is 
entering its second year, represents a successful transition and shift 
in emphasis of the Electric Vehicle and Hybrid Electric Vehicle (EV/
HEV) program managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 
(DARPA) from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1998. AVP builds on 
the momentum achieved from investment by DARPA and private-public 
partners (a total of over $250 million from 1993-1998) for advancing 
medium and heavy electric and hybrid-electric vehicle and 
infrastructure technologies. The partners have provided at least an 
equal cost share with the Government to accelerate the development and 
deployment of advanced vehicle, component and infrastructure 
technologies into the market place. The DARPA partnership initiated 
over 300 projects with 450 companies and helped develop:
  --Hybrid electric transmissions
  --Auxiliary power units and motors
  --Advanced battery and charger systems, and controllers
  --Flywheels to augment batteries
  --Advanced materials to reduce weight.
    Since management under DOT beginning in fiscal year 1999, program 
directions have been announced for fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000 
and fiscal year 2001-2003. In response to the fiscal year 1999 
solicitation, 26 projects were awarded to consortia in fiscal year 
1999. These important projects are underway and well ahead of schedule 
in great part due to the AVP's fast-tracked public and private 
partnership and the use of ``other transactions'' agreements. Project 
selection for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 is nearing 
completion. Funding for fiscal year 2001 projects will be awarded upon 
enactment of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations.
    Question. Please outline the makeup of the seven national 
consortia, and describe the types of technologies each consortia are 
developing.
    Answer. The seven quasi-regional consortia consist of over 500 
private companies, universities, laboratories and state and local 
governments. The membership of the consortia fluctuates on a periodic 
basis.
    (1) WestStart--CALSTART is developing the following types of 
technologies: a fuel cell auxiliary power unit for over-the-road 
trucks; an electric propulsion system for medium- and heavy-duty 
vehicles; a hybrid electric transit bus with flywheel power management; 
an all-purpose electric airport tow tractor; and electrochemical 
capacitors using carbon lead-oxide electrodes.
    (2) ELECTRICORE is developing the following types of technologies: 
a 600-900 Volt test system for heavy duty hybrid electric vehicles; 
passenger trams with installed microturbines; and advanced silicon 
carbide power electronics.
    (3) The Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project is developing 
the following types of technologies: electric vehicle charging 
infrastructure; a zero-emission 100 passenger electric tram for 
airports; and a battery cycle life prediction tool.
    (4) The Mid-Atlantic Regional Consortium for Advanced Vehicles is 
developing the following types of technologies: an unmanned hybrid 
electric high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle; a nickel-hydrogen 
segmented battery for hybrid electric military vehicles, commercial 
trucks, and buses; an optimized compression ignition engine generator 
system for heavy-duty hybrid electric vehicles; an integrated 
simulation and testing system for electric vehicle batteries; smaller, 
better inverters with polymer multi-layer capacitors; and a refined and 
tested hybrid electric Bradley Fighting Vehicle demonstrator.
    (5) The Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium is developing the 
following types of technologies: a sustainable energy system for a 
national recreation area; a heavy-duty hybrid electric vehicle emission 
test certification protocol; a battery-electric-dominant heavy-duty 
hybrid electric school bus; and jet vapor deposition for catalyzing 
fuel cell membranes.
    (6) The Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation is 
developing the following types of technologies: a utility industry 
trouble truck and mobile power source; an improved hybrid electric high 
mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle; and advanced components that 
have been demonstrated on the Advanced Technology Transit Bus.
    (7) Sacramento Electric Transportation Consortium is developing the 
following types of technologies: a nickel metal hydride battery System 
for an electric bus; and a plastic lithium ion hybrid electric vehicle 
battery.
    Question. How is the program managed? Is there a strategic plan? If 
so, has it ever been published?
    Answer. The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) 
manages the AVP in cooperation with other DOT operating administrations 
and Federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense and Energy. 
The Electric Vehicle and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Program (EV/HEV), from 
which the AVP was derived, was managed by the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency (DARPA) using seven geographically dispersed regional 
consortia representing private industry and other non-Federal 
organizations. The consortia were competitively selected to organize 
industry teams to develop innovative technology solutions, enhance 
competition, provide a decentralized management structure, and 
accelerate technology development and national deployment.
    The AVP continues to rely on this management approach and structure 
as well as the use of innovative procurement mechanisms, such as 
``other transactions'' to accelerate the development and deployment of 
technologies. In response to an annual program announcement, projects 
are selected through a process of proposal, submission, review, and 
acceptance. Each proposal is reviewed jointly by DOT and, as 
appropriate, other agencies.
    RSPA recently completed a strategic plan for DOT medium- and heavy-
duty vehicle R&D. This plan, which covers the AVP, responds not only to 
a Congressional mandate but documents the early stages of what will be 
an ongoing strategic planning process specific to medium- and heavy-
duty vehicle R&D. Copies will be provided to the Committee upon 
completion of the printing process, which should occur soon.
    Question. Did the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Energy contribute any funds to this partnership in fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of 
Energy contributed any funds to this partnership in fiscal year 2000.
    Question. Is any Department of Defense or Department of Energy 
funding requested for the AVTP program in the fiscal year 2001 budget 
request? If so, how much is requested in each budget, and from what 
agencies and accounts?
    Answer. Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of 
Energy requested fiscal year 2001 funding for the AVP.

            UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTERS GRANTS PROGRAM

    Question. Specify what you have done since last year to improve the 
effectiveness of the University Transportation Centers program.
    Answer. The following activities have been accomplished since last 
year to improve program effectiveness:
  --established a new UTC grant requirement that requires a DOT 
        representative to participate in each UTC's research selection 
        process to promote the accomplishment of DOT goals and 
        objectives, as well as to facilitate information exchange;
  --held an open competition for the ten regional UTC grants to ensure 
        that the grants were awarded to the best applicants;
  --instituted baseline measures and annual performance indicators for 
        each UTC, in accordance with the Government Performance and 
        Results Act; and
  --began holding site visits at the TEA-21 UTCs with multimodal DOT 
        teams assessing and evaluating each center's work.
    Question. Please display the University Transportation Centers 
(UTC) budget for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001. Include funding 
sources, amounts released in grants (by TEA-21 institution groupings), 
and administrative and evaluation costs.
    Answer. The following tables are provided. They do not include 
funding for three RSPA FTE funded from the Highway Trust Fund.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Fiscal year
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                          Funding sources                                                 2000           2001
                                                                          1999       (estimate) \1\   (estimate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA R&D Appropriations.............................................  \2\ $5,940,000     $1,200,000    $1,200,000
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund..........................  ..............      4,800,000     4,800,000
Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund..........................      22,640,000     23,670,000    23,670,000
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
      Total Program Funding........................................      28,580,000     29,670,000    29,670,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reimbursable Agreements have not yet been executed with FTA and FHWA.
\2\ FTA did not indicate how much came from which source.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year
                                  --------------------------------------
            Costs \1\                               2000         2001
                                       1999      (estimate)   (estimate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group A..........................   $8,744,360   $8,622,900   $8,622,900
Group B..........................    2,097,600    3,449,160    3,449,160
Group C..........................    6,528,500    6,527,026    6,527,026
Group D..........................   10,992,000   10,898,320   10,898,320
Administration and Evaluation....      217,540      172,594      172,594
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total......................   28,580,000   29,670,000   29,670,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table indicates the fiscal year of the funding awarded and not
  the year in which the grants were made.

    Question. Please list all of the universities now receiving funds 
authorized in TEA-21 and the amounts provided to each university in 
fiscal years 1999, 2000, and anticipated for fiscal year 2001.
    Answer. The following table is provided:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Fiscal year
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                Name of recipient                                                    2000-2001    2000-2001 est.
                                                       1999        1999 awarded     authorized      award (per
                                                    authorized                      (per year)         year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama, U. of..................................        $750,000        $655,500        $750,000        $646,718
Arkansas, U. of.................................         750,000         655,500         750,000         646,718
Assumption College..............................         300,000         262,200         500,000         431,145
California, U. of...............................       1,000,000     \1\ 890,000       1,000,000         862,290
Central Florida, U. of..........................         300,000         262,200         500,000         431,145
City U. of NY...................................       1,000,000     \1\ 890,000       1,000,000         862,290
Denver, U. of...................................         300,000         262,200         500,000         431,145
George Mason U..................................       2,000,000       1,748,000       2,000,000       1,724,580
Idaho, U. of....................................         750,000         655,500         750,000         646,718
Iowa State U....................................       1,000,000     \1\ 890,000       1,000,000         862,290
Marshall U......................................       2,000,000       1,748,000       2,000,000       1,724,580
MIT.............................................       1,000,000     \1\ 890,000       1,000,000         862,290
Minnesota, U. of................................       2,000,000       2,000,000       2,000,000       2,000,000
Missouri-Rolla, U. of...........................         300,000         262,200         500,000         431,145
Montana State U.................................       2,000,000       1,748,000       2,000,000       1,724,580
Morgan State U..................................         750,000         970,000         750,000       1,000,000
                                                        +250,000                       + 250,000
NC State U......................................         750,000         970,000         750,000       1,000,000
                                                       + 250,000                       + 250,000
NCA&T State U...................................         750,000         655,500         750,000         646,718
NJIT............................................         750,000         655,500         750,000         646,718
ND State U......................................       1,000,000     \1\ 890,000       1,000,000         862,290
Northwestern U..................................       2,000,000       2,000,000       2,000,000       2,000,000
Penn. State U...................................       1,000,000     \1\ 890,000       1,000,000         862,290
Purdue U........................................         300,000         262,200         500,000         431,145
Rhode Island, U. of.............................       2,000,000       1,748,000       2,000,000       1,724,580
Rutgers U.......................................         300,000         262,200         500,000         431,145
San Jose State U................................         750,000         655,500         750,000         646,718
So. Carolina State U............................         300,000         262,200         500,000         431,145
South Florida, U.of.............................         750,000         655,500         750,000         646,718
Southern Calif., U. of..........................         300,000         262,200         500,000         431,145
Tenn., U. of....................................       1,000,000     \1\ 890,000       1,000,000         862,290
Texas A&M U.....................................       1,000,000     \1\ 890,000       1,000,000         862,290
Wash., U. of....................................       1,000,000     \1\ 890,000       1,000,000         862,290
Wisc., U. of....................................       1,000,000     \1\ 890,000       1,000,000         862,290
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amount includes $874,436 of fiscal year 1999 funds and $15,564 of unobligated fiscal year 1997 UTC Program
  funds. The fiscal year 1997 funds were used to increase the grants to the amount that had been publicized in
  the UTC Program competition as expected to be available that year.

    Question. For each university which has received grants from the 
UTC program in fiscal years 1999 or 2000, please specify what research 
programs are supported, and describe what the Department is doing to 
integrate the research activities conducted by each center or 
university with the Department's own research.
    Answer. To date, UTC grants awarded under TEA-21 have involved 
funding from fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Because UTC grants have 
historically been awarded at the end of the fiscal year, no fiscal year 
2000 funding has yet been awarded. The 10 UTCs in Group A, the so-
called Regional UTCs, were selected by competition in 1999 and thus 
have received only one year's funding.
    All UTCs are empowered to select their research projects, but they 
must do so through a process that includes peers and other experts in 
the field, including at least one employee from the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT). In addition to considering each proposal's 
technical completeness and feasibility, a UTC's selection process must 
include multiple additional rating factors, not least of which is the 
project's relevance to the UTC's chosen theme and to the Department of 
Transportation's strategic goals. Participation by DOT staff ensures a 
two-way conduit for information about on-going research between DOT and 
the university.
    All UTCs are now required to post a brief project description for 
each research project on the UTC's respective web sites. These 
descriptions are to be provided in HTML format and are to use standard 
Transportation Research Board keywords. All final reports on research 
conducted with UTC funding, after required peer review, must be 
published on the UTC's web site in the same manner. This innovation in 
the program will greatly facilitate access to new and ongoing research 
by DOT researchers and planners. In addition, RSPA posts all DOT-
sponsored university research on its website located at http://
utc.dot.gov. The Internet makes possible direct interaction between 
academic researchers and outside experts.
    All but one of the 33 UTCs have completed the strategic plan that 
is required as their first activity under the grant. In that plan, the 
UTC proposes and DOT approves a theme for its center that helps to 
focus its research program. The 33 UTCs have the following themes:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               UTC Location                         Center Theme
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumption College........................  Transportation and
                                             Environmental Education for
                                             the Twenty-First Century.
City College of New York..................  Planning and Management of
                                             Regional Transportation
                                             Systems.
George Mason University...................  Deployment of Intelligent
                                             Transportation Systems.
Iowa State University.....................  Sustainable Transportation
                                             Asset Management.
Marshall University.......................  Transportation and Economic
                                             Development in Mountain
                                             Regions.
Massachuset ts Institute of Technology....  Strategic Management of
                                             Transportation Systems.
Montana State University..................  Rural Travel &
                                             Transportation.
Morgan State University...................  Transportation: A Key to
                                             Human and Economic
                                             Development.
New Jersey Institute of Technology........  Productivity Increases
                                             through Transportation
                                             Improvements.
North Carolina A&T State University.......  Urban Transit Performance in
                                             Small and Rural Areas.
North Carolina State University...........  Transportation and the
                                             Environment.
North Dakota State University.............  Rural and Intermodal
                                             Transportation.
Northwestern University...................  Infrastructure Technology.
Pennsylvania State University.............  Advanced Technologies in
                                             Transportation Operations
                                             and Management.
Purdue University.........................  Safe, Quiet and Durable
                                             Highways.
Rutgers University........................  Transportation
                                             Infrastructure of High
                                             Volume Systems.
San Jose State University.................  Policy Guidance of
                                             Transportation Management
                                             Systems.
South Carolina State University...........  Professional Capacity
                                             Building in Transportation.
Texas A&M University......................  Transportation Solutions to
                                             Enhance Prosperity and the
                                             Quality of Life.
University of Alabama.....................  Management and Safety of
                                             Transportation Systems.
University of Arkansas....................  Improving the Quality of
                                             Rural Life through
                                             Transportation.
University of California..................  Transportation Systems
                                             Analysis and Policy.
University of Central Florida.............  Advanced Transportation
                                             Systems Simulation.
University of Denver......................  Intermodal Transportation:
                                             Assessment, Planning, and
                                             Design.
University of Idaho.......................  Advanced Transportation
                                             Technology.
University of Minnesota...................  Human-Centered
                                             Transportation Technology.
University of Missouri-Rolla..............  Advanced Materials & Non-
                                             destructive Testing
                                             Technologies.
University of Rhode Island................  Intermodal Transportation
                                             and Advanced Transportation
                                             Infrastructure.
University of South Florida...............  Transit and Alternative
                                             Forms of Urban
                                             Transportation.
University of Southern California.........  Metropolitan Transportation.
University of Tennessee...................  Transportation Safety.
University of Washington..................  Transportation Operations
                                             and Planning.
University of Wisconsin...................  Optimization of
                                             Transportation Investment
                                             and Operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. How much of the fiscal year 1999 and 2000 monies will be 
allocated to any other DOT budget, and how much will be contracted to 
the partners?
    Answer. Of the funds authorized in TEA-21 and allocated by FHWA and 
FTA, $63,100 in fiscal year 1999 and an estimated $64,750 in fiscal 
year 2000 was retained by FHWA, and $60,000 in fiscal year 1999 and an 
estimated $60,000 in fiscal year 2000 was retained by FTA for 
administrative expenses. Additionally, RSPA will be receiving 
approximately $300,000 from FHWA (Highway Trust Fund) for three FTEs to 
manage the UTC program.
    Question. Please detail the agreements now in hand for industry 
matching funds for this program. For each project funded during fiscal 
year 1999 and 2000 show the amount of federal funding and any non-
federal cost sharing received.
    Answer. As required by TEA-21, each UTC must supply a dollar-for-
dollar match for the federal funds awarded. Match must be from non-
federal government sources, with the exception of three specified 
sources: (1) State Planning & Research funds; (2) LTAP; and (3) FHWA's 
technology deployment program. Each UTC is responsible for securing 
matching funds as a requirement of its grant. In the financial status 
portion of its required annual progress report, each UTC must 
demonstrate that the matching funds have been obtained and expended in 
accordance with grant guidelines. However, in compliance with the 
Office of Management and Budget rules for federal grants, RSPA does not 
require the UTCs to supply information on federal vs. non-federal match 
for each individual activity conducted under their grants (as hundreds 
of research projects and dozens of educational activities are conducted 
under UTC grants each year, this would be considered overly burdensome 
under federal grant regulations).
    Question. Which types of technologies are being pursued in this 
program?
    Answer. TEA-21 requires the UTCs to conduct combined programs of 
research, education, and technology transfer under a strategic plan 
that is completed as the first activity under each grant. In order to 
promote innovation and originality among the centers, and to build most 
efficiently on the grantee universities' existing or proposed areas of 
expertise, the strategic plan allows the UTC to propose its own theme 
for DOT approval. DOT ensures that each UTC has a unique theme that 
relates to key national issues.
    Once a UTC has chosen its theme, that theme provides a common focus 
for the center's activities. The following is a list of each UTC's 
theme:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               UTC Location                         Center Theme
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumption College........................  Transportation and
                                             Environmental Education for
                                             the Twenty-First Century.
City College of New York..................  Planning and Management of
                                             Regional Transportation
                                             Systems.
George Mason University...................  Deployment of Intelligent
                                             Transportation Systems.
Iowa State University.....................  Sustainable Transportation
                                             Asset Management.
Marshall University.......................  Transportation and Economic
                                             Development in Mountain
                                             Regions.
Massachuset ts Institute of Technology....  Strategic Management of
                                             Transportation Systems.
Montana State University..................  Rural Travel &
                                             Transportation.
Morgan State University...................  Transportation: A Key to
                                             Human and Economic
                                             Development.
New Jersey Institute of Technology........  Productivity Increases
                                             through Transportation
                                             Improvements.
North Carolina A&T State University.......  Urban Transit Performance in
                                             Small and Rural Areas.
North Carolina State University...........  Transportation and the
                                             Environment.
North Dakota State University.............  Rural and Intermodal
                                             Transportation.
Northwestern University...................  Infrastructure Technology.
Pennsylvania State University.............  Advanced Technologies in
                                             Transportation Operations
                                             and Management.
Purdue University.........................  Safe, Quiet and Durable
                                             Highways.
Rutgers University........................  Transportation
                                             Infrastructure of High
                                             Volume Systems.
San Jose State University.................  Policy Guidance of
                                             Transportation Management
                                             Systems.
South Carolina State University...........  Professional Capacity
                                             Building in Transportation.
Texas A&M University......................  Transportation Solutions to
                                             Enhance Prosperity and the
                                             Quality of Life.
University of Alabama.....................  Management and Safety of
                                             Transportation Systems.
University of Arkansas....................  Improving the Quality of
                                             Rural Life through
                                             Transportation.
University of California..................  Transportation Systems
                                             Analysis and Policy.
University of Central Florida.............  Advanced Transportation
                                             Systems Simulation.
University of Denver......................  Intermodal Transportation:
                                             Assessment, Planning, and
                                             Design.
University of Idaho.......................  Advanced Transportation
                                             Technology.
University of Minnesota...................  Human-Centered
                                             Transportation Technology.
University of Missouri-Rolla..............  Advanced Materials & Non-
                                             destructive Testing
                                             Technologies.
University of Rhode Island................  Intermodal Transportation
                                             and Advanced Transportation
                                             Infrastructure.
University of South Florida...............  Transit and Alternative
                                             Forms of Urban
                                             Transportation.
University of Southern California.........  Metropolitan Transportation.
University of Tennessee...................  Transportation Safety.
University of Washington..................  Transportation Operations
                                             and Planning.
University of Wisconsin...................  Optimization of
                                             Transportation Investment
                                             and Operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please summarize the nature and amount of the research 
contracts that you awarded thus far during fiscal year 1999 and fiscal 
year 2000.
    Answer. The UTC program does not award research contracts. In 
accordance with TEA-21, 33 universities received multi-year UTC grants 
in fiscal year 1998, which extend through fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 
2001. Under its grant, each university is required to conduct a 
multimodal program of transportation education, research, and 
technology transfer. In fiscal year 1999, RSPA awarded $28.36 million 
in federal funds to the 33 UTCs; in fiscal year 2000, RSPA will award 
up to $33.25 million as designated by TEA-21, less any reduction due to 
the Highway Trust Fund obligation ceiling.

                        EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION

    Question. Why does RSPA consider it essential to have an SES 
executive to head the OET?
    Answer. The Director of the Office of Emergency Transportation has 
numerous senior level managerial decision-making responsibilities 
sufficient to support Senior Executive Service (SES) status. The 
Director is responsible for the development and implementation of 
policy, plans, and procedures for emergency management of the national 
civil transportation system. The Director serves as the Department's 
principal representative, spokesperson, and advisor on matters of civil 
transportation emergency preparedness and response in the full spectrum 
of crisis. The Director develops national policies, plans and 
procedures, and is the primary liaison with the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) and other Federal, State, local and private 
sector authorities. The Director provides direction to headquarters and 
field response teams, and represent the Department on the Catastrophic 
Disaster Response Group, a senior policy advisory group, chaired by 
FEMA. As the manager of the Regional Emergency Transportation 
Coordination (RETCO) program, the Director coordinates the activities 
of Senior SES officials and U.S. Coast Guard admirals. On the 
international level, the Director serves as the principal Departmental 
representative, spokesperson, and advisor on matters of civil 
transportation emergency preparedness and response in time of national 
disasters.
    Question. What new statutory or administrative requirements have 
been placed on the Office of Emergency Transportation which 
necessitates the increase of staff from 7 to 12 positions?
    Answer. Presidential Decision Directives (PDD) 39, 62 and 63, and 
67 place many new requirements on Office of Emergency Transportation 
(OET). These PDDs address the critical topics of weapons of mass 
destruction, continuity of operations and critical infrastructure 
protection. They place an extraordinary responsibility on a small 
office with a Department-wide mission. Since the terrorist attack on 
the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK, Federal departments 
and agencies have had an increased responsibility for readiness to 
respond to disasters. OET has been the focal point for this 
responsibility in DOT. Current staffing cannot be stretched any further 
to take on the added work required to meet the readiness requirements.
    In addition to the PDD requirements, the increasing involvement by 
DOT and OET in disaster-response efforts, the added responsibility of 
maintaining and managing the DOT relocation site, coordinating the 
development of DOT continuity of operations plans for the individuals 
DOT operating administrations, and maintaining oversight for the 
successful operation of the DOT Crisis Management Center, more staffing 
is required to successfully carry out our critical life sustaining 
mission.
    Question. Of these requested five new positions, what are the two 
most urgently required, and what would be the job titles and 
responsibilities of these new personnel? What level of increased 
funding would be associated with these two positions for six months?
    Answer. All of the positions are most urgently needed to provide 
readiness capability for the American people. However, if OET were 
forced to select the two most critical positions necessary for 
restoring the flow of life sustaining supplies and commerce, then the 
choice would be the Regional Emergency Transportation Manager (GS-15) 
and the Operations Chief (GS-13/14).
  --Regional Emergency Transportation Manager.--Extensive technical 
        expertise in transportation emergency preparedness planning, 
        response and management are required for this position. The 
        manager would develop a stronger tie between headquarters and 
        the regions concerning the functions performed in the regions 
        in support of disaster response. This manager would establish 
        guidelines to assure parallel regional structures and systems 
        while recognizing geographical differences, manage the regional 
        training program, and develop continuity of operations (COOP) 
        plans since most response activities occur at regional level. 
        He or she would work closely with State and local agencies to 
        ensure their participation in the transportation planning and 
        response efforts. Due to the nature of the COOP work, a Top 
        Secret clearance is required. When natural disasters occur, 
        this manager would provide high-level coordination.
  --Operations Chief.--This position would function as the lead policy 
        individual on the processes and procedures utilized in a crisis 
        environment. The Operations Chief would lead activations at 
        headquarters and the COOP site response centers during crisis 
        situations. It would be his or her responsibility to ensure 
        that emergency plans and response staffing plans are current 
        and ready to use and the individuals are trained. The 
        Operations Chief must coordinate with other Federal departments 
        and agencies and the DOT 24-hour Operations Centers. To do 
        this, extensive education, experience and training are 
        required. This individual will maintain and operate the 
        classified data systems used within the office. A Top Secret 
        clearance is required due to the nature of the work to be 
        performed on a daily basis.
    We have requested $132,000 for both positions, which would fund 
personnel compensation and benefits for one-half of the fiscal year for 
each position. That level of funding would also allow us to establish a 
work station (systems furniture, computers, phones, etc.), for each 
employee.
    Question. How many times in fiscal year 1999 was the Center 
activated and for what reasons? How many times thus far in fiscal year 
2000 has the Center been activated and for which reasons?
    Answer. Any time a major incident occurs that disrupts the 
transportation infrastructure, usually without advance notice, DOT 
either partially or fully activates the DOT Crisis Management Center 
(CMC). In 1999, the DOT Center was used at least a dozen times for 
natural disasters including:
  --flooding in Virginia,
  --tornadoes in Arizona,
  --Hurricane Floyd,
  --winter storms in the Pacific Northwest,
  --blizzards in the Midwest and the Northeast,
  --severe cold weather in Alaska,
  --winter storms in New York,
  --the District of Columbia snow storm,
  --Texas flooding, and o landslides in Idaho.
    The center was also activated for one special event: the NATO 
Anniversary held in Washington, DC. It was also activated to serve as 
the Department's clearing house for the Y2K rollover and earlier in the 
year for the Julian Calendar rollover on April 9, 1999.
    Thus far in 2000, the center has been activated 24 hours a day for 
several days during the Y2K rollover event and the leap year rollover 
event. We plan to activate the center this Spring for a major National 
Security Exercise.
    We use the CMC daily. The Office of Emergency Transportation staff 
researches information about ongoing disasters across the globe that 
may impact the transportation system. Staff members prepare reports and 
maintain communications with other Federal and State emergency 
operations centers. They also use the CMC to provide readiness training 
to Departmental and other Federal response personnel on a recurring 
basis.
    Question. For the Crisis Response Management program, please 
provide a breakdown of how the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 
funds were or willbe used.Answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Fiscal year 1999                 Appropriation/Obligation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Program: Crisis Response Mgmt....     \1\ $450,000/\2\ $397,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Include $250,000 for Y2K supplemental.
\2\ Balance of funding was carried over to fiscal year 2000.

    Funds were used for developing regional and headquarters training, 
assisting the RETCOs as possible in the conduct of their program 
operations, internal contracts for software support contracting, and 
contracting for maintenance support in the Crisis Management Center.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Fiscal year 1999                 Appropriation/Obligation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Program: Crisis Response Mgmt....         \1\ $280,000/$323,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated obligations; includes unobligated balance from Y2K fiscal
  year 1999 supplemental.

    Fiscal year 2000 funding is for developing and conducting response 
team training at headquarters and in the regions, for limited support 
to the RETCO program, contract support for software systems, Crisis 
Management Center maintenance and contracting, Continuity of Operations 
(COOP) startup costs for the installation of a building access ramp 
($55,000) at the DOT relocation site, and for minimal equipment 
($25,000) for the relocation site.

                            PROGRAM SUPPORT

    Question. Where is the Transportation Safety Institute? How many 
personnel work there? Are these RSPA employees? How is the Institute 
funded?
    Answer. The Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) has two campuses 
in Oklahoma City, with the main campus located at the Mike Monroney 
Aeronautical Center, and the North Campus facility located at 4400 Will 
Rogers Parkway. Currently 56 Federal employees work at TSI, 10 of which 
are Coast Guard Container Inspection Training and Assistance Team 
positions, and 1 is a detailed position from Office of Pipeline Safety. 
Two of the positions (Director and Office Administrator) are RSPA 
employees.
    TSI is funded and staffed with resources provided from sponsoring 
Federal Agencies through reimbursable agreements. TSI also receives 
funding from private companies who wish to have safety training, such 
as pipeline and hazardous materials safety training, provided for their 
employees. Sponsor costs are reduced by tuition and user fees charged 
to non-sponsor participants, such as international students, and state, 
industry, and local government students who fill available classroom 
slots, as permitted under specific legislative authority.
    Question. Please explain the proposed move of 2 FTE associated with 
the Transportation Safety Institute from the Research and Technology 
budget to Program Support. How much of the increased request for 
Program Support PC&B is associated with the proposed transfer of two 
Transportation Safety Institute FTE?
    Answer. The proposed move of two FTE associated with the 
Transportation Safety Institute from the Research and Technology budget 
to Program Support is due solely to the Secretary's reorganization of 
the Research and Special Programs Administration. The increased request 
for Program Support PC&B associated with the proposed transfer of two 
Transportation Safety Institute FTE is $200,000.
    Question. Department-wide, how much was allocated for the Garrett 
A. Morgan Technologies and Transportation Futures Program during fiscal 
year 2000 and how much will be allocated during fiscal year 2001? 
Please specify the exact source of those funds.
    Answer.
    [The information follows:]

      GARRETT A. MORGAN TECHNOLOGY & TRANSPORTATION FUTURES PROGRAM
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fiscal year
           Operating Administration/Account            -----------------
                                                          2000     2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG: General Operations..............................     $100  .......
FAA: General Operations...............................       50  .......
FHWA: Highway Trust Fund..............................  .......     $688
RSPA: RSP/Program Support.............................  .......      200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fiscal year 2000, USCG and FAA were the sole sources of funding 
for RSPA's Garrett A. Morgan Technologies and Transportation Futures 
Program.
    Question. What different functions does the new ``business 
modernization'' program perform that are not met by the ``information 
resource management'' program? Between these two programs, the fiscal 
year 2001 budget request is almost $1,000,000 higher than the enacted 
fiscal year 2000 funding level. If you got half the increase you 
requested in these programs, what could be accomplished in fiscal year 
2001, and what would need to be deferred?
    Answer. The Information Resource Management (IRM) Program allows 
RSPA to meet existing program office needs that translate into 
achievement of the goals and activities in DOT's and RSPA's Strategic 
Plans. The IRM Program request will ensure that we are able to provide 
the systems, support and maintenance for RSPA's current electronic 
infrastructure and automated business functions needed to provide the 
public with hazardous materials safety, environmental protection, 
mobility, national security and research and education.
    The IRM program cannot support new initiatives. Business 
Modernization is a major new initiative envisioned to change the basic 
way RSPA will do business in a digitized government. RSPA needs 
additional resources to accelerate the evaluation of its systems and to 
automate additional business processes that make sense. Finding 
appropriate automation tools to leverage technology across such a 
diverse agency is a key challenge. Such automation is necessary to 
accomplish more with less tomorrow and to achieve RSPA's customer 
service goals.
    Partial funding of half of the request would drastically narrow the 
focus of the Modernization Program. RSPA would be able to meet its DOT 
Wide Initiatives and with the Wide Area Network (WAN) Initiative 
improve electronic communications and performance to the RSPA regional 
offices.
    Deferral of investments to Infrastructure and Programmatic 
Operations will not enable RSPA to keep pace with the technological 
development of its stakeholders, Government partners, and the public. 
Without the new and expanded systems RSPA will lose the capability to 
significantly improve data and information exchange and the analysis 
supporting regulatory decisions. The lack of these investments will 
deny RSPA the opportunity to maintain its oversight and regulatory 
effort in the face of the growth in industries regulated in RSPA's 
hazardous materials and pipeline programs. Ultimately, it would 
undermine RSPA's ability to achieve its mission of transportation 
safety, emergency response, and the development and dissemination of 
research and technology.
    Question. Please specify what employee development activities have 
been accomplished in fiscal years 1999 and thus far in fiscal year 
2000. How has RSPA paid for these activities? What planned activities 
would be undertaken with the new $327,000 employment development 
program?
    Answer. From fiscal year 1999 until now technical training was 
provided to employees who oversee hazardous materials transportation, 
pipeline safety, advanced technology research, and national mobility/
security. This is critical training for employees in technical fields 
who require an understanding and expertise in industrial processes and 
techniques such as organic and physical chemistry, blasting and 
explosives, welding inspection for pipelines and pipeline inspections 
using intelligent pigs. This mission related training consumes the 
majority of our budget. In fiscal year 1999, we recognized the need to 
develop our staff's management competencies and were able to complete 
management development training.
    Administrative training (i.e., acquisition, budget, accounting, 
human resources, diversity, etc.) including soft skills and basic 
education training (i.e., writing, English and grammar, time 
management, project management, communications skills, etc.) is only 
accomplished once technical training needs are met. Creating a digital 
government requires the Research and Special Program Administration to 
develop and maintain a computer literate population. We were able to 
accomplish limited training in this area during fiscal year 1999 and 
fiscal year 2000. RSPA is experiencing nearly full staffing levels, 
which makes alternate funding sources unavailable in fiscal year 2001.
    The additional funding will provide for continuous learning 
especially critical in technological fields such as those that RSPA's 
employees oversee in the fields of hazardous materials transportation, 
pipeline safety, advanced technology research and national mobility/
security. RSPA's technical workforce needs frequent re-training in 
industrial processes and techniques merely to keep pace with 
technological changes in the industries that it regulates.
    Present day standard office technology, procedures and practices 
require us to stay abreast of current trends and technology. We plan to 
train existing employees in 21st century business processes and 
innovations to increase their productivity, efficiency, and customer 
service skills.
    We anticipate using the additional fiscal year 2001 training funds 
for customer service training. Based on the results of a National 
Performance Review survey, the Department of Transportation plans to 
ear mark customer service training as a high priority.
    We plan to make greater use of distance learning technology, as 
directed by Executive Order 13111 ``Using Learning Technology to 
Improve Training Opportunities for Federal Employees'', to provide the 
highest quality and most efficient training opportunities possible to 
our employees.
    The Secretary of Transportation's Workforce Planning Initiative 
directs us to analyze and identify our workforce skills requirements 
through fiscal year 2002, and to develop a strategy to maximize the 
extent to which critical skills needs can be filled internally. The 
additional funding will enable us to retrain employees in order to fill 
skill gaps and build talents pools to meet future organization's needs.
    Executive and management training, new skills requirements, greater 
use of distance learning technology, workforce planning strategies, and 
identified gaps in traditional skills all underscore the need within 
RSPA for increased learning and development funding.

                     EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

    Question. Please prepare a table showing the amount allocated to 
each of the states for each of the last three years and display the 
increase that would be provided if the full request was allowed.
    Answer. The following table is provided:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           ACTUAL ALLOCATIONS
                                                ---------------------------------------    FULL-
                     STATES                                   FISCAL YEAR                 FUNDING      INCREASE
                                                --------------------------------------- FISCAL YEAR   1999-2000
                                                     1997         1998         1999         2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA........................................     $117,942     $117,942     $158,656     $234,957      $76,301
ALASKA.........................................       41,180       41,180       55,396       81,870       26,474
ARIZONA........................................       81,763       81,763      109,987      163,390       53,403
ARKANSAS.......................................       72,907       72,907       98,074      145,952       47,878
CALIFORNIA.....................................      485,207      485,207      652,701      968,081      315,380
COLORADO.......................................       83,356       83,356      112,131      166,906       54,775
CONNECTICUT....................................       75,144       75,144      101,084      150,041       48,957
DELAWARE.......................................       44,913       44,913       60,418       89,190       28,772
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA...........................       37,448       37,448       50,374       74,421       24,047
FLORIDA........................................      216,353      216,353      291,039      432,317      141,278
GEORGIA........................................      142,701      142,701      191,961      285,628       93,667
HAWAII.........................................       44,789       44,789       60,250       89,045       28,795
IDAHO..........................................       58,847       58,847       79,161      117,496       38,335
ILLINOIS.......................................      316,505      316,505      425,763      627,683      201,920
INDIANA........................................      152,033      152,033      204,516      302,308       97,792
IOWA...........................................      104,755      104,755      140,917      208,943       68,026
KANSAS.........................................      117,072      117,072      157,486      233,105       75,619
KENTUCKY.......................................       90,198       90,198      121,334      180,362       59,028
LOUISIANA......................................      103,884      103,884      139,745      207,412       67,667
MAINE..........................................       53,871       53,871       72,468      107,180       34,712
MARYLAND.......................................       94,179       94,179      126,690      187,905       61,215
MASSACHUSETTS                                        108,362      108,362      145,769      216,762       70,993
MICHIGAN.......................................      169,076      169,076      227,442      338,439      110,997
MINNESOTA......................................      129,639      129,639      174,391      258,659       84,268
MISSISSIPPI                                           88,831       88,831      119,496      176,963       57,467
MISSOURI.......................................      134,987      134,987      181,584      269,925       88,341
MONTANA........................................       58,847       58,847       79,161      117,561       38,400
NEBRASKA.......................................       92,313       92,313      124,179      183,468       59,289
NEVADA.........................................       58,723       58,723       78,995      117,030       38,035
NEW HAMPSHIRE..................................       52,252       52,252       70,290      103,807       33,517
NEW JERSEY.....................................      155,142      155,142      208,697      311,035      102,338
NEW MEXICO.....................................       73,776       73,776       99,244      146,658       47,414
NEW YORK.......................................      252,183      252,183      339,237      505,572      166,335
N. CAROLINA....................................      151,533      151,533      203,843      302,243       98,400
N. DAKOTA......................................       77,385       77,385      104,099      153,727       49,628
OHIO...........................................      264,376      264,376      355,639      525,378      169,739
OKLAHOMA.......................................       94,553       94,553      127,193      189,247       62,054
OREGON.........................................       91,941       91,941      123,679      183,750       60,071
PENNSYLVANIA...................................      210,132      210,132      282,670      420,164      137,494
RHODE ISLAND...................................  ...........       46,281       62,257       92,064       29,807
S. CAROLINA....................................       91,692       91,692      123,344      183,137       59,793
S. DAKOTA......................................       61,708       61,708       83,010      123,089       40,079
TENNESSEE......................................      123,044      123,044      165,519      245,487       79,968
TEXAS..........................................      321,605      321,605      432,624      644,428      211,804
UTAH...........................................       70,169       70,169       94,392      139,661       45,269
VERMONT........................................       41,927       41,927       56,401       83,387       26,986
VIRGINIA.......................................      121,177      121,177      163,008      241,893       78,885
WASHINGTON.....................................       99,033       99,033      133,219      198,471       65,252
WEST VIRGINIA..................................       71,786       71,786       96,567      142,641       46,074
WISCONSIN......................................      129,761      129,761      174,554      259,057       84,503
WYOMING........................................       49,890       49,890       67,112       99,313       32,201
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL....................................    5,980,890    6,027,171    8,107,766   12,027,208    3,919,442
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. How will the final regulation on registration fees 
influence fee collection for the next two years? How does this 
rulemaking influence the need for appropriated funds?
    Answer. RSPA expects that under the revised registration 
regulations, approximately 45,000 companies will be required to 
register and that the grant program monies collected will be sufficient 
to fund that program at the $14.3 million level reflected in the 
Department's fiscal year 2000 budget. The increase in the amounts 
collected under the revised registration requirements will be used to 
increase the training and planning grants. All other program funding 
levels will remain consistent with needs established in previous years.
    Question. What would be the result if, for fiscal year 2001, the 
Appropriations Committees reinstated the obligation ceiling for 
emergency preparedness grants at $7,500,000? How would the excess 
collections above the obligation ceiling be treated? Would the 
hazardous materials registration rulemaking be revised?
    Answer. RSPA would distribute grant program funds up to the 
ceiling. All funds collected above any Congressionally-mandated ceiling 
would be held in the Emergency Preparedness Fund for distribution 
during the following year's grant cycle. An obligation ceiling on 
current year authority would not impact the need to collect funds for 
mandatory authority for the program in the future.
    Question. Has RSPA performed any specific analysis to justify the 
expansion of the HMEP program as proposed in its February 14, 2000 
rule? If so, please summarize this analysis and your findings. Does the 
analysis include an assessment of the role of privately funded, locally 
funded, and state-funded hazardous materials emergency response 
training?
    Answer. The final rule published on February 14, 2000 was supported 
by a Final Regulatory Evaluation that considered five regulatory 
alternatives, including: (1) do nothing; (2) expand base of persons 
required to register and adopt a two-tier fee schedule ($300 & $2,000); 
(3) raise the flat fee for all persons currently required to register 
($575); (4) expand base of persons required to register and increase 
the flat fee ($360); and (5) adopt a two-tier fee schedule for all 
persons currently required to register ($300 & $5,000). Our evaluation 
found:
  --the average annual level of funding (approximately $6.4 million) of 
        the HMEP program is approximately 50 percent of that authorized 
        by the Congress.
  --40 percent ($2.56 million) of grant funds allocated for emergency 
        preparedness planning purposes goes to support activities of 
        the more than 3,000 Local Emergency Planning Committees 
        throughout the nation.
  --60 percent ($3.84 million) of grant funds allocated for emergency 
        preparedness training purposes goes to support activities of 
        the nation's more than 2 million emergency responders (250,000 
        paid firefighters, 800,000 volunteer firefighters, 725,000 law 
        enforcement officers, and 500,000 emergency medical services 
        providers).
  --approximately 800,000 shipments of hazardous materials make their 
        way through the national transportation system each day.
  --the potential threats posed by the transportation of hazardous 
        materials require the development of emergency plans and 
        training of emergency responders to the full extent authorized 
        by law.
    RSPA's analysis did not include an assessment of the role of 
privately funded programs for hazardous materials emergency response 
training, but did include some discussion of state-funded hazardous 
materials emergency response training.
           office of pipeline safety (ops) three year funding
    Question. What activities can be funded with the monies that are 
available for three years?
    Answer. Three year funding availability is requested in our fiscal 
year 2001 President's Budget as follows. We have indicated the funding 
sources and note that an activity may be funded by more than one source 
(e.g., State Pipeline Safety Grants).

Fiscal Year 2001 President's Budget

        Program Activity                                          Amount

Trust Fund Share of Pipeline Safety:
    Operating Expenses:
        Personnel Compensation & Benefits.....................  $275,000
        Administrative Expenses...............................    45,000
    Contract Programs:
        Information & Analysis................................   400,000
        Risk Assessment & Technical Studies...................   400,000
        Compliance............................................   100,000
        Training & Information Dissemination..................   100,000
    OPA: Implementing the Oil Pollution Act................... 2,443,000
    Grants: State Pipeline Safety Grants......................   500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total................................................... 4,263,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Pipeline Safety Fund:
    Research and Development:
        Information Systems...................................   400,000
        Risk Assessment.......................................   300,000
        Mapping...............................................   800,000
        Outside Force Damage..................................   644,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

          Total............................................... 2,144,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
    Grants:
        State Pipeline Safety Grants..........................17,019,000
        Risk Grants...........................................   500,000
        One-Call Grants....................................... 1,000,000
        Damage Prevention Grants.............................. 5,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

          Total...............................................23,569,000

                        OPS UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

    Question. What are the current unobligated balances in the various 
sub accounts in the appropriation for the OPS? What amount will be 
unobligated at the end of fiscal year 2000? Will any unobligated funds 
be returned to the pipeline safety fund?
    Answer. As of March 21, 2000, the total unobligated balance for the 
Office of Pipeline Safety was $17.73 million. This includes $.458 
million for operation expenses; $.273 million for contract program 
activities (one year funds); $2 million for R&D program activities 
(three year funds); and $15 million for grants. We plan to obligate all 
contract program and grant funding by close of fiscal year 2000. We 
estimate that our 3-year funding that was enacted in fiscal year 2000 
for R&D will have an unobligated balance of approximately $600,000 at 
the end of fiscal year 2000. At this time, we are estimating a lapse of 
less than $100,000 of one year operating expenses. 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.

                     REGULATIONS IMPACTING WORKLOAD

    Question. How will the forthcoming pipeline integrity regulations 
affect the OPS workload? How does the fiscal year 2001 budget request 
account for those expected impacts on OPS? How will this new regulatory 
requirement impact the workload of the OPS over the longer term?
    Answer. We are currently analyzing the workload impact of these 
regulations, but we do expect that they will present sizeable 
challenges to OPS. In fiscal year 2000-2001, the impacts are primarily 
in areas of regulatory and standards development. The four new 
technical experts requested in fiscal year 2001 will help OPS develop 
the compliance strategy and audit process for the integrity regulation 
that we will implement in fiscal year 2002. We will begin training our 
inspection personnel on the audit process we will use to review the 
adequacy of internal inspection, hydrotesting, and analysis in fiscal 
year 2001. We will use funds derived from the Risk Assessment and 
Technical Studies account.
    The fiscal year 2001 budget request does not account for the 
majority of these integrity rule impacts as the largest workload will 
begin in fiscal year 2002 with the review of operator-developed 
assessment plans. We are currently working to define workload needs and 
identify the appropriate mix between contractual and permanent staff to 
efficiently and effectively carry out the associated responsibilities.

                          OPS STAFFING LEVELS

    Question. Please provide a breakout of the current staffing levels 
in OPS headquarters and the five regional offices. Are all 105 funded 
positions currently filled? If not, where are the vacancies?
    Answer. The following table is provided:

                OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY STAFFING LEVELS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Office                Authorized    Onboard       Vacant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters.....................           39           38            1
Eastern..........................           10           10  ...........
Southern.........................           10           10  ...........
Central..........................           14           12            2
Southwest........................           13           12            1
Western..........................           15           15  ...........
TSI..............................            4            4  ...........
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total......................          105          101            4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      PIPELINE SAFETY RESERVE FUND

    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 1997 through 1999 and anticipated for fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. A table follows which shows the per mile rate and the total 
collections for fiscal years 1997 through 1999. We are currently 
collecting fiscal year 2000 user fees; therefore, the amounts shown 
below indicate the assessment made to the gas and liquid operators. We 
estimated the fiscal year 2000 figures based on the amount of 
$30,612,888.65. This includes the President's Budget Request for the 
Pipeline Safety Program of $36,879,000, less funds derived from the Oil 
Spill Liability Trust Fund of $5,479,000 and $1.4 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 
law allows RSPA to collect 105 percent of the appropriation.

                1997-1999 PER MILE RATE/TOTAL COLLECTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Per Mile       Total
                                                  Rate       collected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas transmission:
    Fiscal year:
        1997.................................     $67.48     $18,927,000
        1998.................................      67.98      20,050,437
        1999.................................      70.47      20,725,337
        2000.................................      68.23  \1\ 20,458,589
Liquid:
    Fiscal year:
        1997.................................      61.27       8,869,716
        1998.................................      59.59       8,864,335
        1999.................................      57.88       9,102,548
        2000.................................      63.11  \1\ 9,761,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2000 based on assessment.

    Question. How did you allocate the user fee between gas 
transmission lines and product lines for each of the last two fiscal 
years? Does this accurately reflect the true allocation of your efforts 
and resources? Please document your answer.
    Answer. In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, RSPA charged gas 
operators 55 percent of program costs and 87 percent of grants. We 
charged liquid operators 45 percent of program costs and 13 percent of 
grants. These percentages closely reflect the allocation of our efforts 
and resources, as shown in the table that follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Fiscal year
                                                   ---------------------
                 Program Activity                   1999 Gas/  2000 Gas/
                                                      Liquid     Liquid
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC&B \1\ for the Inspectors (Regions).............      50/50      50/50
PC&B for HQ personnel.............................      67/33      60/40
Administration....................................      50/50      50/50
Information and Analysis..........................      50/50      50/50
Risk Assessment & Technical Studies...............      50/50      50/50
Compliance........................................      50/50      50/50
Training & Information 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 Apportionment.........................      54/47      54/47
    Actual Apportionment..........................      55/45      55/45
 Grants...........................................      87/13     87/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Personnel, Compensation & Benefits.

    Question. Please justify in detail why OPS maintains it needs to 
always have at least $11 million in the Pipeline Safety fund. Please 
break down how that amount was determined.
    Answer. RSPA recently re-evaluated the amount needed to sustain the 
pipeline program until fees could be collected. We looked at 
obligations for the first and second quarters and determined that, on 
average, OPS spends about 34 percent of its appropriation. In prior 
fiscal years 34 percent amounted to approximately $11 million. For 
fiscal year 2001, 34 percent amounts to approximately $15-$16 million. 
Currently, user fees are collected in the later part of the second 
quarter (late March). March is the soonest we can expect to collect 
fees, with a billing cycle that starts after we receive our enacted 
appropriation in October, calculate rates for each operator, and issue 
assessments.
    Question. What is the current balance in the pipeline safety 
reserve fund? Please provide an historical table displaying the annual 
unappropriated balance in the fund from the end of fiscal year 1998 
through fiscal year 2000 with an estimated level for fiscal year 2001, 
assuming your full request were approved. Please describe how much of 
the unobligated balance could safely be drawn down taking into account 
replenishment of the fund through the collection of new fees.
    Answer. The current balance in the Pipeline Safety (reserve) Fund 
as of March 5, 2000, was $15,461,000 million. The historical table 
requested is provided as follows:

                         UNAVAILABLE COLLECTIONS
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year
                             -------------------------------------------
                                 1998       1999       2000       2001
                                actual     actual    enacted    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    01.Balance, start of       17,354     18,490     17,738     16,338
        year
    02.Receipts                28,964     30,228     30,447     43,519
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
    04.00    Total:            46,318     48,718     48,185     59,857
              Balances and
              collections
      ==================================================================
    05.Pipeline safety        -29,421    -30,158    -31,202    -42,874
        appropriation
       Research and              -574       -574       -645       -645
        Special Programs
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
    05.99    Total            -29,995    -30,732    -31,847    -43,519
              appropriatio
              ns
      ==================================================================
    06.Unobligated balance        354        234  .........  .........
        returned to
        receipts
    06.Other adjustments           71       -482  .........  .........
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
    07.Balance, end of         16,748     17,735     16,338     16,338
        year
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We need a balance in the fund sufficient to sustain OPS operations 
through the second quarter when we collect user fees to replenish the 
fund. Based on our rate of outlays for salaries, contracts and other 
operating and administrative expenses, we estimate that about 34 
percent of appropriated funds would be sufficient to sustain us. For 
fiscal year 2001, 34 percent amounts to approximately $15-16 million.
    Question. What has been the lowest balance that has been in the 
Pipeline Safety Fund for each of the last 20 months? What was the 
amount withdrawn from the Pipeline Safety Fund during each of the last 
20 months?
    Answer. The net balance in the Pipeline Safety Fund is determined 
at the end of each month. It is not calculated daily, therefore, we are 
unable to provide the lowest monthly balance for each month. The lowest 
balance during fiscal year 1999 was in April 1999 in the amount of 
$15,410.796. The lowest balance during fiscal year 2000 was in October 
and November in the amount of $16,014,711. The withdrawal of monies 
from the Pipeline Safety Fund for fiscal year 1999 amounted to 
$30,974,000 (requested in April 1999), and $17,394,000 in fiscal year 
2000 was withdrawn in February.
    Question. Please recalculate 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. We believe that $15-$16 million should be retained in the 
Pipeline Safety Fund in order to maintain the integrity of the pipeline 
safety program. We issue assessments in mid-December and receive 
collections by late March to replenish the Pipeline Safety Fund. 
Several years ago, we looked at OPS obligations during the first and 
second quarters and determined that, on average, OPS spends about 34 
percent of its appropriation before the fund is replenished. In prior 
fiscal years, 34 percent amounted to approximately $11 million. For 
fiscal year 2001, 34 percent amounts to approximately $15-$16 million.
    Question. How could the billing and collection cycle be changed to 
decrease this minimum reserve amount? Could RSPA initiate a rulemaking 
that would make all fees due by the beginning of the federal fiscal 
year, to optimize the full and efficient use of Pipeline Safety Fund 
receipts?
    Answer. RSPA changed the billing cycle in 1996, and issued user 
fees in the first quarter of the fiscal year (mid-December). User fees 
are based on the fiscal appropriation which is usually enacted on or 
about October 1. RSPA cannot assess fees in advance of this 
appropriation and it would be difficult to calculate the amounts due 
and issue bills much in advance of December.

              OIL POLLUTION ACT EXPENSES AND OIL PIPELINES

    Question. Please specify and describe all OPS expenses that legally 
could be associated with the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) in fiscal year 
2001. What types of personnel related costs can be associated with 
OSLTF funds, and what is the maximum level of personnel costs under the 
current budget request that could be funded in this manner.
    Answer. We estimate that the total amount that could legally be 
associated with Oil Pollution Act program requirements is $11,473,000. 
We estimate that this amount, described as follows, will ensure that 
activities, including personnel costs, that directly relate to 
preventing and mitigating the effects of oil spills into water and 
environmentally sensitive areas are funded by the appropriate source 
(OSLTF).
  --PC&B and Administrative ($1,056,000): OPS HQ and Region staff and 
        administrative costs to 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 &
          Over 360 hazardous liquid inspections, includes accident 
        investigations and pipeline construction.
          3 area exercises and 20 table top drills.
  --Information and Analysis ($700,000): Over half the incident 
        reporting, data collection, analysis and trending labor.
          Identifying accident cause and consequence, evaluating and 
        acting on environmental impacts, particularly related to 
        protecting drinking water sources.
  --Risk Assessment and Technical Studies ($650,000): Systematically 
        identify hazardous liquid risks, and compare relative 
        likelihood and consequences of an adverse events.
          Monitor, report, and expand the Risk Demonstration and System 
        Integrity Inspection Pilot programs.
          Increase public awareness about potential risks from liquid 
        pipelines.
  --Compliance ($150,000): Technical field engineering support for 
        monitoring major spills and remediation.
          Dedicated personnel for integrating public and private sector 
        incident coordination and decision support for protective 
        actions.
  --Training & Information Dissemination ($400,000): Computer-based 
        training (CBT) to update safety evaluations of hazardous liquid 
        pipeline systems.
          Classes and seminars specifically given to address hazardous 
        liquid risk and system integrity concerns.
  --Emergency Notification ($50,000): The National Response Center 
        (NRC) provides immediate notification of hazardous liquid 
        pipeline spills.
  --Damage Prevention/Public Education Campaign ($200,000): 
        Investigate, encourage, and inform communities on damage 
        prevention efforts on hazardous liquid pipelines.
  --Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act ($2,443,000): Review and 
        approve pipeline operator spill response plans.
          Contract support for 3 area exercises and 20 table top 
        drills.
          Obtain data on environmental sensitive area, includes 
        drinking water and other ecological resource areas.
  --National Pipeline Mapping System ($400,000): Collecting and 
        digitizing more accurate liquid pipeline location information 
        as it becomes avail-able. To be used in conjunction with data 
        on population, drinking water intakes, terrain. Needed to set 
        priorities for prevention and response actions.
  --Outside Force Damage ($400,000): Research to detect encroachment on 
        pipeline right-of-way or mechanical damage to reduce accidents 
        from third-party damage to hazardous liquid pipelines.
  --Pipeline Safety Grants ($5,024,000): State program which provides 
        oversight of intrastate hazardous pipelines operations and 
        maintenance, construction, repairs.
          50 percent of one-call grants to states for programs to 
        increase training, education and compliance activities.
  --50 percent of damage prevention grants to reduce impacts on the 
        environment from disruptions caused by excavation activities 
        around railroads, sewage lines, electric, telecommunications, 
        hazardous liquid pipelines.
    Question. For fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, what was the 
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund transfer levels requested by RSPA prior 
to the OMB passback?
    Answer. RSPA's request for funding derived from the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund, prior to the OMB passback, was $8,814 million in 
fiscal year 2000 and $4,263 million in fiscal year 2001.

                         ENVIRONMENTAL INDEXING

    Question. Please describe progress made in the environmental 
indexing effort. What was accomplished with funding provided in fiscal 
year 1999? How much is being spent in fiscal year 2000 for this 
activity, and for which purposes? What new initiatives will be 
conducted during fiscal year 2001 and how much will that cost?
    Answer. RSPA has been working with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), as mandated by statute, the Departments of Interior 
(DOI), Agriculture (USDA), and Commerce (DOC), environmental 
organizations, state agencies, technical experts, and the pipeline 
industry to identify and locate drinking water and ecological resources 
that are most susceptible to a hazardous liquid release, or for which 
consequences would be most adverse if affected by a release.
    RSPA has used fiscal year 1999 funding to pilot test a draft 
definition and model that identify unusually sensitive drinking water 
and ecological resource areas. The purpose of the pilot was to 
determine if the definition and model could be used to identify and 
locate unusually sensitive areas (USA's) using available data from 
government agencies and environmental organizations. Major categories 
in the definition include public drinking water systems, wellhead 
protection areas, sole source aquifers, threatened and endangered 
species, imperiled and critically imperiled species, depleted marine 
mammal habitats, and areas where a large percentage of the world's 
population of a species concentrates. The pilot was conducted in the 
States of Texas, California, and Louisiana, since these states contain 
approximately 45 percent of the nation's hazardous liquid pipelines and 
a large number of ecological and drinking water resources. In Texas, 
approximately 15,000 phone calls had to be made to determine if there 
were adequate alternative drinking water resources available. RSPA has 
used a portion of the fiscal year 1999 funding to gather drinking water 
data from state agencies which will be used once the USA definition and 
model are finalized. RSPA has also used a portion of the fiscal year 
1999 funding to update a catalog that identifies the sources of 
drinking water data in all 50 states and to begin work on an ecological 
resource data catalog. The drinking water catalog can be found on the 
following RSPA Internet site: http://ops.dot.gov.
    RSPA expects to spend $900,000 in fiscal year 2000 on this 
initiative. A portion of this funding will be used to conduct a 
technical review of the pilot results. RSPA, other government agencies, 
academia, and environmental groups are conducting a technical review to 
determine if the pilot results actually depict the most unusually 
sensitive drinking water and ecological resource areas. The definition 
and model will be modified, if necessary, based on the pilot and 
technical review results. The funding will also be used to gather and 
process individual state datasets needed to identify drinking water and 
ecological USA's. These areas will be mapped using our geographic 
information system (GIS) technology and added to the National Pipeline 
Mapping System. We will use the remainder of the fiscal year 2000 funds 
to work with The Nature Conservancy, Association for Biodiversity 
Information, and other government agencies on a national database for 
sensitive ecological species. All of the location data on threatened 
and endangered species and species at risk of global extinction are 
created and maintained at the state level by State Heritage Programs or 
State Nature Conservancies. The national database effort will gather 
the individual state datasets into a common and standardized database.
    RSPA is requesting $900,000 in fiscal year 2001. The funding will 
continue our work with The Nature Conservancy, Association for 
Biodiversity Information, and other government agencies on a national 
database for sensitive ecological species, specifically to convert 
previously collected paper data on sensitive resources to digital data. 
The funding will also enable us to finish our initial mapping of 
drinking water and ecological USA's and to make these maps available 
over the Internet. The funding will also allow us to gather and process 
data on other resources of national importance such as cultural and 
recreational resources, transportation networks, historical sites, and 
economic areas, and to create maps of these sensitive resource areas, 
that we can make available over the Internet.

                OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANS/LESSONS LEARNED

    Question. Please summarize the results of last year's review of 
pipeline operators' emergency response plans. Include the number of 
plans reviewed, the number accepted, and the number of plans which 
required corrective measures.
    Answer. In fiscal year 1999, OPS reviewed 188 plans, of which 31 
were new response plans and 87 were revisions to existing response 
plans. Of the 31 new plans we reviewed, 14 were able to be approved 
without requiring corrections, and 17 had at least one deficiency 
requiring correction. Of the 87 revisions to existing plans, 17 of them 
had at least one deficiency requiring correction. Under our 
regulations, OPS plan approvals expire every five years. Because most 
of the plans were initially approved in 1995, we are in the process of 
reviewing all of the plans again to ensure that they are still current 
and reflect the most current environmental and response information.
    Question. Please discuss the amount of funds spent or planned to be 
spent on spill response exercises during each of the last three years. 
Given the lessons learned and the practice gained from past 
simulations, why couldn't the number of drills be reduced during fiscal 
year 2001?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1997, OPS spent $443,000 on spill response 
exercises, $567,000 in fiscal year 1998, and $306,981 in fiscal year 
1999. These amounts include contractor support for exercise design, 
conduct, and evaluation. These figures also include an estimated 
$15,000 per year for travel costs of OPS staff to participate in 
exercises.
    We expect to spend $450,000 on exercises in both fiscal year 2000 
and in fiscal year 2001. This will fund approximately 20 tabletop 
exercises and at least 2 large scale area exercises. The value of 
conducting exercises is evident in the improvement of the pipeline 
industry's spill response capabilities. In addition, Federal, state, 
and local environmental and emergency response agencies improve their 
actual spill response by streamlining communications and increasing 
efficiency in command & control actions.
    In the future, OPS is considering changing the exercise program mix 
by conducting more large-scale field exercises and perhaps fewer 
tabletop exercises. The exercises we conduct each year are a 
representative sample of the 1,400 facility response plans for 
facilities under our jurisdiction. We select operators based on risk 
factors, as identified in our review of their response plans and as 
suggested by our OPS regional staff. Until we reach a point of 
diminishing returns, it would be premature to begin reducing our 
exercise program.
    Question. How are the lessons learned from both the actual releases 
and drills reflected in changes in the OPS program?
    Answer. The OPA 1990 exercise program started out with fairly 
elementary table top and area drills in fiscal year 1997. Three years 
later, the drills have resulted in lessons learned about how to improve 
communications, command and control efficiency, and how to protect 
environmentally sensitive areas. Perhaps the most valuable aspect of 
the exercise program is that it allows emergency responders from 
industry, Federal, State, and local agencies to familiarize themselves 
with each other's procedures and priorities before an actual spill.
    When we examined the exercise evaluation reports and after-action 
reports from actual spills, we drew the following conclusions. Most 
operators understand and use unified and incident command but could 
hone these skills with more practice. Operators need to update their 
notification lists more often and to strengthen their staffing 
practices. Operators need to ensure that they have enough containment, 
recovery, and temporary storage equipment available response in remote 
inland areas.
    We are taking steps to strengthen our exercise program. We have 
implemented a quantitative, risk-based exercise selection methodology. 
This ensures that we exercise operators that carry products in a wide 
range of operating conditions and that range in size and in the 
environmentally sensitive areas the pipelines cross. We are making 
exercises more realistic by using maps showing sensitive areas and 
spill trajectories. We are also asking our facilitators to ask tough 
questions and to challenge assumptions about response capabilities.

                    ALYESKA--MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

    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 and how are those being addressed?
    Answer. The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) continues to work with 
Alyeska to address the items outlined in the memorandum of agreement in 
addition to other safety issues. Following is a status update on the 
corrosion coupon monitoring program, the corrosion mitigation project 
for transition joints, the mainline valve program and our enforcement 
action against Alyeska for overpressure events on the pipeline.
    Coupon Monitoring Program: In March 1996, Alyeska began a long-
term, comprehensive study to specifically determine if corrosion 
coupons could be used to evaluate cathodic protection on the large 
diameter Trans Alaska pipeline system (TAPS). The results of the study 
indicate that, although corrosion coupons represent an important 
contributor to the monitoring of the cathodic protection system on 
TAPS, they cannot be used as a stand-alone method for determining 
adequate cathodic protection. However, coupons may be used in 
conjunction with other acceptable engineering practices such as 
internal inspection tools, close interval surveys, and local knowledge 
of environmental conditions.
    On February 14, 2000, OPS conditionally approved Alyeska's 
Corrosion Control Management Program (CCMP). Final approval is pending 
the Joint Pipeline Office (JPO) and OPS satisfaction with CCMP 
implementation plan. OPS believes that the CCMP, when properly 
implemented to meet regulatory and safety requirements, provides a 
methodology for corrosion control on TAPS that will result in a level 
of protection equal to or better than could be achieved through 
reliance on single stand-alone method of cathodic protection 
monitoring. Based on this and other information, OPS also modified an 
existing waiver on TAPS to allow Alyeska to run an internal inspection 
device on a 3-year rather than annual cycle. As a result of the CCMP 
pending approval, OPS is working towards closing out the 1996 coupon 
agreement and the 1992 TAPS monitoring report.
    Corrosion at Transition Joints: Alyeska continues to work toward 
meeting an OPS order to evaluate and, if necessary, repair all 
aboveground fiberglass coating at transition joints to ensure that 
water does not penetrate the external pipeline coating. The fiberglass 
coating helps prevent corrosion where the pipeline transitions from 
belowground to aboveground. This action was supported by reports of 
corrosion at several of the transition areas.
    Mainline Valve Program: We continue to closely monitor Alyeska's 
maintenance of the large mainline valves used to shut off the pipeline 
if an accident occurs. In 1995, we became concerned that many of these 
valves did not seal properly and initiated action to assure that public 
safety and the environment were not placed at risk. In 1996, Alyeska 
began a system-wide review of these valves and in January 1997, agreed 
with the Joint Pipeline Office on a plan for assessment of valves on 
the TAPS. During 1997, Alyeska conducted a risk assessment on mainline 
valves in order to prioritize these mainline valves for testing, and to 
establish performance standards for internal leak through. One-hundred-
and-fifty mainline valves have been tested. The remaining 22 valves 
will be tested during 2000.
    Alyeska is in the process of rehabilitating or replacing many of 
its valves. One remote gate valve in an environmentally sensitive area 
near the Yukon River was replaced in 1999. Alyeska has revised its 
valve testing, repair and maintenance program. The program now provides 
for extensive maintenance and testing beyond what is required by the 
pipeline safety regulations.
    Overpressure of the Pipeline: We have taken enforcement action, 
including a civil penalty assessment, against Alyeska following a 
recent overpressure of pipeline facilities. This latest overpressure 
event occurred after Alyeska was ordered to take corrective action to 
prevent future overpressure of the pipeline. These actions were to 
include SCADA system examination and adjustment, evaluation of the 
pipeline control system and personnel training. OPS is reviewing 
Alyeska's compliance with the order.

                 RISK ASSESSMENT AND TECHNICAL STUDIES

    Question. Please assess the effectiveness and utility of the System 
Integrity Inspection Program. How many companies have participated? 
What are the remaining challenges? How does this program fit into the 
more conventional inspection process?
    Answer. The System Integrity Inspection (SII) program requires 
compliance with regulations; only the OPS approach to inspection is 
changing. OPS and the SII participants are reviewing a broad set of 
system-wide safety and integrity issues, instead of the standard 
regulatory compliance inspection. The SII inspections focus on areas of 
greatest risk so that OPS and operators can work together to find and 
fix problems related to significant risk at the earliest possible 
stage. The system-wide focus ensures that not only individual fixes are 
implemented, but also that the operator looks for analogous conditions 
elsewhere in their system and corrects them before problems arise. 
This, in effect, institutionalizes learning. As importantly, this 
program provides a more in-depth opportunity for enhanced communication 
and understanding of pipeline integrity issues between OPS and pipeline 
companies.
    Discussions between the participants and OPS are focusing on 
corrosion control, hydrotesting and internal inspection, natural 
hazard-related issues and use of new technologies for risk 
identification and control. The SII allows OPS to investigate 
integrity-related information not normally addressed in a standard 
inspection and to address safety issues, like training, more 
systematically throughout a company's operations.
    Three companies have applied for acceptance. OPS is nearing formal 
acceptance of two; the third only recently applied. A fourth company's 
application was declined because they were too small to help fully 
explore SII. We anticipate incorporating into our standard inspection 
process valuable lessons we learn as we go. We expect our experience to 
enrich our forthcoming rules requiring pipeline integrity management 
programs and mandatory compliance strategy for internal inspection on 
hydrotesting.
    Question. Who are the current participants in pipeline risk 
management demonstration projects? What progress has been made in each 
of those projects? What challenges have been identified with the 
implementation of this program? Have any adverse safety or 
environmental impacts surfaced with any of the projects?
    Answer. The Office of Pipeline Safety is submitting a report to 
Congress on the status, and results to date, of the Risk Management 
Demonstration Program shortly. This report will have detailed 
information on the program, its participants and their projects, 
programmatic challenges, as well as our assessment of the performance 
of both the Program and its participants.
    OPS has authority to enter into 10 Risk Management Demonstration 
projects. The 10 companies are listed in a table that follows this 
reply. Each of these companies voluntarily applied for acceptance into 
the program. The companies were chosen by OPS because of their 
potential to (1) provide superior safety, environmental protection, and 
service reliability, and (2) help OPS test risk management 
systematically as a regulatory alternative. Other factors considered 
included operator's willingness to openly communicate with OPS and our 
state partners, new technologies they were willing to test, corporate 
commitment to their program, and their existing performance record. To 
date, we have formally approved the Risk Management Programs of 6 of 
the 10 companies; we continue to work with the remaining 4 companies.
    We are actively auditing each of the approved companies against an 
established set of program review protocols and against the legally 
enforceable work orders produced upon approval of their programs. 
Though our auditing continues, OPS believes that each of the companies 
with formally approved programs, as well as several others we continue 
to work with, have clearly demonstrated that their management of safety 
and environmental protection can produce results that are superior to 
those of companies that merely comply with the minimum standards 
established by existing regulations. Each of these companies have, in 
concert with the OPS, sharpened the focus on the highest risks to the 
integrity of their pipelines, applied appropriate risk controls, and 
enhanced communication with affected communities.
    At present, OPS believes that risk management--at least in the near 
term is best used in combination with, rather than as a replacement 
for, existing regulations. Further, our experience with systematic 
identification and control of risks shows that risk management is a 
viable consideration in development of future performance-based 
regulations. In fact, several OPS initiatives, as well as current and 
pending regulatory proposals have already begun to incorporate this 
lesson.
    The 10 companies RSPA accepted into the Demonstration Program, and 
their acceptance dates, are listed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Company                   Approved       Affected State(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equilon..........................  3/18/98.........  Colorado,
                                                      Louisiana, New
                                                      Mexico, Texas.
Chevron..........................  2/17/99.........  Idaho, Utah.
Phillips.........................  8/10/98.........  Texas.
Kinder Morgan....................  12/31/98........  Arkansas, Colorado,
                                                      Iowa, Illinois,
                                                      Indiana, Kansas,
                                                      Louisiana,
                                                      Missouri,
                                                      Nebraska,
                                                      Oklahoma, Texas,
                                                      Wisconsin,
                                                      Wyoming.
Columbia/Columbia Gulf             Candidate.......  Kentucky,
 Transmission Company.                                Louisiana,
                                                      Maryland,
                                                      Mississippi,
                                                      Pennsylvania,
                                                      Tennessee,
                                                      Virginia.
Enron............................  Candidate.......  Arizona,
                                                      California,
                                                      Colorado, New
                                                      Mexico, Oklahoma,
                                                      Texas.
Mobil............................  8/10/98.........  Illinois.
Duke.............................  Candidate.......  Alabama, Arkansas,
                                                      Illinois, Indiana,
                                                      Kentucky,
                                                      Louisiana,
                                                      Mississippi,
                                                      Missouri, New
                                                      Jersey, New York,
                                                      Ohio,
                                                      Pennsylvania,
                                                      Tennessee, Texas,
                                                      West Virginia.
Temmessee Gas/East Tennessee       Candidate.......  Alabama, Arkansas,
 Natural Gas.                                         Connecticut,
                                                      Kentucky,
                                                      Louisiana,
                                                      Massachusetts,
                                                      Michigan, New
                                                      Hampshire, New
                                                      Jersey, New York,
                                                      Ohio,
                                                      Pennsylvania,
                                                      Rhode Island,
                                                      Tennessee, Texas,
                                                      Virginia, West
                                                      Virginia.
Northwest........................  1/11/00.........  Colorado, Idaho,
                                                      Oregon, Utah,
                                                      Washington,
                                                      Wyoming.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please elaborate on the specific contracts and their 
associated funding amounts that have been or will be let to ensure 
continued monitoring and progress in the risk management demonstration 
projects.
    Answer. Contract funding to ensure continued monitoring and 
progress in the risk management demonstration projects is derived from 
the Risk Assessment and Technical Studies account. One multi-year 
contract covering risk management and other services was awarded to 
Cycla Corporation for these services in 1996. This contract ends at the 
end of calendar year 2000. OPS anticipates letting a follow-on contract 
in fiscal year 2001 to continue these vital services. Funding under the 
new contract in fiscal year 2001 is expected to parallel levels from 
fiscal year 2000. Prior obligations under this contract directly 
attributable to support of the risk management demonstration projects 
follow:

        Fiscal year
1996..........................................................$1,249,956
1997.......................................................... 1,069,053
1998..........................................................   811,599
1999..........................................................   708,346
2000.........................................................\1\ 900,000

\1\ Estimate.

    Question. How much funding was or is associated with various 
demonstration projects in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, and 
how much is requested for these projects in the fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. Funding to directly support the various risk management 
demonstration projects involves personnel compensation, travel, 
contract support costs, and state participation grants. The state 
participation grants cover many risk-related activities not involved 
with the risk management demonstration projects. Total costs under 
these categories since fiscal year 1999 are itemized in the following 
table; fiscal year 2001 funding is expected to remain level with fiscal 
year 2000 except for state grants:

              RISK MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fiscal year
                                  -------------------------- 2001 (est.)
                                       1999     2000 (est.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Personnel................     $393,000     $425,000     $425,000
Federal Travel...................      200,000      200,000      200,000
Contract Support.................      708,346      900,000      900,000
State Grants.....................      100,000      100,000       50,000
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total......................    1,401,346    1,625,000    1,575,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Funding requested under the Risk Assessment and Technical Studies 
account for fiscal year 2001 also covers continued oversight of the 
System Integrity Inspection program, risk and integrity management 
training of Federal and State inspection personnel, technical support 
for the Local Distribution Company risk management team, as well as 
needed administrative and clerical support.
    In fiscal year 2001, we anticipate fewer consultation meetings and 
have reduced our request for state participation grant funding 
accordingly.

                        COMPLIANCE PROGRAM DATA

    Question. 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 enforcement actions listed below do not reflect the 
actions OPS has taken to improve integrity and safety through voluntary 
agreements with operators. During each inspection, we discuss with 
operators ways to improve their operations and facilities beyond the 
minimum requirements through non-enforcement means, as we are able to 
positively impact safety performance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Calendar year
               Measures               ----------------------------------
                                          1997        1998        1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement:
    Cases Opened.....................         179         218         89
    Cases Closed.....................         186         273        107
    Civil Penalty Assessments            $228,171    $316,846  \1\ $16,5
     Collected.......................                                 00
Reportable events:
    Incidents Reported...............         362         379        344
    Deaths...........................          11          19         21
Injuries.............................          93          74        108
Property Damage (in millions)........         $65        $104       $97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This does not include civil penalties for a number of pending cases.

                        COMPLIANCE REINSPECTIONS

    Question. How many of those companies provided with technical 
education were reinspected? Did you find those companies still out of 
compliance? If so, how many enforcement actions were taken against 
those companies?
    Answer. We provide technical education to every operator we 
inspect. During exit interviews, we point out areas for improvement and 
probable violations. We offer technical education on resolving these 
issues. Forty-six of the companies that were inspected and received 
enforcement actions in fiscal year 1998 were inspected at different 
locations in their system during fiscal year 1999. Enforcement action 
was initiated on 10 of these companies in fiscal year 1999. However, it 
should be noted that the concerns found in fiscal year 1998 were not 
necessarily the same items found in fiscal year 1999.

                         OPS INSPECTOR STAFFING

    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 show how the additional staff requested for fiscal year 2001 
would be deployed.
    Answer. RSPA will use the additional staff to help evaluate the use 
of new technologies which identify the early stages of pipeline damage 
and potentially harmful environmental conditions. A recent report from 
the DOT Inspector General found RSPA pipeline inspector resources 
inadequate for oversight tasks in numbers and qualifications. A soon-
to-be-released GAO report is expected to offer similar conclusions. The 
additional staff will also help prepare operator compliance activities 
for the forthcoming rule which will require operators to perform 
testing and more comprehensive evaluation of the integrity of pipeline 
systems. This will ultimately help prevent pipeline accidents, enable 
early detection of pipeline damage and assure prompt and effective 
mitigation of the accidents we cannot prevent.

                                          NUMBER OF INSPECTORS ONBOARD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                1998 \1\  authorized/ 1999 \1\  authorized/ 2000 \1\  authorized/
                    Region                             onboard               onboard               onboard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern.......................................                   8/8                   8/8                   8/8
Southern......................................                   8/7                   8/8                   8/8
Central.......................................                 12/11                 11/11             \2\ 12/12
Southwest.....................................                 11/11                 12/12                 11/11
Western.......................................                 13/13                 12/12                 13/13
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...................................                 51/50                 51/51                52/52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These numbers do not include the five Region Directors or headquarter inspector positions that supply
  technical support to all five regions. Some of the authorized inspector positions have been moved between
  regions and the headquarters technical support to meet risk-based needs.
\2\ This includes two inspectors that we are in the process of hiring for the Central Region.

    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year
                                                 -----------------------
                                                   1997    1998    1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Onsite Investigations.................      51      48      46
Follow-up Investigations........................      65      43      40
Accident Reports Generated......................       5       4      19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RSPA reviews each pipeline accident report to assess factors 
contributing to the failure and performs onsite investigation of those 
with national safety implications, public interest, fatalities, 
numerous injuries, significant property damage, or environmental 
impact. The dividing line between the accident investigation and the 
follow-on inspections is difficult to make and each may require months 
to complete. An example is the continuing investigation into the 
Olympic pipeline failure in Bellingham, Washington. Nine months after 
the pipeline failed, RSPA inspectors and technical staff continue to 
closely monitor Olympic's corrective actions and address the safety 
factors identified during the investigation.
    We perform follow-on investigations for many of the onsite accident 
investigations and incorporate lessons learned into our inspection 
processes and regulatory initiatives. Recent accidents have highlighted 
the need for RSPA to conduct system-wide inspections and ensure 
pipeline companies are integrating data about their pipelines in order 
to make good preventative maintenance decisions.
    Additionally, RSPA has set an aggressive schedule for 
implementation of integrity management regulations. We are looking at 
ways of increasing the capacity and capability of our field workforce 
to apply new technology to assess the soundness of critical segments of 
pipelines.

              DAMAGE PREVENTION/PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN

    Question. How are you assuring that the results of the best 
practices study are used? What evidence do you have that those 
recommendations are being implemented? What are the next steps in 
advancing this work?
    Answer. OPS is working with interstate pipeline operators to 
determine if operators: (1) are aware of the best practices identified 
in the ``Common Ground Study of One Call Systems and Damage Prevention 
Best Practices;'' (2) are aware of the various channels of access to 
the best practices on the OPS Information System; and (3) have 
evaluated their program against the best practices. OPS is coordinating 
with its state agency partners to determine the same information for 
intrastate pipelines.
    We have been planning for implementation of a new grant program 
provided for in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
(TEA-21) which will provide financial assistance to states to help 
encourage adoption of these practices. These funds will be provided to 
state damage prevention programs that meet certain criteria consistent 
with the provisions in TEA-21, which include evaluating a state's 
damage prevention program against the Common Ground best practices.
    OPS is also currently assisting in the formation of a non-profit 
organization to advance damage prevention efforts consistent with the 
best practices and in the same spirit of cooperation resulting from the 
Common Ground Study. This organization will, among other things, 
encourage implementation of the best practices identified in the Study, 
and continue to identify future best practices to protect America's 
underground infrastructure. One of the best practices involves public 
education. OPS is actively working to expand use of our national Dig 
Safely campaign to promote public education and awareness of damage 
prevention programs.
    Question. Please update your answer from last year regarding the 
production of a TV public service announcement for the national damage 
prevention campaign. What will the related costs be for such a PSA. Has 
OPS approached interested excavators and underground utility 
representatives about cost-sharing.
    Answer. OPS is still considering production of a TV public service 
announcement (PSA); however, advertising agency estimates indicate that 
a TV PSA would cost a minimum of $50,000 and would more likely be in 
excess of $100,000. At this time, OPS is working with the major 
stakeholders in the damage prevention area to establish a private non-
profit organization which would assume the work of the supporting the 
Dig Safely Campaign. This organization, to be funded entirely by the 
private sector but with staff support from OPS, is scheduled to be 
operating by the summer of 2000. The non-profit organization would 
decide if it wanted to proceed with production of the PSA. OPS would 
support the public education initiatives of the non-profit 
organization.
    Question. To date, what has been the Damage Prevention Quality 
Action Team's assessment of the effectiveness of its national education 
campaign? What improvements have been recommended?
    Answer. All indications are that the campaign has been very well 
received. It has been endorsed by the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, the American Petroleum Institute, the Association of 
Oil Pipelines, the National Association of Regulatory Utility 
Commissioners, the National Telecommunications Damage Prevention 
Council, One Call Systems International, and Southeastern One Call 
Systems. Members of the Dig Safely Team have conducted thirty sessions 
nationwide to train one-call centers, facility operators, and others in 
the damage prevention community how to implement the campaign. Each 
organization that attends receives a detailed instruction manual and 
two CD ROMs with the campaign artwork. A number of one-call centers and 
other stake-holders have set aside their own damage prevention programs 
and are using the Dig Safely program exclusively. In addition, we have 
received many requests for the safety training video; we have exhausted 
our initial stock and are reproducing more videos and manuals. 
Southwest Bell is using the Dig Safely logo on bill inserts which will 
be distributed for three months across a five state area. One area of 
improvement is production of Spanish language materials. A translation 
of the manual into Spanish has been completed; we are preparing to dub 
the training video and to print brochures in Spanish. In addition, the 
files available on our web site were originally in a Macintosh format. 
These were converted into a PC format at the request of those 
interested in using the materials.
    We need to continue conducting training sessions nationwide to 
produce more materials for distribution at permitting offices, retail 
outlets, equipment rental operations. At this point, the campaign has 
been very well received. We need to sustain its momentum until the Dig 
Safely message is recognized nationwide and the public reacts 
appropriately to the Dig Safely message.
    Question. What were the accomplishments of the Team during the last 
year.
    Answer. On June 30, 1999, the Team presented the National Dig 
Safely Campaign to the Secretary of Transportation, who officially 
launched the campaign's kickoff on a satellite broadcast. Team members 
have conducted 35 training sessions across the country; 5 more are 
scheduled in the next few months. The campaign received the official 
endorsement of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the American 
Petroleum Institute, the Association of Oil Pipelines, the National 
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the National 
Telecommunications Damage Prevention Council, One Call Systems 
International, and Southeastern One Call Systems. Team members have 
received many invitations to speak to one-call centers, facility 
operators, utility coordinating councils and industry groups which are 
interested in adopting the campaign. One-call centers, industry groups, 
and trade associations have produced materials bearing the Dig Safely 
logo which have been widely distributed at trade shows, and industry 
functions. Southwest Bell is using the Dig Safely logo on bill inserts 
which will be distributed for three months across a five state area.
    Question. What are the anticipated activities of this team during 
the next year?
    Answer. The Team is in a transitional phase, with necessary 
turnover due to the pressure of other commitments. We are replacing 
outgoing members of the team from those organizations as well as adding 
additional representation from other groups with a large stake in 
damage prevention, such as underground facility locators and the 
National Energy Board of Canada. We have invited the National League of 
Cities, the Edison Electric Institute, the National Cable Television 
Association and other interested parties to provide representation on 
the Team. The Team will continue to conduct training sessions across 
the country and to accept speaking engagements to promote the campaign. 
Some campaign materials are being translated into Spanish; the 
translation of the manual has already been completed. We are exploring 
other outlets for campaign materials such as permitting offices, 
equipment rental centers, and retail home improvement sites. We expect 
the private sector, non- profit organization to assume management of 
the Dig Safely Campaign. We anticipate that the Team itself will then 
function as a technical committee of the non-profit organization.
    Question. Since last year, what have you done 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 2000?
    Answer. Each OPS regional office works with its state pipeline 
safety partners to encourage strong damage prevention programs and to 
assess operators' performance against the best practices guidelines we 
provided to states on how to perform these assessments. OPS also made 
one-call grant funds available to States. For the past few years, many 
States have significantly improved their one-call notification systems 
and damage prevention activities by strengthening State one-call 
legislation, increasing enforcement efforts, and continuing public 
education. This considerable increase in one-call efforts has occurred 
since agency one-call program activities began. For fiscal year 2000, 
Congress authorized $1 million in grant funds for State pipeline safety 
agency work in damage prevention and an additional $1 million to 
support the advancement of Best Practices under a separate grant 
program authorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 grant funding will improve operational 
efficiency of one-call systems, including marking, locating, planning 
and design activities and would support States electing to implement 
Best Practices developed by the damage prevention study. For the past 
year and a half, State pipeline safety representatives served on the 
damage prevention ``Best Practices'' study authorized by TEA-21. OPS 
provided funding for their participation. Through their participation, 
they became more knowledgeable on how to improve and enhance all 
aspects of one-call system operations and how to minimize risks of 
third-party damage.
    Question. How much is planned for that activity in fiscal year 
2001? Please describe the scope and nature of those activities.
    Answer. For fiscal year 2001, OPS is requesting $1 million in grant 
funds for activities of state pipeline safety, which is the same amount 
requested last year. For the past few years, many state pipeline 
agencies have significantly improved their one-call notification 
systems and damage prevention activities by strengthening state one- 
call legislation, increasing enforcement efforts, and continuing public 
education. This considerable increase in one-call efforts has occurred 
since agency one-call program activities began.
    We plan to conduct a separate grant program authorized under the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century at the $5 million level 
in fiscal year 2001. This separate grant funding would improve 
operational efficiency of one-call systems, including marking, 
locating, planning and design activities and would support states 
electing to implement Best Practices developed by the Common Ground 
initiative.
    Based on the assessment undertaken as part of the Common Ground 
Study, we believe the vast majority of states have extensive work to do 
to improve all aspects of their damage prevention programs. Funding 
will be provided to improve the overall quality and effectiveness of 
state damage prevention programs, including enhanced communication 
systems, record retention capabilities, training and public education 
efforts, and using more effective locating devices and other emerging 
technologies. Common Ground showed us that damage prevention is a 
responsibility shared by all stakeholders. This funding will allow for 
improvement of damage prevention programs around the country, and prove 
our commitment to the effort.
    Question. What progress has been made in establishing a foundation 
to advance damage prevention activities? How much seed money is DOT 
going to provide to help establish such a foundation? What are the 
expected total federal costs to ensure the successful operation of the 
foundation for at least one year?
    Answer. OPS is currently assisting in the establishment of a non-
profit organization to advance damage prevention efforts consistent 
with the spirit of communication and shared responsibility resulting 
from the Common Ground Study. Organizational teams are working on 
drafting the necessary by-laws, developing a business plan for the 
organization, and identifying any necessary criteria for membership.
    OPS has committed ``seed resources'' to facilitate the initial 
start-up of this organization, currently known as the damage prevention 
``Path Forward.'' These resources consist of OPS staff and OPS-funded 
consultants that work on the initiative.
    After June 2000, this would include OPS assistance in the form of 
technical services and the continued development of the web-based 
information system, which provides fundamental communication services 
among thousands of interested stakeholders. OPS has allocated close to 
$200,000 in fiscal year 2000, and we requested an increase of $100,000 
in fiscal year 2001 to continue to support the formation of the 
organization. This funding would cover the maintenance and continued 
development of the web-based information system; as well as print and 
video communications, and exhibits, holding meetings, logistics, and 
facilitation.
    Question. Would the private sector likely continue that support 
once federal support ended? How much cost sharing is the private sector 
likely to contribute?
    Answer. During the damage prevention ``Path Forward'' initiative, 
OPS has committed seed resources for an 18-month start-up period to 
support the formation of the non-profit organization. After this time, 
we expect the organization to be largely self-sustaining and primarily 
funded by affected industry stakeholder organizations. The Path Forward 
Finance Team is currently developing a business plan that includes 
funding strategies for the non-profit organization.
    Question. How did you use the additional funds provided last year 
to improve damage prevention programs. What would you do with 
additional funds if a similar increase were provided for that activity 
for fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. Additional funds provided last year were used to support 
production of additional campaign materials; to conduct training 
sessions across the country; and to provide campaign presentations at a 
variety of trade, one-call center, and industry functions. Funds were 
also used for production of a new Dig Safely brochure, which we 
distributed in large quantities. Since we still receive many requests 
for manuals and other campaign materials, we would use supplemental 
fiscal year 20001 funds for production of additional materials and 
training. We would also use the additional funds to help the new non-
profit damage prevention organization produce a video for distribution 
to TV and cable channels.
    We have requested an additional $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 to 
support formation of the non-profit organization to advance damage 
prevention to underground facilities. These costs include the 
maintenance and continued development of the web-based information 
system, planning conferences and team meetings, logistics, and other 
communication costs.
    Question. How are you working with NTSB to advance damage 
prevention strategies?
    Answer. OPS and NTSB co-sponsored a damage prevention symposium on 
June 30, 1999, in Washington, DC. We presented the Common Ground Study 
of one-call systems and damage prevention best practices to the DOT 
Secretary at this event, and kicked off the Dig Safely public education 
campaign. We have met with NTSB on several occasions to update them on 
our efforts and have invited them to participate in the Common Ground 
Study, as well as in the efforts to establish a non-profit organization 
to advance underground damage prevention.
    There are currently 11 NTSB Safety Recommendation dealing with 
damage prevention issues. OPS has initially responded to these 
recommendations, and will continue to do so as the development of the 
non-profit organization progresses. All NTSB ``Open'' Recommendations 
addressing underground damage prevention are currently classified as 
``acceptable'' response. NTSB also recently closed a recommendation 
regarding directional drilling practices as ``Closed--Acceptable 
Action.''
    Question. What specific commitments for cost sharing have you 
gotten from the private sector to help pay the one-call/damage 
prevention outreach effort. Please quantify cash and in-kind 
contributions.
    Answer. The American Petroleum Institute and Aegis Loss Control, 
both of which are represented on the Dig Safely Team, underwrote 
production of several hundred additional Dig Safely Training manuals 
for distribution to their members and clients. Many one-call centers 
and industry groups have paid for production of items which bear the 
Dig Safely logo; these items are being widely distributed. The 
following groups contributed to the national kick-off of the Dig Safely 
Campaign: the American Gas Association, the American Public Gas 
Association, Ameritech, the American Petroleum Institute, the 
Associated General Contractors of America, the American Association of 
Railroads, the Association of Oil Pipelines, the Interstate Natural Gas 
Association of American, and the National Utility Contractors 
Association. The following organizations have provided in-kind 
contributions by supporting participation of their representatives on 
the Dig Safely Team: the National Association of Regulatory Utility 
Commissioners, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America; Aegis 
Loss Control, One Call Systems International, the American Gas 
Association, the American Public Gas Association, Associated General 
Contractors of America, the American Petroleum Institute, the National 
Telecommunications Damage Prevention Council, and the National 
Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives.

                  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND MAPPING

    Question. What is the current status of your pipeline safety R&D 
plan? How can you assure the Committee that your R&D program will lead 
to advances to meet your future challenges? Is it time to update that 
plan.
    Answer. The pipeline safety R&D plan which was developed in the 
early 1990's is presently being updated to bring it in line with 
current safety issues and needs of RSPA. We have polled our Region 
Directors for their suggested input to the plan and are in the process 
of prioritizing the R&D initiatives they have suggested. We will obtain 
additional input from our headquarters technical staff to arrive at a 
final plan. Many of our future R&D initiatives will be conducted as 
collaborative research with the pipeline industry co-funding the 
projects as is currently done.
    We are presently developing agreements to conduct collaborative 
research in three areas. The first area is advancing magnetic flux 
leakage technology used on inline inspection (ILI) tools or ``smart 
pigs'' to identify and characterize mechanical damage on pipelines. We 
have just completed a RSPA funded $3.1 million, 40-month contract with 
Battelle, Southwest Research Institute and Iowa State University. A 
final report on this research should be available in two months. This 
research involved examining mechanical damage with a magnetic flux 
produced along the pipe's longitudinal axis. We are awarding a two-
year, $2 million dollar cooperative agreement with GRI to conduct 
companion research with the magnetic flux oriented in the 
circumferential direction around the pipe. This additional smart pig 
research, scheduled to be awarded by the end of March 2000, will be 
funded 50 percent by RSPA and 50 percent by GRI. The research will 
provide for better identification and characterization of mechanical 
damage oriented in the pipe's longitudinal axis. Mechanical damage from 
excavators is the leading cause of major pipeline accidents.
    The second area is advancing acoustic technology for real time 
monitoring for pipeline right-of-way encroachment and outside force 
damage. We have agreed to cooperatively fund this research with GRI, 
which has already started the research. We are awaiting a statement of 
work from them. The results from this research has the potential to 
significantly reduce pipeline mechanical damage caused by excavators.
    The third area is offshore research project to investigate the 
validity of data on wall thinning gathered by internal inspection 
tools. We would hydrostatically test to failure a number of abandoned 
pipelines and comparing the failure data with the ILI inspection data. 
We, along with industry and other government partners, are 
participating in this research sponsored by the Minerals Management 
Service.
    Question. Please describe the progress made in your mapping 
initiative since last year. When will the project be completed? How 
much was appropriated and spent on this effort in fiscal years 1998 and 
1999 and planned for fiscal years 2000 and 2001? What are the remaining 
challenges? Will there be a need for funding over the long-term?
    Answer. OPS is in the process of collecting natural gas 
transmission and hazardous liquid trunk line data from pipeline 
operators for the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS). The NPMS 
consists of a National Repository and 12 state repositories, funded 
through cooperative agreements, located in Alabama, California, 
Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, 
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Through a current Commerce Business 
Daily announcement, we are requesting proposals for additional state 
repositories to join the NPMS.
    To date, the program has received data for 10 percent of the 
pipelines that RSPA regulates. RSPA is working closely with the 
American Gas Association, the American Public Gas Association, 
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, and the American 
Petroleum Institute and the pipeline operators to achieve the goal of 
collecting 70 percent of the pipeline data by the end of calendar year 
2000. RSPA is also working on collecting the remaining 30 percent which 
is generally represented by smaller interstate and intrastate 
transmission operators. An educational workshop is being arranged with 
the intrastate transmission trade associations to assist the smaller 
operators with their data submissions. The NPMS repositories will 
maintain the currency of the data after the initial operator data has 
been collected, as pipelines are bought and sold, abandoned, and 
constructed.
    The appropriated mapping funds are 3-year Research and Development 
money and therefore are not necessarily fully spent in the year they 
are appropriated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Fiscal year
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                                                       1998       1999       2000        2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated......................................................   $400,000   $800,000   $800,000  \1\ $800,00
                                                                                                               0
Obligated.........................................................    510,000    818,000    212,000         N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Requested.

    The biggest challenge facing NPMS is getting the pipeline operators 
to participate in the voluntary mapping initiative and submit their 
data to the NPMS. If we do not have adequate participation in this year 
on a voluntary basis, we will proceed to a rulemaking.
    The NPMS will require continued funding at current levels to 
continue with NPMS initiatives in data collection, data processing, 
performing outreach, data dissemination, and funding for the National 
Repository and state repositories.

                                 GRANTS

    Question. For fiscal year 1999 and 2000, please list the states 
that participated in your hazardous liquids and natural gas state grant 
programs. For each participating state, display the amount requested by 
state, the amount of federal grant 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. Attached are the allocations for fiscal year 1999. As soon 
as the allocations for fiscal year 2000 are complete, we will forward 
them to Congress.
    RSPA has encouraged further intrastate jurisdiction and 
improvements to state one-call damage prevention programs. In addition, 
RSPA has enhanced participation by the states on risk management and 
industry committee meetings- all of which increase the amount of money 
available to the states.

                                1999 NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SAFETY GRANT ALLOCATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Percent
                               State                                  Request     State    Allocation      of
                                                                                  points                funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................................................     $385,591      100     $340,438         44
Arizona...........................................................      397,607      100      350,719         44
Arkansas..........................................................      211,275      100      186,361         44
California........................................................    1,155,167      100    1,018,945         44
Colorado..........................................................      198,137      100      174,772         44
Connecticut.......................................................      225,000       95      188,544         42
Delaware..........................................................       19,723       95       16,527         42
Florida...........................................................       56,000       95       46,926         42
Georgia...........................................................      301,936      100      266,330         44
Illinois..........................................................      279,450      100      245,496         44
Indiana...........................................................      166,350      100      146,733         44
Iowa..............................................................      198,550      100      175,136         44
Kansas............................................................      346,538      100      305,673         44
Kentucky..........................................................      252,050      100      222,327         44
Louisiana.........................................................      330,000      100      291,085         44
Maine.............................................................       56,900       90       45,243         40
Maryland..........................................................      154,380      100      136,175         44
Massachusetts.....................................................      379,312       95      317,852         42
Michigan..........................................................      308,650       95      258,640         42
Minnesota.........................................................      686,261      100      605,334         44
Mississippi.......................................................      133,500      100      117,757         44
Missouri..........................................................      320,070       95      268,210         42
Montana...........................................................       22,818       95       19,120         42
Nebraska..........................................................       77,246       95       64,730         42
Nevada............................................................      189,051      100      166,757         44
New Hampshire.....................................................      101,182      100       89,250         44
New Jersey........................................................      348,533      100      307,432         44
New Mexico........................................................      170,143       90      135,071         40
New York..........................................................    1,201,750      100    1,060,035         44
North Carolina....................................................      134,975      100      119,058         44
North Dakota......................................................       37,817       95       31,960         42
Ohio..............................................................      499,541      100      440,633         44
Oklahoma..........................................................      336,372      100      296,705         44
Oregon............................................................      161,363      100      142,334         44
Pennsylvania......................................................      297,179       95      249,027         42
Puerto Rico.......................................................       45,000      100       39,693         44
Rhode Island......................................................       64,956       90       51,567         40
South Dakota......................................................       28,840       90       22,895         40
Tennessee.........................................................      265,140      100      233,874         44
Texas.............................................................    1,246,612      100    1,099,606         44
Utah..............................................................      160,325      100      141,419         44
Vermont...........................................................       48,095      100       42,423         44
Virginia..........................................................      187,500       95      157,120         42
Washington, DC....................................................       87,500       95       73,323         42
Washington........................................................      270,000      100      238,161         44
West Virginia.....................................................      273,650      100      241,380         44
Wisconsin.........................................................      203,300       90      161,393         40
Wyoming...........................................................       83,700       95       70,138         42
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
      Totals......................................................   13,105,485  .......   11,421,058         44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The ``Request'' represents 50 percent of the states estimated budget. The `` Percent of funding'' is the
  percentage of the budget represented by the allocation.


                             1999 HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY GRANT ALLOCATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Percent
                               State                                  Request     State    Allocation      of
                                                                                  points                funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................................................      $23,329      100      $20,758         44
Arizona...........................................................       42,810      100       37,762         44
Arkansas..........................................................      975,000      100      860,024         44
Kentucky..........................................................       10,700       90        8,494         40
Louisiana.........................................................       90,491      100       79,820         44
Minnesota.........................................................      161,850      100       42,764         44
Mississippi.......................................................        6,663      100        5,877         44
New Mexico........................................................        9,350       85        6,935         37
New York..........................................................       52,300      100       46,133         44
Oklahoma..........................................................      100,767      100       88,884         44
Texas.............................................................      219,991      100      194,048         44
Virginia..........................................................       17,500      100       15,436         44
Washington........................................................       42,586      100       37,564         44
West Virginia.....................................................       39,250      100       34,621         44
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
      Totals......................................................    1,792,487  .......    1,578,942         44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The ``Request'' represents 50 percent of the states estimated budget. The `` Percent of funding'' is the
  percentage of the budget represented by the allocation.

    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 1998, 1999, and 2000?
    Answer. The funding levels for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 
1999 were 41 percent and 44 percent, respectively. The funding level 
for fiscal year 2000 will be 40 percent.
    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 that has happened.
    Answer. The states have expanded their enforcement jurisdiction in 
the past few years by adding new intrastate gas and liquid programs and 
new areas of municipal, LPG, or master meter operators jurisdiction in 
their particular state and enhanced one-call compliance.
    Question. TEA21 authorized a $5,000,000 damage prevention grant 
program in fiscal year 2001. If funding constraints do not permit full 
funding of this program in fiscal year 2001, what would be the most 
effective way to ramp this program up over a two-year period?
    Answer. Congress has allocated $1 million for fiscal year 2000 
consistent with provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century (TEA-21). We have structured a grant program consistent 
with provisions in TEA-21. If the additional $5 million is never 
allocated, the full effectiveness of this program will not be reached. 
OPS could make awards as funding is available, requesting applicants to 
show approved management plans to account for a longer funding period. 
TEA-21 authorized grant funding to improve state damage prevention 
programs that were lacking, and this money is badly needed. However, if 
full funding is not provided, we will provide whatever funding is 
appropriate based on the points of our award criteria on a pro-rated 
basis to enhance damage prevention to the extent possible until the 
full $5 million is available. We would pro- rate the grant to the 
extent possible to reward those states that best meet our criteria. We 
are assisting states in reaching a minimum level of progress and 
encouraging consortium among states to share responsibility for damage 
prevention.
    Question. Please update past data provided 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?
    Answer. Within the past 5 years, 18 States have passed or improved 
one-call legislation: Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, New 
Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, 
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, 
and Wyoming. Since the incident in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in 1996, we 
have been working closely with Puerto Rico for legislation to create a 
one-call center. This legislation was passed in September 1998. We also 
supported Texas in the passage of its first one-call legislation in 
1997.
    There is also a growing number of States with a strong one-call 
enforcement mechanism (Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Virginia) that include:
  --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.
    Eleven 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.
    More than 30 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 has also utilized one-call grant funds to support States to 
establish one-call programs. This past year, 33 States have requested 
one-call grants to further one-call activities. Many of these States 
are preparing to request TEA-21 grant funds to expand their damage 
prevention efforts by implementing Best Practices within their States.

              VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTER

    Question. For fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, what percent 
of funds were contracted out? For fiscal year 2000 what percent of 
funds do you plan to contract out?
    Answer. For fiscal years 1998 and 1999, 77 percent and 73 percent, 
respectively, of the Center's obligations were contracted to the 
private and university sectors. We estimate the percentage to be 
approximately the same for fiscal year 2000.
    Question. What percent of your personnel costs are for contract 
administration, technical program direction, and in-house research?
    Answer. Five percent of personnel costs are for contract 
administration. 70 percent is tied to specific project work, including 
technical direction. No funding or staff was devoted to in- house 
research (i.e., independent research and development not tied to a 
client project) in fiscal year 1999 and none is planned for fiscal year 
2000. The remaining 25 percent of personnel costs cover facility 
operations, business services, staff development, managerial process 
improvements, stakeholder reporting, and outreach. Question. Please 
discuss the current staffing situation at Volpe in relationship to 
current and anticipated workload.
    Answer. The competitive nature of recruiting for technical skills 
has caused some delays in filling positions needed for current and 
projected work, especially in the areas of systems planning, analysis, 
and simulation, surveillance, infrastructures, etc.
    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 fiscal years. What is the significance of these funding trends?
    Answer. The following table shows Volpe Center obligations for 
projects with the following DOT Operating Administrations in millions 
of dollars.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year
                                        --------------------------------
                                            1998       1999       2000
                                           actual     actual    estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA....................................       84.5       72.0       78.6
FHWA...................................       11.8       13.3       13.4
USCG...................................        6.8        6.4        7.5
FRA....................................       10.9       11.9       10.9
FTA....................................        7.5        8.8        8.8
NHTSA..................................        8.8        7.8        8.9
RSPA...................................        6.6        5.1        7.1
OTHER DOT..............................        2.3        6.0        6.0
OST....................................        2.6        0.7        0.8
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................      141.8      132.0      142.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Each amount includes the customers' participation in DOT's Small
  Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program, which the Volpe Center
  manages.

    The trends reflect changes in our customers' program emphasis as 
well as changes to DOT's appropriations.
    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):

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year
                                        --------------------------------
           Indirect activity                1998       1999       2000
                                           actual     actual    etimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Operations....................       $3.4       $3.4       $3.4
Business Services......................        9.8        8.8        9.8
Line Management........................        2.5        2.7        2.8
Center-wide Services...................        1.5        1.5        1.7
Computer & LAN Services................        3.8        3.4        3.7
Industry Outreach......................        0.3        0.3        0.4
Capability Development.................        0.3        0.3        0.4
Plans & Pgm Development................        0.9        1.6        1.8
Chief Counsel..........................        0.3        0.3        0.4
Executive Management...................        1.0        1.1        1.0
                                        --------------------------------
      Total Indirect...................       23.8       23.4       25.4
                                        --------------------------------
      Total Obligations \1\............      197.0      174.0      202.0
                                        --------------------------------
      Indirect to Total (percent)......       12.0       13.4      12.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Net of recoveries of prior year obligations.

    The estimated fiscal year 2000 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 and increased investment in staff training and 
recruitment. Current energy conservation technology has offset some of 
the Center's increases.
    Question. Please provide a detailed listing of all fiscal year 1999 
and fiscal year 2000 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. Following is a list of all the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal 
year 2000 new start reimbursable agreements. NASA Aviation Safety 
Program Risk Assessment and Mitigation is the only fiscal year 2000 new 
start.

    PROJECT: Aviation Mail Hazmat Support Services
    SPONSOR: United States Postal Service (USPS)
    FUNDING: $1.6 Million
    CONTRACT PERCENT: 40 percent
    The Volpe Center will support the Aviation Mail Security group by 
assisting in the planning, development, implementation of policies, and 
training supporting HAZMAT acceptance, handling, transportation, and 
delivery.

    PROJECT: Region 8 Site Assessment and Redemption
    SPONSOR: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    FUNDING: $10.7 Million
    CONTRACT PERCENT: 81 percent
    To provide environmental support services in the assessment, 
design, remediation, restoration and oversight of contaminated sites in 
Region 8.

    PROJECT: Information Transition & Organizational Planning Office 
(ITOP)
    SPONSOR: EPA FUNDING: $70 Thousand
    CONTRACT PERCENT: 0 percent
    Volpe will support EPA in designing and establishing its new Office 
of Environmental Information.

    PROJECT: Philadelphia Support Office
    SPONSOR: Department of Interior/National Park Service (NPS)
    FUNDING: $35 Thousand
    CONTRACT PERCENT: 37 percent
    The Volpe Center will work with NPS, Philadelphia Support Office, 
in the planning for the management of parks in its region as they 
relate to existing and anticipated transportation issues.

    PROJECT: National Marine & Fisheries Vessel Monitoring
    SPONSOR: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA)
    FUNDING: $1.0 Million
    CONTRACT PERCENT: 73 percent
    The Volpe Center will support NOAA's National Marine and Fisheries 
Service (NMFS) in the development of a comprehensive Vessel Monitoring 
System (VMS) to ensure compliance with the NMFS fishing regulations and 
international agreements on protection of controlled fish stocks.

    PROJECT: Energy Motor Carrier Safety Evaluation
    SPONSOR: Department of Energy (DOE)
    FUNDING: $50 Thousand
    CONTRACT PERCENT: 24 percent
    Develop a safety status supported process for the Doe National 
Transportation Program (NTP) to evaluate motor carriers for use in 
transportation radioactive materials and waste from site cleanup.

    PROJECT: Security Review of Treasury Facilities
    SPONSOR: United States Treasury Department
    FUNDING: $80 Thousand
    CONTRACT PERCENT: 21 percent
    Support will be provided for the development and implementation of 
a physical security review concept of operations plan (PSR CONOPS). The 
CONOPS documents a proposed course of action to be undertaken by 
Treasury that, at a minimum, increases the physical security of 
Treasury owned assets, as well as assets where Treasury employees work, 
to the minimum physical security standard required by the 1995 US 
Marshal Service Study. The Volpe Center will analyze the information 
and develop the CONOPS that maps a course to increase facility security 
for identified bureaus.

    PROJECT: Advanced Communications for Aviation
    SPONSOR: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 
Glenn Research Center (GRC)
    FUNDING: $75 Thousand
    CONTRACT PERCENT: 60 percent
    The Volpe Center will support NASA in the development of advanced 
communications concepts (primarily satellite-based) for civil aviation. 
Two tasks will be performed: (1) Identification of spectrum management 
issues (including approaches to their resolution) that are likely to 
arise when implementing new communications techniques in the National 
Airspace System(NAS); (2) exploration of the feasibility of employing 
the merging Ultra Wide Band (UWB) technology for aviation 
communications.

    PROJECT: NASA Small Aircraft Transportation System
    SPONSOR: NASA Langley
    FUNDING: $100 Thousand
    CONTRACT PERCENT: 14 percent
    Assess the commercial feasibility of a next generation small 
aircraft and supporting air & ground infrastructure.

    PROJECT: Environmental Support to Hanscom AFB
    SPONSOR: U.S. Air Force (USAF)
    FUNDING: $50 Thousand
    CONTRACT PERCENT: 14 percent
    Volpe Center will provide environmental oversight services to the 
Air Force and Navy during the construction, demonstration, and 
operation of this world class high-frequency radio wave generator in 
Alaska.

    PROJECT: National Airspace System (NAS) Engineering & Installation 
Support
    SPONSOR: USAF
    FUNDING: $1.0 Million
    CONTRACT PERCENT: 14 percent
    The USAF Electronic Systems Center (ESC) National Airspace Systems 
Program Office (GAA) has the responsibility for national airspace 
systems implementation for the Department of Defense (DOD). ESC/GAA, 
site implementation group (SIG), had been accomplishing the additional 
site preparation effort at various DOD military bases. The Volpe Center 
competed for, and won, the contract (in the form of a Reimbursable 
Agreement) to accomplish site preparation at various DOD military 
bases.

    PROJECT: Naval Air Systems Command Advanced Technology Launcher
    SPONSOR: U.S. Navy (USN)
    FUNDING: $150 Thousand
    CONTRACT PERCENT: 40 percent
    Reviews conducted by the Naval Air Systems Command have indicated 
technologies exist that, if utilized in an advanced technology 
launcher, could eliminate the launcher's dependence on propulsion plant 
system. A survey of industry confirmed that industry was capable of 
developing selected technologies into operational launch systems with 
Navy sponsorship. The Volpe Center will conduct assessments of 
technologies expected to be proposed by the Advanced Technology 
Launcher (ATL) contractor and provide technical expertise in linear 
motor technology as well as linear motor and magnetic guidance and 
suspension control systems.

    PROJECT: DOD Duty Free Entry Program Evaluation
    SPONSOR: Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
    FUNDING: $60 Thousand
    CONTRACT PERCENT: 16 percent
    The Volpe Center will support DLA in determining whether or not the 
current Duty Free Entry program for foreign imports for DOD and its 
contractors is economically viable. The Volpe Center federal staff will 
work with the Defense Contract Management Command New York customs Team 
that manages duty-free program and DLA's Operations Research and 
Resources Analysis office (DORRA).

    PROJECT: NASA Aviation Safety Program Risk Assessment and 
Mitigation
    SPONSOR: NASA Langley
    FUNDING: $200 Thousand
    CONTRACT PERCENT: 8 percent
    The Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) is a NASA technology focus 
program, which was formed to improve aviation safety through the 
introduction of technical advances that enable the reduction of fatal 
accidents. The Volpe Center, in collaboration with the NASA Safety and 
Mission Assurance personnel at Ames Research Center, Dryden Flight 
Research Center, Glenn Research Center, and Langley Research Center, 
will help the AvSP projects identify, track, and identify ways to 
mitigate risks.

          Questions Submitted to the United States Coast Guard

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

         fiscal year 1999 and 2000 reprogrammings and transfers
    Question. Please provide the amount and description of all 
reprogrammings or transfers of funds that occurred during fiscal year 
1999 and thus far in fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. There have been no congressional reprogrammings in the 
Operating Expenses (OE) appropriation in fiscal year 1999 and thus far 
in 2000. The table below shows the transfers to the OE appropriation in 
fiscal year 1999 and thus far in 2000.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Agency                   Amount      Reason for transfer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999:
    Information Technology Systems   $20,505,000  Y2K projects.
     and Related Expenses.
    Information Technology Systems     7,210,000  Y2K projects.
     and Related Expenses.
    Information Technology Systems     4,058,000  Y2K projects.
     and Related Expenses.
    Office of National Drug Control       94,798  High Intensity Drug
     Policy (ONDCP).                               Trafficking Area
                                                   (HIDTA)
Fiscal year 2000: None
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There have been no transfers of funds in the Acquisition, 
Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) appropriation in fiscal year 1999 
or thus far in fiscal year 2000. The following tables show the amount 
and description of reprogrammings that occurred within AC&I in fiscal 
year 1999 and thus far in 2000 for the appropriation.

  UNITED STATES COAST GUARD ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS--FISCAL YEAR 1999 REPROGRAMMING ACTIONS
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Brief description of
        Fiscal year funding                      Project title                    reprogramming          Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999...............................  COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM)             PROJECT SAVINGS...........    -$3,000
                                      REPLACEMENT.
1999...............................  DEEPWATER CAPABILITY REPLACEMENT      INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........     -3,000
                                      ANALYSIS.
1997...............................  CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE APPLICATION..  PROJECT SAVINGS...........     -1,500
1997...............................  FLEET LOGISTIC SYSTEM (FLS).........  PROCUREMENT MODULE........      1,500
1997...............................  CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE APPLICATION..  PROJECT SAVINGS...........       -800
1997...............................  MARINE INFO FOR SAFETY AND LAW        INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........        800
                                      ENFORCEMENT.
1998...............................  TRAFFIC AND COLLISION AVOIDANCE       PROJECT SAVINGS...........     -1,000
                                      SYSTEM(TCAS).
1999...............................  ROLES AND MISSIONS..................  CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED        1,000
                                                                            STUDY.
1997...............................  TRAFFIC AND COLLISION AVOIDANCE       PROJECT SAVINGS...........       -500
                                      SYSTEM(TCAS).
1997...............................  GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM             INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........        500
                                      INSTALLATION.
1998...............................  STATION BELLINGHAM--RELOCATION......  PROJECT SAVINGS...........       -222
1998...............................  ISC KODIAK HANGAR RENOVATION........  CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS....        222
1999...............................  COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM)             PROJECT SAVINGS...........       -400
                                      REPLACEMENT.
1999...............................  ATS-CONVERSION......................  COMPLETE PRE-COMMISSIONING        400
                                                                            OUTFITTING.
1998...............................  CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT............  PROJECT SAVINGS...........        -88
1998...............................  ATS-CONVERSION......................  INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........         88
1998...............................  COAST GUARD DISTRICT ONE--CONST       PROJECT SAVINGS...........        -96
                                      BAYONNE PIER.
1998...............................  ISC KODIAK HANGAR RENOVATION........  CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS....         96
1998...............................  CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE APPLICATION..  PROJECT SAVINGS...........       -130
1998...............................  FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM (FLS)........  INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........        130
1999...............................  OPTIMIZE COAST GUARD TRAINING         CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL....     -2,200
                                      INFRASTRUCTURE.
1999...............................  GROUP STATION NEW ORLEANS...........  ..........................      2,200
1997...............................  TRAFFIC AND COLLISION AVOIDANCE       PROJECT SAVINGS...........        -80
                                      SYSTEM (TCAS).
1997...............................  HC-130 ENGINE CONVERSION............  INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........         80
1998...............................  CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE APPLICATION..  PROJECT SAVINGS...........       -170
1998...............................  FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM (FLS)........  INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........        170
1998...............................  STATION BELLINGHAM--RELOCATION......  PROJECT SAVINGS...........        -27
1998...............................  ISC KODIAK HANGAR RENOVATION........  CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS....         27
1996...............................  COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM)             PROJECT SAVINGS...........     -2,800
                                      REPLACEMENT.
1996...............................  SEAGOING BUOY TENDER REPLACEMENT      FUND CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER      2,800
                                      (WLB).
1997...............................  COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM)             PROJECT SAVINGS...........     -8,100
                                      REPLACEMENT.
1997...............................  SEAGOING BUOY TENDER REPLACEMENT      FUND CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER      7,907
                                      (WLB).
1997...............................  POLAR ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT FOLLLOW- FUND START-UP TRAINING....        193
                                      ON.
1998...............................  COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM)             PROJECT SAVINGS...........     -3,150
                                      REPLACEMENT.
1998...............................  SEAGOING BUOY TENDER REPLACEMENT      FUND CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER      3,150
                                      (WLB).
1998...............................  DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM (DMS)          PROJECT SAVINGS...........       -140
                                      IMPLEMENTATION.
1998...............................  COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (COMSYS ) 2000  INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........        140
                                      PH II.
1999...............................  STATION OSWEGO--47 FOOT MLB           PROJECT SAVINGS...........        -30
                                      IMPROVEMENT.
1999...............................  STA CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT 47 FOOT MLB   CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS....         30
                                      IMPROVEMENT.
1998...............................  STATION BELLINGHAM--RELOCATION......  PROJECT SAVINGS...........        -35
1998...............................  GROUP WOODS HOLE--WATERFRONT          CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS....         35
                                      RENOVATION.
1997...............................  COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM)             PROJECT SAVINGS...........     -1,170
                                      REPLACEMENT.
1997...............................  BUOY BOAT REPLACEMENT PROJECT (BUSL)  CONTRUCTION OF FINAL TWO        1,170
                                                                            HULLS.
1998...............................  SEAGOING BUOY TENDER REPLACEMENT      OVERESTIMATED CONTRACT         -1,400
                                      (WLB).                                CHANGE ORDER.
1998...............................  ATS-1 CONVERSION....................  COMPLETION OF CGC ALEX          1,400
                                                                            HALEY CONVERSION.
1999...............................  SEAGOING BUOY TENDER REPLACEMENT      OVERESTIMATED CONTRACT         -1,100
                                      (WLB).                                CHANGE ORDER.
1999...............................  ATS-1 CONVERSION....................  COMPLETION OF CGC ALEX          1,100
                                                                            HALEY CONVERSION.
1999...............................  PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF HYDE PARK.  USE OF OFFSETTING              -3,042
                                                                            COLLECTIONS.
2000...............................  COAST GUARD HOUSING--VARIOUS          APPROVED BY CONGRESS......      1,000
                                      PROJECTS.
2000...............................  CONSTRUCT PATROL BOAT MAINTENANCE     APPROVED BY CONGRESS......        465
                                      FAC. SAN JUAN.
1999...............................  HURRICANE GEORGE'S SUPPLEMENTAL.....  APPROVED BY CONGRESS......      1,000
2000...............................  SURVEY AND DESIGN...................  APPROVED BY CONGRESS......        577
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    UNOBLIGATED AND CARRYOVER FUNDS

    Question. Please provide a list of any unobligated funds and 
carryover funds by account or program from previous fiscal years.
    Answer. The Operating Expenses (OE) account was appropriated 
$2,781,039,000 in fiscal year 2000, of which $791,117,233 was 
unobligated as of 31 March. OE carried over $186,532,744 from fiscal 
year 1999 to fiscal year 2000. Of these funds, $178,117,000 was carried 
over and are available until September 30, 2000, for emergency Kosovo 
funding pursuant to the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
Public Law 106-31. $8,415,744 were carried over and are available until 
September 30, 2001, for Y2K funding, pursuant to the Omnibus 
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 1999, Public Law 105-277.
    The following tables provide a list of unobligated funds carried 
forward from previous fiscal years for the Acquisition, Construction, 
and Improvements (AC&I) appropriation.

  UNITED STATES COAST GUARD ACQUISITON, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS
 APPROPRIATION ESTIMATED UNOBLIGATED BALANCES BY PROJECT--AS OF 03/31/00
                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Balance
                                                         by      Project
    Fiscal year appropriation       Project titles     fiscal     total
                                                        year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996............................  47-FOOT MOTOR             $4  ........
                                   LIFEBOAT (MLB)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1997............................  47-FOOT MOTOR            131  ........
                                   LIFEBOAT (MLB)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1998............................  47-FOOT MOTOR          1,217  ........
                                   LIFEBOAT (MLB)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1999............................  47-FOOT MOTOR            750  ........
                                   LIFEBOAT (MLB)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
2000............................  47-FOOT MOTOR          1,300    $3,402
                                   LIFEBOAT (MLB)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1996............................  82-FOOT WPB                2  ........
                                   CAPABILITY
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1997............................  82-FOOT WPB              452       454
                                   CAPABILITY
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1997............................  87 COASTAL PATROL          5         5
                                   BOAT.
1998............................  ATS-1 CONVERSION          50  ........
                                   (HALEY).
1999............................  ATS-1 CONVERSION         400       450
                                   (HALEY).
1996............................  COASTAL BUOY              31  ........
                                   TENDER (WLM)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1997............................  COASTAL BUOY           2,637  ........
                                   TENDER (WLM)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1998............................  COASTAL BUOY           5,848  ........
                                   TENDER (WLM)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1999............................  COASTAL BUOY          18,996    27,512
                                   TENDER (WLM)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1998............................  COASTAL PATROL         1,266  ........
                                   BOAT (CPB)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1999............................  COASTAL PATROL         2,231  ........
                                   BOAT (CPB)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
2000............................  COASTAL PATROL         1,000     4,497
                                   BOAT (CPB)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1996............................  CONFIGURATION              3  ........
                                   MANAGEMENT.
1997............................  CONFIGURATION             41  ........
                                   MANAGEMENT.
1998............................  CONFIGURATION             88  ........
                                   MANAGEMENT.
1999............................  CONFIGURATION             28  ........
                                   MANAGEMENT.
2000............................  CONFIGURATION          3,700     3,860
                                   MANAGEMENT.
NO YEAR.........................  CUTTER SENSOR AND      2,806  ........
                                   COMMUNICATION
                                   SYSTEM.
NO YEAR.........................  CUTTER SENSOR AND        209     3,015
                                   COMMUNICATION
                                   SYSTEM.
2000............................  DEEPWATER              3,000     3,000
                                   REPLACEMENT
                                   PROJECT.
NO YEAR.........................  DEPLOYABLE PURSUIT     1,156     1,156
                                   BOAT ACQUISITION.
1998............................  GREAT LAKES               32  ........
                                   ICEBREAKER
                                   CAPABILTY.
1999............................  MACKINAW               3,000  ........
                                   REPLACEMENT.
2000............................  MACKINAW              13,000    16,032
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1998............................  POLAR CLASS              854  ........
                                   RELIABILITY
                                   IMPROVEMENTS
                                   PROJECT (RIP).
2000............................  POLAR CLASS            4,100     4,954
                                   RELIABILITY
                                   IMPROVEMENTS
                                   PROJECT (RIP).
1997............................  POLAR ICEBREAKER          22  ........
                                   REPLACEMENT (PIR).
1998............................  POLAR ICEBREAKER         124  ........
                                   REPLACEMENT (PIR).
1999............................  POLAR ICEBREAKER         411  ........
                                   REPLACEMENT (PIR).
2000............................  POLAR ICEBREAKER         478     1,035
                                   REPLACEMENT
                                   (HEALY).
1996............................  SEAGOING BUOY            227  ........
                                   TENDER (WLB)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1997............................  SEAGOING BUOY            214  ........
                                   TENDER (WLB)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1999............................  SEAGOING BUOY            509  ........
                                   TENDER (WLB)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
2000............................  SEAGOING BUOY         60,947    61,897
                                   TENDER (WLB)
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1997............................  STERN LOADING BUOY        10  ........
                                   BOAT BUSL
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1998............................  STERN LOADING BUOY        75  ........
                                   BOAT BUSL
                                   REPLACEMENT.
2000............................  STERN LOADING BUOY     2,288     2,373
                                   BOAT BUSL
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1997............................  SURFACE SEARCH            43  ........
                                   RADAR REPLACEMENT.
1998............................  SURFACE SEARCH             8  ........
                                   RADAR REPLACEMENT.
1999............................  SURFACE SEARCH           123  ........
                                   RADAR REPLACEMENT.
2000............................  SURFACE SEARCH         2,851     3,025
                                   RADAR REPLACEMENT.
1998............................  SURVEY & DESIGN--         40  ........
                                   CUTTERS & BOATS.
1999............................  SURVEY & DESIGN--        300       340
                                   CUTTERS & BOATS.
                                                     -------------------
      TOTAL, VESSEL.................................   137,007   137,007
                                                     ===================
NO YEAR.........................  AIRCRAFT SENSOR          816       816
                                   AND C-130 ENGINE
                                   UPGRADE.
NO YEAR.........................  APS RADAR DRUG....       163       163
1998............................  GLOBAL POSITION        1,160     1,160
                                   SYSTEM
                                   INSTALLATION.
1998............................  HC-130 AIRCRAFT          476  ........
                                   SENSOR UPGRADE.
1999............................  HC-130 AIRCRAFT       10,500    10,976
                                   SENSOR UPGRADE.
1999............................  HC-130 ENGINE            225  ........
                                   CONVERSION.
2000............................  HC-130 ENGINE          2,500     2,725
                                   MODIFICATION.
2000............................  HC-130 LONG RANGE      5,900     5,900
                                   SEARCH AIRCRAFT.
1999............................  HC-130 SIDE              132       132
                                   LOOKING AIRBORNE
                                   RADAR (SLAR).
1999............................  HH-60J NAVIGATION        177  ........
                                   SYSTEM UPGRADE.
2000............................  HH-60J NAVIGATION      3,800     3,977
                                   SYSTEM UPGRADE.
2000............................  HH-65 CONVERSION,      4,324     4,324
                                   AIR FACILITY
                                   SOUTHERN LAKE
                                   MICHIGAN.
1999............................  HH-65A ENGINE          4,833     4,833
                                   CONTROL PROGRAM.
2000............................  HH-65A ENGINE RE-      6,999     6,999
                                   POWER PROGRAM.
1998............................  HH-65A HELICOPTER        126       126
                                   KAPTON REWIRING
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1999............................  HH-65A HELICOPTER      4,500  ........
                                   KAPTON REWIRING
                                   REPLACEMENT.
2000............................  HH-65A HELICOPTER      3,360     7,860
                                   KAPTON REWIRING
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1999............................  HH-65A HELO               43  ........
                                   MISSION UNIT
                                   COMPUTER
                                   REPLACEMENT.
2000............................  HH-65A HELO            3,608     3,651
                                   MISSION UNIT
                                   COMPUTER
                                   REPLACEMENT.
1999............................  HU-25 AIRCRAFT           872       872
                                   AVIONICS
                                   IMPROVEMENT.
2000............................  HU-25 RE-              6,000  ........
                                   ENGINEERING.
1998............................  LONG RANGE SEARCH      1,578     1,578
                                   AIRCRAFT
                                   CAPABILITY
                                   PRESERVATION.
NO YEAR.........................  MARITIME PATROL       33,064    33,064
                                   AIRCRAFT
                                   ACQUISITN.
NO YEAR.........................  OPERATIONAL TEST,        100       100
                                   USE OF FORCE FROM
                                   AIRCRAFT.
NO YEAR.........................  REACTIVATE OF HU-        493       493
                                   25 JETS.
2000............................  SIDE LOOKING           1,100     1,100
                                   AIRBORNE RADAR PH
                                   II.
NO YEAR.........................  TRAFFIC ALERT AND        432       432
                                   COLLISION
                                   AVOIDANCE SYSTEM
                                   (TCAS).
1998............................  TRAFFIC ALERT AND      1,203     1,203
                                   COLLISION
                                   AVOIDANCE SYSEM
                                   (TCAS).
                                                     -------------------
      TOTAL, AIRCRAFT...............................    98,484    98,484
                                                     ===================
1998............................  AVIATION LOGISTICS     2,150  ........
                                   MANAGEMENT
                                   INFORMATION
                                   SYSTEM (ALMIS).
1999............................  AVIATION LOGISTICS     1,000  ........
                                   MANAGEMENT
                                   INFORMATION
                                   SYSTEM (ALMIS).
2000............................  AVIATION LOGISTICS     2,700     5,850
                                   MANAGEMENT
                                   INFORMATION
                                   SYSTEM (ALMIS).
1999............................  COMMERCIAL             3,645  ........
                                   SATELLITE
                                   COMMUNICATION
                                   UPGRADE.
2000............................  COMMERCIAL             4,049     7,694
                                   SATELLITE
                                   COMMUNICATION
                                   UPGRADE.
1998............................  COMMUNICATION              2  ........
                                   SYSTEM (COMMSYS)
                                   2000.
1999............................  COMMUNICATION            425       427
                                   SYSTEM (COMMSYS)
                                   2000.
1998............................  CONVERSION OF          1,000     1,000
                                   SOFTWARE
                                   APPLICATION.
1998............................  DEFENSE MESSAGE            1  ........
                                   SYSTEM (DMS)
                                   IMPLEMENTATION.
1999............................  DEFENSE MESSAGE          800  ........
                                   SYSTEM (DMS)
                                   IMPLEMENTATION.
2000............................  DEFENSE MESSAGE        3,477     4,278
                                   SYSTEM (DMS)
                                   IMPLEMENTATION.
1998............................  FLEET LOGISTICS           20  ........
                                   SYSTEM (FLS).
1999............................  FLEET LOGISTICS           27  ........
                                   SYSTEM (FLS).
2000............................  FLEET LOGISTICS        3,001     3,048
                                   SYSTEM (FLS).
1998............................  FREQUENCY SPECTRUM     1,246     1,246
                                   REALLOCATION.
1999............................  LOCAL NOTICE TO           41        41
                                   MARINERS (LNM)
                                   AUTOMATION.
1998............................  MARINE INFORMATION         9  ........
                                   FOR SAFETY AND
                                   LAW ENFORCEMENT
                                   (MISLE).
1999............................  MARINE INFORMATION        31  ........
                                   FOR SAFETY AND
                                   LAW ENFORCEMENT
                                   (MISLE).
2000............................  MARINE INFORMATION     4,463     4,503
                                   FOR SAFETY AND
                                   LAW ENFORCEMENT
                                   (MISLE).
1999............................  MARITIME               4,108     4,108
                                   DIFFERENTIAL
                                   GLOBAL
                                   POSITIONING
                                   SYSTEM (DGPS).
1998............................  NATIONAL DISTRESS        103  ........
                                   SYSTEM
                                   MODERNIZATION.
1999............................  NATIONAL DISTRESS        961  ........
                                   SYSTEM
                                   MODERNIZATION.
2000............................  NATIONAL DISTRESS     16,000    17,064
                                   SYSTEM
                                   MODERNIZATION.
1998............................  PERSONNEL                  8  ........
                                   MANAGEMENT
                                   INFORMATION
                                   SYSTEM/MIL PAY
                                   SYSTEM.
1999............................  PERSONNEL                 20        28
                                   MANAGEMENT
                                   INFORMATION
                                   SYSTEM/MIL PAY
                                   SYSTEM.
1998............................  PORTS AND                  7  ........
                                   WATERWAYS SAFETY
                                   SYSTEM (PAWSS).
1999............................  PORTS AND              1,150  ........
                                   WATERWAYS SAFETY
                                   SYSTEM (PAWSS).
2000............................  PORTS AND              4,500     5,657
                                   WATERWAYS SAFETY
                                   SYSTEM (PAWSS).
1998............................  VHF-FM HIGH-LEVEL        615       615
                                   SITE PHIII.
                                                     -------------------
    TOTAL, OTHER EQUIPMENT..........................    55,559    55,559
                                                     ===================
1999............................  AIR STATION CAPE         385       385
                                   COD--REPLACEMENT
                                   ELECTRIC
                                   DISTRIBUTION
                                   SYSTEM.
2000............................  AIR STATION RAMP       3,800     3,800
                                   STRUCTURAL
                                   IMPROVEMENTS--ELI
                                   ZABETH CITY, NC.
1999............................  AIRSTATION MIAMI--     3,600     3,600
                                   RENOVATE FIXED
                                   WING HANGAR.
NO YEAR.........................  COMSTA MIAMI             319       319
                                   RESTORATION
                                   (ANDREW).
2000............................  CONSTRUCT PATROL       3,100     3,100
                                   BOAT MAINTENANCE
                                   FACILITY--SAN
                                   JUAN, PR.
1999............................  GROUP STATION NEW      2,878     2,878
                                   ORLEANS, LA--
                                   RELOCATION.
2000............................  HOMEPORTING OF         2,800     2,800
                                   DRUG INTERDICTION
                                   ASSETS.
NO YEAR.........................  HURRICANE GEORGES      7,620     7,620
                                   SUPPLEMENTAL.
1998............................  INTEGRATED SUPPORT       222       222
                                   COMMAND (ISC)
                                   KETCHIKAN REPLACE
                                   BREAKWATER.
1998............................  INTEGRATED SUPPORT        98        98
                                   COMMAND (ISC)
                                   PORTSMOUTH, VA.
NO YEAR.........................  MIDWEST FLOOD            171       171
                                   SUPPLEMENTAL.
1998............................  MINOR AC&I SHORE         477  ........
                                   CONSTRUCTION
                                   PROJECT.
1999............................  MINOR AC&I SHORE         405  ........
                                   CONSTRUCTION
                                   PROJECT.
2000............................  MINOR AC&I SHORE       6,000     6,882
                                   CONSTRUCTION
                                   PROJECT.
2000............................  MODERNIZE COAST        3,500     3,500
                                   GUARD STATION
                                   SHINNECOCK
                                   HAMPTON BAYS, NY.
1998............................  PUBLIC FAMILY             10  ........
                                   QUARTERS.
1999............................  PUBLIC FAMILY             70  ........
                                   QUARTERS.
2000............................  PUBLIC FAMILY          3,175     3,255
                                   QUARTERS.
2000............................  RELOCATE COAST         1,000     1,000
                                   GUARD MARINE
                                   SAFETY OFFICE AND
                                   STATION
                                   CLEVELAND, OH.
2000............................  RENOVATE AIR           3,500     3,500
                                   STATION MIAMI
                                   HANGAR, OPLOCKA,
                                   FL PH II.
1998............................  STATION BELLINGHAM        51        51
                                   RELOCATION.
1999............................  STATION DAUPHIN        3,191     3,191
                                   ISLAND, AL--
                                   RELOCATION.
1999............................  STATION NEAH BAY          71        71
                                   WATERFRONT
                                   RENOVATION.
1999............................  STATION OSWEGO 47        312       312
                                   FOOT MLB
                                   IMPROVEMENTS.
1998............................  SURVEY & DESIGN--          1  ........
                                   SHORE PROJECTS.
1999............................  SURVEY & DESIGN--          1  ........
                                   SHORE PROJECTS.
2000............................  SURVEY & DESIGN--      4,500     4,502
                                   SHORE PROJECTS.
2000............................  UNALASKA PIER.....     8,000     8,000
2000............................  WATERWAYS AIDS-TO-     5,000     5,000
                                   NAVIGATION
                                   PROJECTS.
                                                     -------------------
      Total SHORE PROGRAM...........................    64,257    64,257
                                                     ===================
      TOTAL, ALL CATEGORIES.........................   355,307   355,307
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       list of final rulemakings
    Question. Please prepare a list of all final rulemakings that have 
been issued since last year.
    Answer. Below is a list of all final rules issued by Coast Guard 
Headquarters program offices since January 1, 1999. Copies of all Coast 
Guard final rules have been submitted to both Houses of Congress as 
required by the Congressional Notification Act.

      NOTICES OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING PUBLISHED SINCE APRIL 1, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            DOCKET NUMBER              PUB DATE           TITLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG-1998-3386......................     2/1/99  Adjustment of Fees for
                                                  Issuing Numbers to
                                                  UndocumentedVessels in
                                                  Alaska.
USCG-1998-3868......................    12/7/99  Outer Continental Shelf
                                                  Activities.
USCG-1998-4354......................    3/22/99  Tank Vessel Response
                                                  Plans forHazardous
                                                  Substances.
USCG-1998-4593......................    3/16/00  Revision to Federal
                                                  Blood Alcohol
                                                  Concentration (BAC)
                                                  Standard for
                                                  Recreational Vessel
                                                  Operations.
USCG-1999-4976......................   11/15/99  Frequency of
                                                  Inspection, Alternate
                                                  Hull Examination
                                                  Program for Certain
                                                  Passenger Vessels, and
                                                  Underwater Surveys for
                                                  Passenger, Nautical
                                                  School, and Sailing
                                                  School Vessels.
USCG-1999-5040......................     3/2/00  Safety of Uninspected
                                                  Passenger Vessels
                                                  Under the Passenger
                                                  Vessel Safety Act of
                                                  1993 (PVSA).
USCG-1999-5149......................     4/8/99  Response Plans for
                                                  Marine Transportation-
                                                  Related Facilities
                                                  Handling Non-Petroleum
                                                  Oils.
USCG-1999-5700......................    6/17/99  Traffic Separation
                                                  Schemes: Off San
                                                  Francisco, in the
                                                  Santa Barbara Channel,
                                                  in the Approaches to
                                                  Los Angeles-Long
                                                  Beach, California.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 RULEMAKING THAT THE COAST GUARD HAS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER 
                         IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS

    Question. Please list and explain the major notices of proposed 
rulemaking that the Coast Guard has published in the Federal Register 
in the last 12 months?
    Answer. Below is a list of all notices of proposed rulemaking 
issued by Coast Guard Headquarters program offices since April 1, 1999.

               FINAL RULES PUBLISHED SINCE January 1, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            DOCKET NUMBER              PUB DATE           TITLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG-1997-2799......................     8/4/99  User Fees for Licenses,
                                                  Certificates of
                                                  Registry, and Merchant
                                                  Mariner Documents.
USCG-1998-3423......................    5/17/99  Implementation of the
                                                  National Invasive
                                                  Species Act of 1996
                                                  (NISA) (Interim rule).
USCG-1998-3472......................    4/24/99  Rules of Practice,
                                                  Procedure, and
                                                  Evidence for
                                                  administrative
                                                  Proceedings of the
                                                  Coast Guard (Interim
                                                  Rule).
USCG-1998-3821......................    2/10/99  Coast Guard Child
                                                  Development Services
                                                  Programs.
USCG-1998-3824......................     2/2/99  Maritime Course
                                                  Approval Procedures.
USCG-1998-4445......................   10/19/99  Fire Protection
                                                  Measures forTowing
                                                  Vessels (Interim
                                                  Rule).
USCG-1998-4469......................    4/27/99  Management Information
                                                  System (MIS)
                                                  Requirements.
USCG-1998-4819......................    6/23/99  Year 2000 (Y2K)
                                                  Reporting Requirements
                                                  for Vessels and Marine
                                                  Facilities (Temporary
                                                  Interim Rule).
USCG-1998-4819......................     8/2/99  Year 2000 (Y2K)
                                                  Reporting Requirements
                                                  for Vessels and Marine
                                                  Facilities (Temporary
                                                  Interim Rule).
USCG-1999-4976......................     2/9/00  Frequency of
                                                  Inspection.
USCG-1999-5036......................     3/2/99  Conformance of the
                                                  Western Rivers Marking
                                                  System With the United
                                                  States Aids to
                                                  Navigation System
                                                  (Final Rule; delay of
                                                  implementation date).
USCG-1999-5118......................   11/30/99  Standard Measurement
                                                  System Exemption from
                                                  Gross Tonnage (Direct
                                                  Final Rule).
USCG-1999-5151......................     3/1/00  Update of Standards
                                                  From the American
                                                  Society for Testing
                                                  and Materials
                                                  (ASTM)(Direct Final
                                                  Rule).
USCG-1999-5525......................     6/1/99  Mandatory Ship
                                                  ReportingSystems
                                                  (Interim Rule).
USCG-1999-5832......................    6/29/99  Technical Amendments;
                                                  Organizational
                                                  changes; Miscellaneous
                                                  Editorial Changes and
                                                  Conforming Amendments.
USCG-1999-6141......................    3/20/00  Puget Sound Vessel
                                                  TrafficService (Direct
                                                  Final Rule).
USCG-1999-6216......................    10/1/99  Technical Amendments;
                                                  Organizational
                                                  Changes; Miscellaneous
                                                  Editorial Changes and
                                                  Conforming Amendments.
USCG-1999-6224......................   11/19/99  Licensing and Manning
                                                  forOfficers of Towing
                                                  Vessels(Interim Rule).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

      PROPERTIES EXCESSED IN FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND FISCAL YEAR 2001

    Question. Please provide a list of all properties the Coast Guard 
declared excess in fiscal year 2000 and expects to excess during fiscal 
year 2001.
    Answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  EXCESS IN
                 DESCRIPTION                     FISCAL YEAR     STATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LORAN STATION MIDDLETOWN.....................            2000         CA
LIGHT STATION PATOS ISLAND...................            2000         WA
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 ANTICIPATED
                                                  EXCESS IN
                 DESCRIPTION                     FISCAL YEAR     STATE
                                                     \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIGHT STATION GUARD ISLANDS..................            2001         AK
LIGHT STATION MARY ISLAND....................            2001         AK
AMELIA LIGHT.................................            2001         FL
BLYTHE ISLAND LIGHT..........................            2001         FL
BOCA GRANDE LIGHT............................            2001         FL
CAPE CANAVERAL LIGHT.........................            2001         FL
CITY LIMITS LIGHT............................            2001         FL
CROOKED RIVER LIGHT..........................            2001         FL
EGMONT KEY LIGHT.............................            2001         FL
SANIBEL LIGHT................................            2001         FL
BUCK ISLAND LIGHT............................            2001         PR
CULEBRITA LIGHT..............................            2001         PR
CHARLESTON LIGHT.............................            2001         SC
SULLIVAN'S ISLAND LIGHT......................            2001         SC
MATAGORDA LIGHT..............................            2001         TX
SOUTH JETTY LIGHT............................            2001        TX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Anticipated Excess.--The Coast Guard is in the process of preparing
  the documentation necessary to determine if these properties are
  excess to its needs. Other factors (such as environmental issues) may
  impact the projected timelines and delay the actual Report of Excess
  or Notice of Relinquishment.

                     EXPECTED ASSET SALE COLLETIONS

    Question. Please provide a table showing a description of each 
asset sale and the amount collected during fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 
2001.
    Answer. The following lists the personal property that has been 
sold during fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and those projected for 2001. 
These sales were conducted by the General Services Administration with 
all proceeds returned to the general treasury. Items marked with an 
asterisk are assets that are anticipated to be offered for sale
    Fiscal year 1999--No asset sales.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Asset                       Sale date           Sale price
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCGC PAPAW.....................  December 17, 1999........   $63,888.00
USCGC SORREL....................  December 17, 1999........    75,010.00
USCGC PRIMROSE..................  March 9, 2000............    79,999.88
CG-55012........................  March 9, 2000............    52,886.88
Marine Engines, Cummings Model    March 21, 2000...........     4,631.00
 12900M w/trans. (2 engines).
Marine Engines, Cummings Model    March 21, 2000...........     4,181.00
 12900M w/o trans (2 engines).
Warping Drums for Anchor          March 21, 2000...........       600.00
 Windlass from 180 ft Buoy
 Tender.
* USCGC SPAR....................  Summer 2000..............          TBD
* USCGC MALLOW..................  Summer 2000..............          TBD
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            FISCAL YEAR 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Asset                      Sale date         Sale price \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
180-ft Seagoing Buoy Tenders    Various.................             TBD
 and Spare Parts Kits.
82-ft Patrol Boats & Spare      Various.................             TBD
 Parts Kits.
44-ft Motor Life Boats........  Various.................             TBD
HU-25 Aircraft................  Various.................            TBD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Individual asset sales prices are as yet undetermined. Consistent
  with the President's Budget, however, the Coast Guard would anticipate
  netting approximately $10 million from the collective sale of these
  assets.

              OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS FROM FEDERAL SOURCES

    Question. Please explain the source and amount of offsetting 
collections from ``Federal sources.''
    Answer. The Coast Guard anticipates the collection of $125 million 
in fiscal year 2001 from federal sources (per page OE-4). These 
offsetting collections come from various federal agencies as follows:

                          [Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Source                   Amount         Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dept. of Defense....................        $32  Funds for personnel
                                                  costs, medical/dental
                                                  services, parts and
                                                  maintenance,
                                                  maintenance of
                                                  aircraft radar, sonar,
                                                  and weapons.
Dept. of Transportation.............          9  Funds for USCG TSC
                                                  Telenet, National
                                                  Response Center,
                                                  DAFIS, NASSIF/TRANS
                                                  Medical Unit, Security
                                                  Policy and Planning,
                                                  OMEGA Project, FAA
                                                  liaison.
EPA.................................          3  Funds for personnel
                                                  costs, CERCLA,\1\
                                                  environmental
                                                  management, pollution
                                                  mitigation.
Other Govt. Agencies................         56  Funds for NSF,\2\
                                                  NOAA,\3\ DOS,\4\
                                                  OSIA,\5\ Customs,
                                                  FEMA,\6\ Interior,
                                                  Panama Canal
                                                  Commission, icebreaker
                                                  fuel/maintenance,
                                                  security assistance,
                                                  Customs Forfeiture
                                                  Fund, migrant
                                                  interdiction.
OSLTF...............................         25  Funds for oil spill
                                                  response.
                                     -----------
      TOTAL.........................       125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Comprehensive Environmental Response, and Compensation Liability
  Act.
\2\ National Science Foundation.
\3\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
\4\ Department of State.
\5\ Order Sons of Italy in America.
\6\ Federal Emergency Management Agency.

                      MILITARY PAY AND ALLOWANCES

    Question. Please breakdown the military pay and allowances in 
greater detail (basic pay, within-grade increases, specialty pay, etc.) 
and compare to the fiscal year 2000 allocation.
    Answer. The following breakdown in military pay and benefits 
includes all appropriations:

 COAST GUARD SPECIAL, INCENTIVE AND RETENTION PAY FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL
                          (ALL APPROPRIATIONS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year
                Category                 -------------------------------
                                            2000 (est)      2001 (est)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility Pay......................        $138,000        $138,000
Diving Pay..............................          65,000          65,000
Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay........         680,000         680,000
Sea Pay.................................      13,600,000      13,750,000
Hardship Duty Pay--Location.............         108,000         110,000
Aviation Career Incentive Pay...........       7,500,000       7,500,000
Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay............       5,500,000       5,500,000
Special Duty Assignment Pay.............       2,500,000       2,800,000
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses \1\......       9,795,000      10,500,000
Aviation Career Continuation Pay........       1,000,000       1,300,000
Targeted Enlistment Bonuses \1\.........       6,205,000       7,500,000
Applicant College Fund..................         150,000         150,000
Clothing and Uniform Allowances.........      13,100,000      13,500,000
Subsistence and Rations.................      90,500,000      93,000,000
Housing Entitlements....................     248,370,000     284,000,000
Station Allowances and COLA.............      29,000,000      39,000,000
Other Entitlements......................      29,999,000      32,144,000
Basic Pay...............................     912,300,000     962,300,000
Social Security Admin. Payments.........      78,130,000      82,227,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................   1,448,640,000   1,556,164,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table on page PPA-5 of the Coast Guard congressional stage
  budget is incorrect. The correct information for Selective
  Reenlistment Bonuses and Targeted Enlistment Bonuses are contained in
  the above table.

                       CIVILIAN PAY AND BENEFITS

    Question. Please breakdown the civilian pay and benefits in greater 
detail and compare to the fiscal year 2000 allocation.
    Answer. The following breakdown of Coast Guard civilian pay and 
benefits includes all appropriations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year
                Category                 -------------------------------
                                            2000 (est)      2001 (est)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Pay--Full Time Permanent..........    $237,147,000    $251,681,000
Basic Pay--Other than Full Time                9,576,000      10,163,000
 Permanent..............................
Health Insurance, Life Insurance &            57,362,000      60,878,000
 Retirement.............................
Lump Sum Leave Payments.................         750,000         796,000
Bonuses & Awards........................       2,674,000       2,762,000
Other Compensation......................      11,978,000      12,712,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total Pay & Benefits..............     319,487,000     338,992,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             TRICARE REMOTE

    Question. What progress has the Coast Guard made in improving 
health care coverage for personnel stationed at remote locations where 
TRICARE is insufficient or nonexistent?
    Answer. The Coast Guard continues to use non-federal health care 
contractual arrangements to provide active duty service members' health 
care where there are no established TRICARE Prime network providers or 
TRICARE Prime Remote services provided. In working with DoD/TRICARE, 
providers in certain Alaska areas are now receiving higher 
reimbursement. Signing new providers and retaining existing providers 
indicates that many are satisfied with this increase. Also, additional 
training is being given to providers on accurate coding or procedures.
    Currently there is a significant disparity in services to family 
members in remote areas, which affects approximately 50 percent of 
these members. TRICARE Prime Remote is being developed in fiscal year 
2001 to improve ``TRICARE Prime-like'' benefits for these personnel.

                  COAST GUARD PARTICIPATION IN TRICARE

    Question. What legal requirements does the Coast Guard have by 
virtue of being a participant in the Department of Defense's TRICARE 
system?
    Answer. The Coast Guard, as a Uniformed Service (Army, Navy, Air 
Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, and the United States Public Health Service) is 
required by law (statute) to be a full participant in the Department of 
Defense TRICARE program. TRICARE combines the Military Healthcare 
System and the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed 
Services; as such, it provides care for our active duty, retiree, and 
family members. The Coast Guard is a full participant in the program, 
and is required to provide care to members of each of the other 
uniformed services on an equal basis. In addition, the Coast Guard 
provides the same benefit packages to its members as do the other 
Services. Likewise, the other military services are available to 
provide care to Coast Guard beneficiaries. This care is provided on a 
``fee-for-service'' basis.

           MILITARY TRICARE VERSUS CIVILIAN HEALTH CARE COST

    Question. What is the difference between the average cost to 
provide TRICARE to military personnel, retirees, and their dependents 
and healthcare benefits to Coast Guard civilian employees, retirees, 
and their dependents?
    Answer. Depending on location and options of coverage, the average 
cost of healthcare for military personnel, retirees, and their 
dependents and the cost of healthcare benefits provided to Coast Guard 
civilian employees, retirees, and their dependents can vary 
considerably. Using the fiscal year 2001 estimate of $176 million in 
health care costs compared against our military FTE, the cost is about 
$407 per month per military person. To compare the military plan to the 
Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). We chose plan prices 
for Washington D.C. as a reasonable median for medical insurance rates. 
There are lower rates present in some rural areas, but there are also 
many areas in which a significant number of Coast Guard personnel 
reside where medical rates are much higher (e.g. the Atlantic, Pacific, 
and Gulf seaboards; Alaska; and Hawaii). The rate that should be used 
for comparison with military health plans for active duty personnel and 
their dependents is the column labeled ``Monthly Fee.'' Full costs 
should be considered, as TRICARE does not charge enrollment premiums 
for active duty dependents.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Monthly Fee     Gov't       Employee
           Company \1\                 \2\      Portion \3\  Portion \4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna............................      $761.57      $594.02      $167.55
Alliance.........................      1073.46       837.29       236.17
APWU.............................       829.20       646.77       182.43
Association......................       904.33       705.37       198.96
Blue Cross Blue Shield...........      1323.09      1032.00       291.09
Capital Care.....................       762.93       595.08       167.85
Free State.......................      1071.69       835.91       235.78
GEHA.............................       912.61       711.83       200.78
George Washington................       619.52       483.22      136.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This identifies the name of the company providing the medical
  insurance. All rates quoted are for the Washington, D.C. area.
\2\ This is the total amount of premium. This fee provides insurance for
  the employee and his/her family. This number must be used for a like
  comparison to the military health care system since no premiums are
  charged for active duty family members under TRICARE.
\3\ This identifies the amount the government pays under the FEHBP
  insurance plan. For civilian employees, the government pays 78 percent
  of the insurance premium.
\4\ This identifies the amount the employee pays under the FEHBP
  insurance plan. For civilian employees, the employee pays 22 percent
  of the insurance premium.

Source.--http://www.opm.gov/hr/insure/00/states/dc/index.html

               ALLOCATION OF TRAINING AND EDUCATION FUNDS

    Question. Please explain in detail, by center and course of 
instruction, how the Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $85.557 
million requested for training and education. How does this compare to 
the allocation of funds provided during fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. The funding information for training and education shown on 
pages PPA-1 and PPA-24 is incorrect. The proper amounts shown should be 
as follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Fiscal year
                                                                 --------------------------------  2001 request
                                                                   2000 estimate   2001 required       level
                                                                       level          changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Training & Education.........................................          74,991           3,591          78,582
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The allocation of the $74,991,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
$78,582,000 for fiscal year 2001 is as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Fiscal year
                                                   ---------------------
                                                       2000       2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training Travel, Transportation, & Tuition.            34,703     37,192
 Includes inter-service agreement with the Navy
 for flight training..............................
Training Center Cape May, NJ. (enlisted accessions      8,746      8,994
 training)........................................
Coast Guard Academy, New London, CT; (officer          12,908     13,180
 accessions and leadership development training)..
Aviation Training Center, Mobile, AL, and Aviation      5,394      5,778
 Technical Training Center, Elizabeth City, NC;
 (officer and enlisted flight training)...........
Training Center Yorktown, VA; (enlisted and             8,380      8,505
 officer advanced training).......................
Training Center Petaluma, CA; (enlisted and             4,860      4,933
 officer advanced training).......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     COAST GUARD RECRUITING BUDGET

    Question. Why is the budget request for recruiting flat when 
compared to fiscal year 2000 even though the Coast Guard has ambitious 
recruiting goals and still faces stiff competition for personnel from a 
strong economy?
    Answer. The information contained on pages PPA-1 and PPA-25 is 
incorrect. The fiscal year 2001 budget actually reflects an increasing 
emphasis upon work force recruiting; the proper amounts should be shown 
on page PPA-1 as follows: (in thousands of dollars)

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Fiscal year
                                                                 --------------------------------  2001 request
                                                                   2000 estimate   2001 required       level
                                                                       level          changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Recruiting...................................................          10,877           2,305          13,182
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      PACIFIC AREA COMMAND BUDGET

    Question. Why is the budget request for Atlantic Area Command 
increasing by $4.565 million while the request for Pacific Area Command 
is decreasing by $4.322 million?
    Answer. The President's fiscal year 2001 Budget proposes a change 
to the reimbursement policy for polar icebreaking services provided to 
the National Science Foundation (NSF). A programmatic reduction of 
$7,800,000 in the Coast Guard's budget presentation has been included 
to reflect this policy shift. Because the Coast Guard's three Polar 
Class icebreakers fall under the operational control of the Pacific 
Area Commander, this programmatic reduction impacts that funding 
account.

                            OTHER ACTIVITIES

    Question. Please explain in greater detail by project or activity 
the line ``other activities'' and how the Coast Guard proposes to 
allocate the $1.653 million requested.
    Answer. This PPA II line item provides funding for the Chief of 
Staff's Contingency Account. The $1.653 million in funding for this 
account is for agency contingencies, natural or mission related 
emergencies below the scope of a supplemental appropriation, and 
critical program needs arising since submission of the Congressional 
budget.

                       HEADQUARTERS DIRECTORATES

    Question. Please breakdown the request for Headquarters 
Directorates, including a description of each office, number of 
civilian and military personnel assigned to each office, and amount of 
funding requested for each office.
    Answer. The following table provides a detailed breakdown of the 
Headquarters Directorates for fiscal year 2001. All military and 
civilian personnel listed are funded by the Operating Expenses (OE) 
appropriation.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                       2001
                                                                    (projected       Military        Civilian
                                                                      funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-M.............................................................          11,184             150             123
G-O.............................................................          47,038             219             116
G-S.............................................................           9,525             103              89
G-W.............................................................          27,773             126              92
G-A.............................................................             800               3              47
HSC and Other HQ Offices........................................         127,093             201             205
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................         223,413             802             672
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description of each office:

Marine Safety and Environmental Protection Directorate (G-M)
    The Marine Safety and Marine Environmental Protection programs 
support four of the five strategic goals of the Coast Guard: safety, 
protection of natural resources, mobility and maritime security. 
Principle responsibilities include establishing federal policies and 
standards for the design, construction, equipment, manning, operations 
and maintenance of commercial vessels, and for the qualifications of 
their crew; developing standards for handling hazardous materials 
onboard vessels & marine facilities; negotiating international maritime 
safety and environmental protection standards on behalf of the U.S.; 
assuring U.S. vessel compliance with domestic and international 
standards and compliance by all vessels and regulated facilities in 
U.S. ports and waters, through a combination of education, monitoring, 
and enforcement; controlling vessel and facility operations to correct 
or reduce significant safety, security, or environmental threats; 
coordinating national protocols for preparedness planning, training, 
and exercising; and directing response activities to mitigate the 
effects of maritime casualties and pollution.

Operations Directorate (G-O)
    The Operations Directorate develops doctrine and policy; provides 
guidance; allocates resources; and coordinates with other countries, 
government agencies, and industry to employ Coast Guard forces and 
accomplish Coast Guard operational maritime missions. G-O is the 
program manager for Coast Guard aircraft, cutters, and boats. The 
Assistant Commandant for Operations (G-O) is responsible for ensuring 
that operations resources effectively support the five Coast Guard 
Strategic Goals of Safety, Protection of Natural Resources, Mobility, 
Maritime Security and National Defense. Support is provided through 
seven Operations Policy (G-OP) offices, which provide doctrine, policy 
and resource requirements for Operational Programs such as the airborne 
use of force initiative. In addition, support is also provided through 
six Operations Capability (G-OC) offices, providing facility 
management, capability and resource acquisition support. The Coast 
Guard Investigative Service is also part of G-O.

Human Resources Directorate (G-W)
    The Human Resources Directorate executes programs to meet the 
personnel requirements of the Coast Guard. This includes the execution 
of programs that ensure quality employee development and integrate 
human resource support functions at minimal cost. Examples include 
workforce management support for the active duty, reserve, and civilian 
workforces, training and education, health and safety, inter-service 
agreements with Department of Defense (DoD) for common personnel and 
security, diversity enhancement, and Information Resource Management 
(IRM) support for Human Resource management information systems. The G-
W Directorate meets the needs of Coast Guard people by providing 
centrally managed quality of life support services, such as employee 
assistance, transition assistance, family support, and housing support 
programs.

Systems Directorate (G-S)
    The Systems Directorate executes policy and programmatic management 
of engineering, logistics, information and technology, and command, 
control, communications, and computer functions and systems in support 
of Coast Guard operations. The Engineering Division handles the 
aeronautical, civil, naval, and ocean engineering programs along with 
environmental compliance and restoration. The Logistics Division deals 
with logistics policy and design, implementation, and oversight of 
logistics systems. The Information and Technology Division encompasses 
information systems architecture and planning, information management, 
and research and development. The Command, Control, Communications, and 
Computers Division manages the electronics engineering program and 
communications and computer systems. The Systems Resource Management 
Division oversees overall planning and fiscal efforts for the 
Directorate. G-S also manages the Federal Telephone System (FTS), 
Postal, and GSA rent central funds.

Acquisition Directorate (G-A)
    The Acquisition Directorate is a specialized element of 
Headquarters focused on acquiring major and non-major assets and 
systems. G-A manages the timely acquisition of capable, supportable, 
and affordable systems, products and services needed by sponsors to 
accomplish Coast Guard missions. The directorate is composed of 
resource management, technical, and contract support staff, and a 
variety of acquisition projects. Recent acquisition projects include 
the 175, and 225, buoy tenders, the icebreaker CGC HEALY, and the 
Traffic and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) for use aboard Coast 
Guard aircraft. Deepwater Concept Exploration, National Distress and 
Response System Modernization Project, and Great Lakes Icebreaking 
Capability Replacement are examples of current projects in G-A.

Headquarters Support Command (HSC) and other Headquarters Offices
    Funding for the Headquarters Support Command provides consolidated 
support for Coast Guard Headquarters including: administrative, 
logistics, transportation, facilities, information services, and health 
services. Also funded in this category are the Assistant Commandant for 
Civil Rights, Legal, Chief of Staff, and the Office of the Commandant.

                 COAST GUARD HEADQUARTERS MANAGED UNITS

    Question. Please breakdown the request for Headquarters Managed 
Units, including a description of each office, number of civilian and 
military personnel assigned to each office, and amount of funding 
requested for each office.
    Answer. The following table provides a detailed breakdown of the 
Headquarters-managed units for fiscal year 2001. All military and 
civilian personnel listed are funded by the operating expenses 
appropriation.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year
                                         2001
                                      (projected     Military   Civilian
                                        funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Engineering Logistics Center.....           6,764        172        318
Finance Center....................           7,247         45        247
Human Resources Service &                    1,362        144        103
 Information Center...............
Coast Guard Yard..................           2,901         68          6
National Strike Force.............           3,758         29          9
National Pollution Funds Center...           1,357         19         33
Command & Control Engineering                6,424         90         17
 Center...........................
Air Station Washington............             856         15  .........
Operations System Center..........           9,905         24         22
Telecommunications & Information             4,853        158         31
 Systems Command..................
Navigation Center.................           1,633         94         10
Intelligence Coordination Center..             568         25          8
Electronics Engineering Center--               561         28          6
 LORAN Support Unit...............
Container Inspection Training &                291          9  .........
 Assist Team......................
Institute.........................             750         19          8
Research & Development Center.....           1,287          1          2
Coast Guard Personnel Command.....           2,221        393        135
National Maritime Center..........           2,604          7         29
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................          55,342      1,340        984
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description of each unit:

Engineering Logistics Center (ELC)
    The ELC, located in Baltimore, MD, is the focal point for 
management of vessel and electronics logistics: managing platform and 
equipment configuration; developing maintenance policy; setting vessel 
parts allowance standards; providing design and engineering support; 
managing and distributing approximately $190M of Coast Guard unique 
inventory that cannot be effectively sourced directly from commercial 
vendors and is not managed by Department of Defense logistics systems; 
and developing, managing and providing technical information and 
logistics information systems support. Funds within this account also 
pay salaries for the included federal wage grade personnel employed by 
the ELC.

Finance Center (FINCEN)
    The FINCEN, located in Chesapeake, VA, is responsible for the 
payment of all government and commercial bills and maintaining all 
accounting records and submission of reports for all units within the 
Coast Guard except Inventory Control Points (ICPs). In fiscal year 
1998, the FINCEN managed more than 4,700,000 accounting transactions 
while also coordinating the payments and acting as auditor of the 
government-wide credit card program. The FINCEN provides guidance for 
selecting and training individuals who have fund certification 
authority, unit level guidance for separation of financial duties, 
funds certification, account reconciliation, and Coast Guard-wide 
management of the Large Unit Financial System (LUFS) functions.

Human Resources Service and Information Center (HRS&IC)
    HRS&IC, located in Topeka, KS, gathers, maintains, and manages 
personnel information on all active duty, reserve, and retired Coast 
Guard military personnel. HRS&IC develops and provides personnel, 
financial, and accounting reports and information for Coast Guard 
managers and other government agencies. HRS&IC administers the 
Personnel Management Information System/Joint Uniform Military Pay 
System (PMIS/JUMPS), and provides payment and personnel support 
services to active duty, reserve, and retired personnel, as well as 
annuitants and the NOAA Officer Corps. HRS&IC processes all Coast Guard 
travel claims, administers the evaluation program and the servicewide 
examinations for active duty and reserve enlisted personnel; processes 
reserve and active duty separations and retirements; administers the 
in-service and out-of-service debt collection program, processes 
allotments and garnishments, and receives and processes initial reports 
of all Coast Guard and NOAA personnel casualties.

Coast Guard Yard
    The Coast Guard Yard is the only shipbuilding and vessel repair 
facility operated by the Coast Guard. The Yard's industrial operations 
include the repair, modification, and construction of vessels; ordnance 
overhaul and maintenance; manufacturing of miscellaneous equipment; 
maintenance and repair of vessel components; and providing casualty 
response support to the fleet. The Yard electronics shop completes 
electronic work on cutters during yard periods and performs electronic 
equipment overhauls and develops prototypes in support of Coast Guard 
mission areas. The Yard has been certified by the Naval Sea Systems 
Command (NAVSEA) as a Limited Repair Facility (LRF) for Navy owned 
ordnance.

National Strike Force
    The National Strike Force is comprised of three regional Strike 
Teams (Atlantic Strike Team, Fort Dix, NJ; Gulf Strike Team, Mobile, 
AL; and the Pacific Strike Team, Hamilton AFB, CA) and the National 
Strike Force Coordination Center (NSFCC). Each Strike Team is comprised 
of highly trained personnel and fully-outfitted with a contingent of 
response and recovery equipment. The NSFCC provides a centralized 
reporting point for spills of oil or hazardous substances and activates 
the rapid deployment of oil pollution response resources. The NSFCC 
also coordinates the National Pollution Response Exercise program, 
enhancing the preparedness of a network of response capabilities in 
bulk-liquid maritime ports throughout the country.

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC)
    NPFC administers laws and regulations relating to oil pollution 
liability and compensation, including carrying out the responsibilities 
in Title I of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 that have been delegated to 
the Coast Guard. The NPFC also acts in a fiduciary capacity under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) for provisions managed by the Coast Guard. The NPFC manages 
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) to provide funds for 
response to oil spills in navigable waters of the U.S., adjoining 
shorelines, and the exclusive economic zone. The NPFC coordinates with 
the Environmental Protection Agency in matters pertaining to Coast 
Guard involvement with expenditures and recovery of funds from the 
Hazardous Substance Response Fund.

Command and Control Engineering Center (C2CEN)
    The C2CEN located in Portsmouth, VA, is the Coast 
Guard's Center of Excellence for integrating Command and Control 
(C2) engineering and support for all Coast Guard 
C2 systems ashore and afloat. Basic missions of the 
C2CEN are to provide engineering, systems management and 
training support at a centralized facility for the following systems:
  --Command Display and Control (COMDAC) system
  --Optical Surveillance System (OSS)
  --Shipboard Command & Control Systems onboard 210,, 270, & 378, 
        cutters
  --Radar
  --Vessel Traffic System (VTS) upgrade
  --Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS)
  --Short Range Aids to Navigation (SRAN)
  --Land Based Support Facility for WLB/WLM Replacement
  --Navigation Sensors

Air Station Washington
    Air Station Washington operates and maintains the Coast Guard's 
single Long Range Command and Control aircraft which provides necessary 
and required transportation and airborne command and control for the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard and certain members of the Commandant's 
staff, the Secretary of Transportation and certain members of the 
Secretary's staff, and occasional Congressional delegations.

Operations Systems Center (OSC)
    OSC, located in Martinsburg, WV, develops, supports, and maintains 
major operational information systems and databases. The OSC provides 
services that are accessible to the Coast Guard 24-hours per day from 
around the world to support operational mission accomplishment and 
mission oversight analysis. The Coast Guard's operational databases 
include:
  --Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Rescue (AMVER) system, which 
        tracks participating merchant vessels so as to provide a guide 
        to potential assistance in the vicinity when distress calls are 
        received.
  --Computer Aided Search Planning (CASP), this system leverages the 
        world class search and rescue expertise of the Coast Guard to 
        produce fast, accurate, and comprehensive search planning that 
        incorporates weather, currents, and numerous other critical 
        factors.
  --Law Enforcement Information system (LEIS) II; a client-server data 
        system with links to internal (Coast Guard) and external law 
        enforcement (LE) databases. LEIS II provides tactical LE 
        information to field units on a near real-time basis. It 
        provides the fundamental system for standardization and 
        automation of LE data collection and retrieval.
  --Joint Maritime Information Element support system (JMIE): a group 
        of government agencies with common interest in maritime issues. 
        In order to improve their ability to exchange data and support 
        their business programs, the JMIE has developed the JMIE 
        Support System (JSS), a centralized database of maritime 
        information to which analysts from the JMIE consortium agencies 
        have access.
  --Marine Safety Information System (MSIS); a mission critical system 
        that supports program management needs, field operations, and 
        decision support requirements. Data is collected at the port 
        level through vessel and facility inspections and compliance, 
        marine violations and casualties, and port activities.
  --In fiscal year 1997, three more systems were transferred from the 
        Transportation Computer Center (TCC) in Washington, DC to the 
        OSC; Auxiliary Management Information System (AUXMIS), Search 
        and Rescue Management Information System (SARMIS), and 
        Automated Requisitioning Management System (ARMS). In 
        combination, the information systems at OSC serve as the heart 
        of Coast Guard's search and rescue, law enforcement, and marine 
        safety missions.

Telecommunication and Information Systems Command (TISCOM)
    TISCOM, located in Alexandria, VA, is the Coast Guard's Center of 
Excellence for operating, managing and providing technical support for 
Coast Guard telecommunication and computer networks. TISCOM manages all 
voice and message telecommunications including telephone, radio, and 
satellite systems, security, and configuration control.
    The Coast Guard telecommunication and computer systems form an 
integrated network of voice and message communication capabilities to 
ensure reliable continuity of operations around the world.

Navigation Center (NAVCEN)
    The NAVCEN is collocated with the Telecommunications Systems 
Command (TISCOM) in Alexandria, VA. The NAVCEN is responsible for 
gathering, processing, and disseminating timely status and general 
information about the Global Positioning System (GPS), maritime 
Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS), National Differential 
Global Positioning System (NDGPS), and Long Range Navigation (LORAN)-C 
systems to domestic as well as foreign users of the systems. The NAVCEN 
also exercises operational control of the U.S. LORAN-C system, the 
maritime DGPS service, and the Nationwide DGPS service.

Intelligence Coordination Center (ICC)
    The ICC is the Coast Guard's strategic intelligence center serving 
as the focal point for interaction with the intelligence components of 
the Department of Defense, other law enforcement agencies, and the 
intelligence community. The ICC is co-located with the National 
Maritime Intelligence Center (with the Office of Naval Intelligence and 
the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity) in Suitland, MD. The ICC serves 
as the focal point for Coast Guard collection management as well as 
submitting Coast Guard needs to the intelligence community.

LORAN-C Support Unit (LSU)
    The Long Range Navigation (LORAN) Support Unit, located in 
Wildwood, NJ, provides Coast Guard-wide support for LORAN-C marine 
electronic navigation systems. LORAN-C provides electronic navigation 
for commercial and privately-owned vessels and aircraft. In addition to 
providing all maintenance and technical assistance for LORAN, the LSU 
conducts a variety of projects for the Coast Guard and Federal Aviation 
Administration to improve existing systems.

Container Inspection Training and Assist Team (CITAT)
    The CITAT, located in Oklahoma City, OK, provides hazardous 
materials identification and handling training to Coast Guard personnel 
assigned duties as marine safety inspectors. The team also assists 
field personnel in the performance of their duties to ensure the 
highest level of proficiency by Coast Guard marine safety inspectors 
who daily ensure the safety of American ports and waterways.

Coast Guard Institute
    The Coast Guard Institute, located in Oklahoma City, OK, manages a 
variety of training and testing materials for Coast Guard personnel for 
purposes of advancement and nonresident training. The Institute manages 
the distribution, administration, and scoring of courses and 
examinations; as well as publishing advancement lists on the basis of 
scored examinations.

Research and Development Center (R&D Center)
    The R&D Center, located in Groton, CT, conducts applied research to 
develop operational techniques, concepts, systems, equipment and 
materials in support of the operational missions and regulatory 
programs of the Coast Guard. The R&D Center assists Coast Guard 
operating programs to identify emerging technology that can be 
integrated into existing or new operational systems that will result in 
future Operating Expenses (OE) savings. The R&D Center operates a 
remote Fire and Safety Test Detachment in Mobile, AL which is the only 
facility in the world that uses real vessel platforms for full-scale 
fire testing. The R&D Center is the Administrative Target Unit (ATU) 
for two tenant commands, the Marine Safety Lab, and the International 
Ice Patrol.

Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC)
    The CGPC, located in Washington, DC, manages the entire Coast Guard 
military and civilian workforce. The CGPC oversees all Coast Guard 
accessions, assignments, advancements and promotions, and separations. 
The CGPC also conducts Physical Disability Evaluation Boards. The CGPC 
consists of an administrative staff, an officer personnel management 
division, an enlisted personnel management division, a reserve 
personnel management division, a civilian personnel management 
division, a recruiting center, and a records and correspondence 
section.

National Maritime Center (NMC)
    The NMC, located in Arlington, VA, is an independent USCG 
Headquarters command that actively pursues new and innovative ways to 
assist the maritime community in gaining and using the services of the 
Coast Guard. NMC's primary function is to initiate and execute various 
marine safety programs at a national and international level. The NMC 
executes policy, regulations and standards developed by Headquarters, 
and it acts as the ``voice of the program'' to external customers. The 
NMC maintains an active public and industry awareness outreach program 
aimed at communicating Coast Guard regulatory activities and policy 
guidelines. NMC programs consist of several divisions located in 
Arlington, VA, and four field units located throughout the nation. The 
four field units are the Marine Safety Center, the National Vessel 
Documentation Center, the Marine Personnel Administration Division, and 
the Marine Safety Laboratory.

                      AVIATION MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

    Question. What is the aviation maintenance backlog?
    Answer. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the non-recurring Coast 
Guard aviation maintenance backlog was $18.7 million.

                    ELECTRONICS MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

    Question. What is the electronic maintenance backlog?
    Answer. The electronics maintenance backlog includes preventative 
maintenance that is not completed due to casualty response and obsolete 
equipment that is in need of replacement. Preventative maintenance for 
fiscal year 2000 is running at an 80 percent completion rate.
    The fiscal year 2000 backlog to replace obsolete electronics 
equipment is $24.7 million.

                       VESSEL MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

    Question. What is the vessel maintenance backlog?
    Answer. The maintenance backlog for vessels consists primarily of 
depot level maintenance that is deferred. The maintenance backlog for 
fiscal year 2000 is $12 milliion.

         OCEAN ENGINEERING & SHORE FACILITY MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

    Question. What is the ocean engineering and shore facility 
maintenance backlog?
    Answer. The ocean engineering and shore facility maintenance 
backlog consists of waterfront and station facility repairs; Aids to 
Navigation repairs and replacements; building and housing maintenance 
and repairs; dredging; structural inspections; utility system repairs; 
code compliance projects; energy savings projects; safety and health 
projects; etc. The backlog for ocean engineering and shore facility 
maintenance this year will be $27.4 million.

         ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, & IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT LIST

    Question. Please provide a table which displays all Acquisition, 
Construction, & Improvements (AC&I) projects, number of units required 
(if appropriate), total prior year spending, fiscal year 2001 request, 
and outyear funding projections.
    Answer. A listing of the all Acquisition, Construction, & 
Improvements (AC&I) projects is attached.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         FISCAL YEAR
                                                                                        2001 REQUEST
               ITEM                   TOTAL UNITS REQUIRED      PRIOR YEAR SPENDING      (DOLLARS IN    OUTYEAR
                                                                                         THOUSANDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VESSELS:
    SEAGOING BUOY TENDER (WLB)      16 hulls................  11 hulls; $432.4M......        $123,730     $5,000
     REPLACEMENT.
    POLAR ICEBREAKER USCGC HEALY..  ........................  $36.5M CG funding plus            1,000  .........
                                                               Navy SCN funding.
    SURFACE SEARCH RADAR            106 units...............  $43.1M.................           1,150  .........
     REPLACEMENT.
    87 PATROL BOAT (WPB)            47 hulls................  $213.6M................           7,000  .........
     REPLACEMENT.
    GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER (GLIB)   Single-hull replacement   $20.3M.................         111,000  .........
     REPLACEMENT.                    for CGC MACKINAW.
    OTH CUTTER BOATS & SHIP MODS..  Install OTH boats on 5    .......................           1,500      7,750
                                     WMEC/WHECs.
    POLAR CLASS RELIABILITY         ........................  $33.1M.................           4,500      5,000
     IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (RIP).
    ALEX HALEY CONVERSION.........  ........................  $20.0M.................           3,200      5,000
    CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT        ........................  $34.6M.................           3,600  .........
     SYSTEM.
    PATROL CRAFT (WPC) CONVERSION   TBD.....................  .......................           1,000  .........
     PROJECT.
DEEPWATER.........................  TBD.....................  $73.9M.................          42,300    350,000
AIRCRAFT:
    H65 MISSION COMPUTER UNIT.....  Replace MCU in 93 helos.  $13M for 68 helos......           3,650      4,700
    H65 ENGINE LIFE-CYCLE COST      Upgrades for 93 helos...  $13M for engineering              1,000      9,900
     REDUCTION.                                                and some components.
    AVIATION SIMULATOR              Upgrade H65 and H25       .......................           3,000      5,000
     MODERNIZATION.                  simulators.
    CGC HEALY AVIATION SUPPORT....  Provide 3 helos.........  0 units................          36,000  .........
OTHER EQUIPMENT:
    FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM........  ........................  $36.8M.................           5,500  .........
    PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY        ........................  $18.3M.................           8,100     17,600
     SYSTEM (PAWSS).
    MARINE INFO FOR SAFETY & LAW    ........................  $45.1M.................           8,500      7,500
     ENFORCEMENT (MISLE).
    AVIATION LOSTICS MANAGEMENT     ........................  $11.2M.................           1,100  .........
     INFORMATION SYSTEM.
    NATIONAL DISTRESS & RESPONSE    ........................  $25.3M.................          22,000  .........
     MODERNIZATION.
    DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM........  ........................  $6.0M..................           2,471      7,500
    PMIS/JUMPS II.................  ........................  $15.0M.................           2,000  .........
    COMMERCIAL SATCOM UPGRADE.....  ........................  $8.1M..................           5,459  .........
    GLOBAL MARITIME DISTRESS &      ........................  $5.1M..................           3,083      4,900
     SAFETY SYSTEM.
    SAR CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT..  ........................  .......................           1,500      1,400
    LOCAL NOTICE TO MARINERS......  ........................  $1.25M.................             600  .........
SHORE:
    REBUILD STATION PORT HURON, MI  ........................  .......................           1,300      3,000
    RENOVAT AIRSTA KODIAK HANGAR..  ........................  $13.7M.................           8,200     10,800
    TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS     ........................  .......................           8,000      6,300
     ALAMEDA.
    WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENTS ISC     ........................  $1.0M..................           2,400  .........
     PORTSMOUTH.
    MODERNIZE FACILITIES CAPE MAY.  ........................  $2.2M..................           5,800  .........
    MODERNIZE AIRSTA PORT ANGELES   ........................  .......................           3,800  .........
     HANGAR.
    MINOR AC&I SHORE CONSTRUCTION   ........................  .......................           8,000  .........
     PROJECTS.
    HOUSING PROJECTS..............  ........................  .......................          12,400  .........
    WATERWAYS ATON INFRASTRUCTURE.  ........................  .......................           4,706  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          ACQUISITION PROCESS

    Question. Before one of the military services of the Department of 
Defense begins the process of acquiring new equipment, it first must 
establish a formal requirement for replacement equipment. That stated 
requirement exists until that service declares through a similar formal 
process, that the requirement is no longer valid. Would the Coast Guard 
support the establishment of a similar process?
    Answer. The Coast Guard follows this approach. As is required for 
all Federal agencies, the Coast Guard has a capital management process 
to establish clear linkages between strategic and performance goals, 
strategies, activities undertaken to achieve goals, and the assets 
employed in carrying out those activities. Capital planning and 
portfolio management are the primary mechanisms by which the Coast 
Guard equips itself to implement the Coast Guard's mission, vision, and 
strategic goals. The capital planning process, through mission 
analysis, establishes mission requirements that are the basis for 
initiating acquisitions of new or replacement systems. Once an 
acquisition is begun, mission requirements are revalidated at key 
decision points throughout the process. If the requirement is found to 
be no longer valid, business and capital plans are updated and the 
acquisition is evaluated for modification or termination.

                         CUTTER AND BOAT DESIGN

    Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity the 
proposed allocation of the $500,000 requested for cutter and boat 
design and compare to the fiscal year 2000 spending plan.
    Answer. The fiscal year 2001 spending plan will follow a similar 
theme to the fiscal year 2000 plan. It will concentrate on the 
identification of design parameters and standards that have application 
to existing and near term Coast Guard acquisitions. It will be used to 
bridge the gap between existing research and hard design criteria. The 
effort will have application across a broad spectrum of acquisition, 
construction and improvement (AC&I) projects. This up-front work is 
critical to the success/timely execution of projects in that Coast 
Guard requirements can be better related to contractors through 
acquisition specifications.
    The spending plan includes dynamic stability criteria development, 
surveys of new cutter technologies and investigations of new hull 
forms. Efforts to develop improved dynamic stability criteria will 
enable the Coast Guard to accurately describe and evaluate needed sea-
keeping performance in the Deepwater acquisition. The growing mission 
need for deploying larger and faster boats at sea requires the 
development of design criteria and the limiting sea conditions for the 
recovery of these boats using technologies such as stern launch and new 
davit systems. Efforts in these areas have direct application to 
Deepwater as well as Over the Horizon (OTH) cutter boat davits for 
legacy assets. Work with azimuth propulsion hydrodynamic performance 
will prepare the Coast Guard for evaluating the Great Lakes Icebreaker 
(GLIB) acquisition and may have implications for Deepwater. The model 
testing of various boat and river tender hull forms will enable the 
Coast Guard to develop design requirements for vessels operating in 
environments that do not have similar commercial counterparts in order 
to plan for the future replacement of utility boats and coastal aids to 
navigation assets.

           SEAGOING BUOY TENDER (WLB) AVERAGE PRICE PER HULL

    Question. The sailaway cost of hulls 10 and 11 of the Seagoing Buoy 
Tender (WLB) replacement was $69.317 million. The sailaway cost of the 
three Seagoing Buoy Tenders requested for fiscal year 2001 is $117.095 
million. Is the average price of these ships increasing by 
approximately $5 million, and if so, why?
    Answer. No. The sailaway costs are consistent with project 
requirements. Sailaway costs includes contract award for the three 
ships requested in fiscal year 2001, unfunded items for ships already 
awarded, plus fleet support and standardization costs. Unfunded items 
for ships already awarded includes contract change allowance and 
Economic Price Adjustment (EPA).

       SEAGOING BUOY TENDER (WLB) BASE PRICE AND TOTAL UNIT COSTS

    Question. Please provide a table delineating the contract base 
price for each Seagoing Buoy Tender (WLB), the unfunded liability of 
each hull, and the total unit costs.
    Answer. Contract base award and follow-on contract cost (economic 
price adjustments and contract changes) information is provided below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  ESTIMATED FUTURE
                                                                 ADDITIONAL CONTRACT
                                                   CONTRACT             COSTS            ESTIMATED    ESTIMATED
                      HULL                        BASE PRICE --------------------------   CONTRACT     CONTRACT
                                                   AT AWARD   FUNDED THRU                 COST TO      COST AT
                                                              FISCAL YEAR    UNFUNDED       DATE      COMPLETION
                                                                  2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
201............................................        $40.7  ...........  ...........        $48.2        $48.2
202............................................         26.8  ...........  ...........         30.6         30.6
203............................................         24.9  ...........  ...........         28.4         28.4
204............................................         24.2  ...........  ...........         30.3         30.3
205............................................         23.8  ...........  ...........         27.5         27.5
206 \1\........................................         34.2         $5.0  ...........         36.3         41.3
207............................................         28.8          5.0  ...........         29.3         34.3
208............................................         27.9          4.5         $0.5         28.2         33.2
209............................................         27.9          4.5          0.5         28.2         33.2
210............................................         27.5          2.0          3.2         27.6         32.8
211............................................         27.5          2.0          3.2         27.6         32.8
212 \2\........................................         27.4  ...........          7.3  ...........         34.7
213 \2\........................................         27.4  ...........          7.3  ...........         34.7
214 \2\........................................         27.4  ...........          7.3  ...........         34.7
215............................................         27.4  ...........          9.3  ...........         36.7
216............................................         27.4  ...........          9.3  ...........         36.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1st of B Class.
\2\ Hulls requested in fiscal year 2001.

Note.--Future average unit cost estimate is $41 milliion for the 16-ship WLB fleet. Future average unit cost
  includes the Estimated Contract Cost At Completion, plus the total of non-contract costs, including Government
  Furnished Equipment, Fleet Standardization and Support, Logistics/Facilities, Project Administration and Spare
  Parts.

          THIRD SEAGOING BOUY TENDER (WLB) IN FISCAL YEAR 2001

    Question. If the third seagoing buoy tender is not procured in 
fiscal year 2001, is there any legal restriction barring the Coast 
Guard from negotiating a similar contract option for a third buoy 
tender in 2002 or an option for another hull in 2003?
    Answer. If fewer than 3 ships were procured in fiscal year 2001, a 
non-competitive contract option would be required to procure the 16th 
ship, with an expected increase in cost and delay in schedule.

          COASTAL PATROL BOAT FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

    Question. If the Coast Guard is not requesting to procure 87-foot 
patrol boats in fiscal year 2001, why is there a request for $7 million 
in this procurement line?
    Answer. With 47 boats on contract, the last Coastal Patrol Boat 
(CPB) will not be delivered until June 2002, followed by a one-year 
warranty period. The $7 million is required in fiscal year 2001 for 
expenses associated with delivering 23 CPBs in fiscal year 2001 and 
fiscal year 2002-nearly half of the CPB fleet. The primary fiscal year 
2001 cost drivers for each CPB includes pre-commissioning crew 
training, Preliminary Acceptance Trials, Project Resident Office 
administration of the warranty program, contract closeout, plus 
procurement and installation of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) 
during post-delivery. The balance of the $7 million will enable the 
Coast Guard to approve pending engineering changes and allow sufficient 
funds to retrofit boats already delivered. These changes are required 
to reduce maintenance and insert technology that will significantly 
reduce life cycle costs over the CPB's 25-year service life.

                COASTAL PATROL BOAT COST FOR HULLS 48-50

    Question. What is the cost to acquire hulls 48-50?
    Answer. The cost to acquire hulls 48-50 is $15 million, or $5 
million per hull.

              GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER DETAIL $110M REQUEST

    Question. Please break down in greater detail the $110 million 
request for Great Lakes Icebreaker (GLIB).
    Answer. The cost estimate of work to be done in fiscal year 2001 is 
as follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Ship Construction.................................................    98
    Detailed Design; Construction; Outfitting/GFE; C4ISR Systems; 
      Integrated Logistics Support; Warranty; Testing
Studies...........................................................     6
    Validation of design; Review of construction submittals; and 
      Homeporting study
Project Administration............................................     6
    Contract Administration; Project inspection office; ravel; amd 
      Crew training

       GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER FUNDS EXECUTION IN FISCAL YEAR 2001

    Question. If the GLIB construction contract is not scheduled to be 
awarded until fiscal year 2002, how much of the $110 million is 
requesting can be executed in fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. The Coast Guard plans to award the construction contract in 
the third quarter of fiscal year 2001. The acquisition strategy is a 
competitive procurement using a single-phase award to design and 
construct a multi-purpose icebreaker under a fixed price arrangement.

            GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING

    Question. What is the status of the $10 million provided for 
construction of the GLIB in the fiscal year 2000 transportation 
appropriations act?
    Answer. None of the $10M provided for construction in fiscal year 
2000 has been obligated to date. The Coast Guard intends to award a 
construction contract in fiscal year 2001 using fiscal year 2000 and 
fiscal year 2001 funds, subject to full funding in fiscal year 2001.

                  PHASE II PROJECT OF USCGC ALEX HALEY

    Question. Will the Phase II project of the CGC Alex Haley be 
competitively bid?
    Answer. Phase II of the USCGC ALEX HALEY project will not be 
competitively bid. Exportable teams from the Coast Guard Yard will be 
used to accomplish the work. This approach enables the work to be 
conducted in homeport without impacting the operational schedule for 
the vessel. It will also enable the Coast Guard to take advantage of 
the Yard's previous work experience with the vessel.

            CONVERSION OF PC-170 TO COAST GUARD PATROL CRAFT

    Question. Please explain in greater detail the two phases of the 
conversion of the PC-170 to the Coast Guard Patrol Craft (WPC) and the 
funding of each phase. Will this work be competitively bid?
    Answer. The conversion of PC-170 to a Coast Guard Patrol Craft is 
divided into two phases. Phase I of the project includes $1.2 million 
to purchase long lead-time material and to fund the initial stages of 
overhauling the four main diesel engines.
    Phase II of the repair and conversion will include outfitting the 
ship with required equipment and spare parts, making hull structural 
repairs, completing a dry-docking, upgrading the communications/
electronics suites for interoperability with other Coast Guard 
platforms, and adding a stern ramp to accommodate small boat 
operations. Phase II funding requirements have not yet been determined.
    The Coast Guard intends to complete a majority of this work at the 
Coast Guard Yard.

                       DEEPWATER DOT-IG CONCERNS

    Question. It is my understanding that the planning phase for the 
Deepwater project will not be completed before the Coast Guard submits 
its fiscal year 2002 budget request or congressional action on that 
request. The Department's Inspector General has stated that 
``requesting budget authority without critical cost and schedule 
information carries substantial risk and is inconsistent with 
acquisition program best practices.'' What steps is the Coast Guard 
taking to address this concern?
    Answer. The Coast Guard has a sound strategy in place to justify 
the planned project budget request. Conceptual designs were completed 
in December 1999 by all three industry teams. The teams are now engaged 
in the functional design phase, during which they will continue to 
refine their designs. Functional Design deliverables include concept of 
operations, total ownership and life-cycle costs estimates, 
affordability analysis, and implementation plans. Because they are 
scheduled for submittal throughout the design process, the information 
will be available for use in justifying the fiscal year 2002 budget 
request. Adequate cost and schedule information is available to prepare 
and justify a fiscal year 2002 budget request. As noted by the 
Department of Transportation Inspector General, the Deepwater planning 
process is sound.

                     DEEPWATER $21 MILLION REQUEST

    Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown, which includes 
project description and level of funding, of $21 million requested for 
the various assessments and analyses listed on page DEPWT-1 of the 
budget justification.
    Answer. During Functional Design, the Deepwater Project relies on 
both private sector and government agencies to provide technical 
support that is not readily available from within the Coast Guard. The 
support and information obtained will be used in the Coast Guard's 
assessment of deliverables from each of the three competing industry 
teams and in preparing for Phase II of the Project. The $21 million 
requested will be used for the following specific efforts:
  --Trade-off Analyses, Technology Assessments, Technology 
        Demonstrations (approx. $8,5 million).--Analyses and studies to 
        assess industry optimization of various physical components of 
        their Integrated Deepwater System (IDS) proposals. Studies of 
        new technologies proposed by industry in their Deepwater 
        systems, including capabilities, limitations, applications and 
        best practices. Demonstrations of new technologies and analysis 
        of technical and other issues relating to the integration of 
        new technology into the proposed Deepwater systems and the 
        Coast Guard.
  --Modeling and Simulation (approx. $2 million).--Continued refinement 
        and execution of the Maritime Operations Simulation model to 
        provide continuous assessment of Functional Design deliverables 
        and provide feedback to the industry teams. Modeling and 
        simulation complement and support the project's technical 
        assessment process as a means to further mitigate risk.
  --Systems Supportability Analysis, Total Ownership Cost Baseline 
        Analysis (approx. $5 million).--Includes analysis of industry's 
        proposals for logistics support of their IDS, including 
        environmental impact, and facility and systems integration 
        assessments. In accordance with the Project plan and in 
        response to the GAO, the Deepwater Project is developing a 
        total ownership cost baseline of existing Deepwater legacy 
        assets. This information will provide the Coast Guard with a 
        cost baseline for comparison of industry's future Integrated 
        Deepwater System total ownership estimates.
  --Matrix Project Team (MPT) Studies (approx. $3 million).--The MPTs 
        continually assess the industry teams in each of four principal 
        technical areas (surface, air, logistics, and command and 
        control).
  --Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V) and Test and 
        Evaluation (T&E) (approx. $2 million).--IV&V of the operational 
        effectiveness model is used to validate the model's stated 
        purpose and verify the underlying assumptions of the model, 
        which is to quantify the ability of a proposed IDS to meet 
        stated performance requirements. T&E plans and processes will 
        be initiated and protocols for testing established.
  --Phase II Request for Proposal Preparation (RFP) and Technical 
        Evaluation Team (TET) Support (approx. $500,000).--Provides 
        direct support and analysis support for developing the Phase II 
        RFPs and establishment of the Phase II TET that will evaluate 
        the Phase II proposals received from industry.

               DEEPWATER INDUSTRY TEAMS TASKS AND FUNDING

    Question. How much funding is requested for each industry team and 
what specific tasks is each team expected to accomplish during fiscal 
year 2001?
    Answer. The Coast Guard expects to provide $5.1 million to each 
Deepwater industry team in fiscal year 2001, for a total of $15.3 
million. These funds will be used for industry's continued refinement 
of the functional design of their Integrated Deepwater System concepts. 
Functional Design tasks to be completed during fiscal year 2001 include 
refinement of: the Integrated Deepwater System and major asset designs; 
Configuration Management; Logistics; System Implementation Plans; 
Concept of Operations Plan; environmental impacts; Affordability 
Analyses; Life Cycle Cost and Total Ownership Cost Estimates.

         DISPOSAL OF ASSETS WITH PROCEEDS CREDITED TO DEEPWATER

    Question. Has the Coast Guard disposed of any of the assets that 
are authorized by the fiscal year 2000 transportation appropriations 
act to be credited to the deepwater appropriation? If so, please 
explain what was sold and how the funding is being allocated?
    Answer. Of the assets authorized by the fiscal year 2000 
transportation appropriations act, the Coast Guard disposed of:
  --ESMT Portsmouth, NH.--disposed at no cost to the City of Portsmouth 
        under the park conveyance provisions in the Code of Federal 
        Regulations,
  --ANT Huron, OH.--sold for approximately $110,000. The sale proceeds 
        have not yet been received, however the USCG expects 
        approximately $83,600 in net sale proceeds.

                        DEEPWATER CONTRACT AWARD

    Question. When the Coast Guard awards the Deepwater contract, will 
the award be solely to one industry team and its proposal or will the 
Coast Guard pick and choose the best, most innovative procurement ideas 
from each team and compete that item separately?
    Answer. The Coast Guard intends to award the Integrated Deepwater 
System acquisition contract to just one of the three competing industry 
teams. However, to obtain essential contractual flexibility, the Coast 
Guard intends to structure the Deepwater acquisition contract as an 
indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity type contract. The Coast Guard 
will issue separate delivery orders under this contract to perform the 
upgrades and acquire the new assets comprising the industry's proposed 
Integrated Deepwater System. In addition, the Coast Guard intends to 
include specific Value Engineering and/or Technology Refreshment 
contract clauses. These clauses will enable the Coast Guard to acquire 
new technology that meets or exceeds proposed cost and performance 
levels from firms not originally part of the selected Deepwater 
industry team. While the so-called ``mix and match'' option has been 
preserved, selecting specific assets or components from all three 
Deepwater industry teams would shift the risk and responsibility for 
systems integration and interoperability from industry to the 
government. Similarly, such an approach would invalidate industry's 
proposed operational effectiveness and total ownership cost estimates 
as these are based upon the assets in their proposed Integrated 
Deepwater System concepts. The Coast Guard seeks to acquire an 
Integrated Deepwater System and this is best achieved by awarding a 
Deepwater acquisition contract to one team.

                        FADEC FUNDING ALLOCATION

    Question. The fiscal year 2000 transportation appropriations act 
included $7 million for an HH-65 engine program which could be applied 
to the fuel control (FADEC) upgrade or for technology insertion through 
a parts replacement program based on the commercial version of the LTS-
101 engine. How is this funding being allocated?
    Answer. The majority of these fiscal year 2000 funds are being 
allocated for technology insertion through a parts replacement process. 
The Coast Guard is replacing engine parts nearing the end of their 
service lives with redesigned components that are more reliable, 
supportable, and efficient. These improved components will extend the 
overhaul interval on the LTS-101 engine, thus reducing maintenance 
requirements and overall engine life-cycle costs. Installation of these 
improved engine components is also a prerequisite for any future power 
improvement effort.

                 HH-65 ENGINE POWER RESTORATION PROGRAM

    Question. Is the Coast Guard considering an HH-65 engine power 
restoration program? If this is the case, please describe the program 
and explain its operational benefits, costs (including non-recurring 
and recurring costs), and schedule.
    Answer. The Coast Guard is studying the need for power restoration 
for the HH-65 aircraft. Due to required aircraft modifications, as well 
as the congressionally mandated Rescue Swimmer program, an additional 
1,625 pounds has been added to the operational weight of the HH-65. 
There has been no comparable improvement to the engine performance 
capability to offset the additional weight. The Coast Guard is not 
currently pursuing an HH-65 power enhancement program due to more 
urgent capitalization priorities. Operational benefits, costs and a 
schedule for a HH-65 power restoration program have not been 
quantified.

          HH-65 ENGINE POWER RESTORATION PROGRAM ACCELERATION

    Question. If Congress wanted to accelerate this program by 
providing non-recurring funding in fiscal year 2001 to reduce schedule 
concurrency and improve sequencing, what amount could be executed and 
for what purpose?
    Answer. The Coast Guard currently has no program to restore power 
for HH-65s. The existing HH-65 LTS-101 Engine Life Cycle Cost Reduction 
Project will replace obsolete, maintenance intensive components, some 
of which are required to be replaced if the Coast Guard pursues a power 
enhancement in the future. Although additional off-the-shelf components 
for this project could be purchased, they could not be installed in a 
year's time due to operational commitments of the fleet.

                         FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM

    Question. Please provide a breakdown of the Coast Guard's specific 
procurement plans for the fleet logistics system in fiscal year 2000 
and fiscal year 2001.
    Answer. The Fleet Logistics System (FLS) project received funding 
of $6.17 million in fiscal year 2000 (including reprogrammed funds). 
The FLS fiscal year 2001 budget request is $5.5 million. The Coast 
Guard's updated procurement plan for these funds is:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Fiscal year
                                                   ---------------------
                                                       2000       2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLS Software Development and Implementation.......      4,239      4,440
FLS Web Based Training Development................        525        515
FLS Maintenance...................................        660  .........
Equipment.........................................        300        100
Project Management................................        446        445
                                                   ---------------------
      Total.......................................      6,170      5,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY SYSTEM

    Question. On what basis were Berwick Bay, Louisiana and Sault Saint 
Marie selected to receive the ports and waterways safety systems 
(PAWSS)?
    Answer. The Coast Guard has requested funds to install the Ports 
and Waterways Safety System (PAWSS) in Berwick Bay, Louisiana, and 
Sault Saint Marie, Michigan. The Coast Guard evaluated these ports 
based on a comprehensive view of navigation risk taken together with 
many years of experience in managing the risks inherent in these our 
nation's waterways. They have been included in the PAWSS project 
because there is a compelling federal interest in keeping these VTSs 
fully operational. The equipment they are using is technologically 
obsolete and in need of replacement. The Coast Guard recognizes the 
need for traffic management at these critical waterways and is moving 
to upgrade the equipment to take advantage of the Automatic 
Identification System as soon as it becomes available. Converting 
existing VTSs to the PAWSS operating system will improve vessel traffic 
center operation and data management.

                   PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY SYSTEM

    Question. The justification indicates that the Coast Guard surveyed 
three additional ports for installation of PAWSS. On page 786 of the 
House hearings report for fiscal year 2000, the Coast Guard listed 
several ports under consideration, but PAWSS is not being implemented 
at any of these ports. Why is this?
    Answer. The areas listed in the House Hearings Report for fiscal 
year 2000 were some of the ports in which the Coast Guard planned to 
conduct formal risk assessments in 1999 and 2000. Subsequent 
installation of a vessel traffic service (VTS) in any port under the 
Ports and Waterways Safety System (PAWSS) project would only be done 
had that assessment indicated a VTS was needed to mitigate an 
unacceptable level of risk.
    So far, the risk assessments the Coast Guard has completed in 
conjunction with local maritime and stakeholder communities have not 
revealed any additional ports (beyond those where a VTS already exists) 
where a VTS is necessary or appropriate to mitigate identified risks. 
Effective risk management remains a constant requirement for the Coast 
Guard as port risk profiles change over time. The Coast Guard will 
continue to perform periodic formal and informal risk assessments in 
our nation's critical ports and waterways.
marine information and safety and law enforcement cost/schedule changes
    Question. Please explain the nature and extent of cost overruns and 
schedule delays associated with development of the Marine Information 
and Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) program.
    Answer. Prior to October 1999, MISLE development was being 
accomplished under a contract to Computer Science Corporation (CSC). 
Due to the nature of the contract, a decision was made to move MISLE 
development to Operations Systems Center (OSC) at Kearneysville, WV. 
The project scope remains the same. The OSC development effort is able 
to utilize the system requirements work completed by CSC, allowing the 
project to be completed on schedule. The new plan has less risk because 
the development will be accomplished in incremental, usable pieces as 
recommended by industry, OMB, and Congressional guidance. Under the new 
plan, Phase I, in which Marine Safety Network (MSN) functionality 
replaces Marine Safety Information System (MSIS), will be completed in 
the third quarter of fiscal year 2001. Phase 2, which begins Law 
Enforcement Information System (LEIS) II integration and additional 
functionality, will be completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 
2002; and Phase 3, which completes LEIS II and provides new 
capabilities, will be completed in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 
2003. The project will be completed within the schedule and cost 
baselines, given the requested budget amount.

      NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE SYSTEM MODERNIZATION CONTRACT

    Question. How much funding is requested for each industry team 
competing for the National Distress and Response System Modernization 
contract, and what specific tasks is each team expected to accomplish 
during fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) for the 
National Distress and Response System Modernization Project (NDRSMP) 
Design Demonstration and Validation (Phase I) scope of work is $8.5 
million. The contract will be structured with a base period (fiscal 
year 2000 funding) and an option period (fiscal year 2001 funding). The 
Coast Guard requested sufficient funds in fiscal year 2000 and 2001 to 
fund up to three (3) contracts for the NDRSMP Design Demonstration and 
Validation. The entire period of performance for the Phase I contract 
is 15 months.
    As described in the Phase I Request for Proposal (RFP), each 
contractor is required to:
  --conduct surveys of five (5) Coast Guard Groups and the associated 
        units;
  --develop a Functional Design to include the Functional Baseline 
        consisting of the System Specification, System Development 
        Specification and Interface Control Document;
  --develop a Preliminary Design to include the Allocated Baseline 
        detailing each Configuration Item;
  --propose a Product Baseline (production equipment list) developed 
        from the Allocated Baseline (functional list);
  --conduct a Critical Functions demonstration to show compliance with 
        the functional requirements of the performance specification;
  --perform a cost/performance trade-off analysis on each system 
        parameter identified in the RFP;
  --develop an initial Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) based on the 
        Functional Design, and an updated LCCE based on the Preliminary 
        Design; and
  --propose a project management plan for the Development, Production 
        and Deployment (NDRSMP Phase II) for their proposed Product 
        Baseline.
      national distress and response system modernization project
    Question. There still appears to be a significant amount of 
concurrency in the program schedule for the NDRS modernization. Why is 
this degree of concurrency necessary; how does it raise the technical, 
costs and schedule risks of the program; and what specific management 
controls has the agency implemented to mitigate these risks?
    Answer. In November 1999, the Coast Guard Acquisition Review 
Council (CGARC) approved a revision of the National Distress and 
Response System Modernization Project (NDRSMP) Acquisition Plan to 
incorporate a phased acquisition strategy that is generally sequential 
and mitigates or improves control of project risk. The phased 
acquisition strategy divides the project into a Design Demonstration 
and Validation Phase (Phase I) and a Development, Production, and 
Deployment Phase (Phase II).
    During Phase I, a preliminary design will be developed for the 
NDRSMP. The preliminary design will be demonstrated and validated to 
show compliance with the functional requirements of the performance 
specification. The majority of the Phase I activities are sequential 
and build upon the prior activity. The Phase I activities were 
developed to help control or reduce the technical risk.
    During Phase II, the production design will be finalized and a 
regional system built, installed, and tested to achieve Initial 
Operating Capability (IOC). After IOC, additional systems will be built 
and fielded to achieve Full Operating Capability (FOC). Several of 
these activities are sequential, but there are instances when tasks can 
be performed concurrently without significantly increasing the 
technical, schedule or cost risk. A large degree of concurrency will 
still be necessary in Phase II to accomplish the project's milestones 
and schedule. Concurrent installation of the system at various Coast 
Guard Groups and units is necessary to achieve timely FOC.
national distress and response system modernization project future cost
    Question. Please break down the estimated future cost of $220 
million for the NDRS modernization program.
    Answer. The estimated future cost for the National Distress and 
Response System Modernization Project (NDRSMP) provides funding of the 
NDRSMP Development, Production and Deployment (Phase II). The Coast 
Guard will be able to better estimate the future costs using the Life 
Cycle Cost Estimates (LCCE) developed during the Design Demonstration 
and Validation (Phase I).

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Acquisition
                                                  Estimated    project
                     Element                       funding     baseline
                                                   request   (APB) range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production Design Development...................         30        25-35
Production and Deployment.......................        190      181-223
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Production Design Development consists of developing the detailed 
design and installing the regional system for Initial Operating 
Capability (IOC), developmental testing and evaluation during this 
period, and operational testing and evaluation for acceptance of the 
IOC system.
    Production and Deployment consists of pre-installation site 
surveys, site preparation work, system production in quantity, and the 
installation of the system equipment at various Coast Guard Groups and 
units.

                    SELF-LOCATING DATUM MARKER BUOYS

    Question. How many Self-locating Datum Marker Buoys are the Coast 
Guard planning to procure as part of the search and rescue capabilities 
enhancement project? How many are planned for purchase in fiscal year 
2002? What is the deployment schedule?
    Answer. The Coast Guard is planning on procuring 300 Self-Locating 
Datum Marker Buoys (SLDMB) in fiscal year 2001 as part of the search 
and rescue (SAR) capabilities enhancement project. In fiscal year 2002 
the Coast Guard will begin annual purchases of 300 to 350 buoys. SLDMBs 
are expendable, not intended to be recovered following use.
    The SLDMBs will be initially distributed to Coast Guard air 
stations (approximately ten per air station) and restocked as they are 
used. The distribution to air stations will take place over several 
months as the SLDMBs become available from the manufacturer.
    Actual operational employment of the first SLDMBs in search and 
rescue missions is expected in late March, 2001.

            SURVEY & DESIGN SHORE FACILITY FUNDING BREAKDOWN

    Question. With respect to the request of $7 million for survey and 
design-shore facilities, please breakdown how the agency would allocate 
funding by facility for each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001.
    Answer. Amounts allocated to individual facilities follow. Many 
2000 and 2001 figures are planning estimates and may change as project 
schedules and design costs are solidified.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year
                            Facility                             -----------------------------------------------
                                                                    1999 actual    2000 planned    2001 planned
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Academy, New London, CT.........................................        $250,000        $150,000         $50,000
Air Station Astoria, OR.........................................  ..............  ..............         100,000
Air Station Barbers Point, HI...................................  ..............         105,000         125,000
Air Station Elizabeth City, NC..................................  ..............         560,000         500,000
Air Station Miami, FL...........................................         205,000         210,000  ..............
Air Station North Bend, OR......................................  ..............  ..............         100,000
Base Galveston, TX..............................................  ..............         150,000         150,000
Base San Juan, PR...............................................         845,000         475,000         150,000
Studies, designs & construction mgmt related to Streamlining....          55,000  ..............  ..............
Group Fort Macon, NC............................................         215,000  ..............  ..............
Group Key West, FL..............................................          40,000          50,000          75,000
Group Long Island Sound, CT.....................................  ..............         250,000         200,000
Group Port Angeles, WA..........................................  ..............         260,000         200,000
Group Woods Hole, MA............................................  ..............          45,000  ..............
Housing Market Surveys..........................................  ..............          80,000  ..............
ISC Alameda, CA.................................................         100,000         240,000         400,000
ISC Boston, MA..................................................         260,000  ..............         100,000
ISC Honolulu, HI................................................  ..............         100,000         350,000
ISC Ketchikan, AK...............................................  ..............  ..............         100,000
ISC Kodiak, AK..................................................         480,000         700,000         550,000
ISC Portsmouth, VA..............................................          80,000          40,000         100,000
ISC Seattle, WA.................................................  ..............          85,000         250,000
Minor AC&I Designs--Various Facilities..........................         230,000         497,000         500,000
Misc expenditures $20,000 or less--Various Facilities...........         320,000         175,000         200,000
MSO Mobile, AL..................................................  ..............         200,000         100,000
MSO San Juan, PR................................................  ..............         300,000          70,000
MSO San Pedro, CA...............................................         250,000          96,000  ..............
MSO Valdez, AK..................................................  ..............          55,000         150,000
Program travel/admin/support....................................         675,000         800,000         800,000
SEC Marianas, Guam..............................................  ..............  ..............         100,000
Station Alexandria, VA..........................................  ..............  ..............         100,000
Station Ashtabula, OH...........................................          30,000  ..............  ..............
Station Bellingham, WA..........................................          25,000  ..............  ..............
Station Brunswick, GA...........................................  ..............          55,000         400,000
Station Channel Island, CA......................................  ..............          44,000  ..............
Station Neah Bay, WA............................................         350,000  ..............  ..............
Station New Orleans, LA.........................................          60,000         270,000  ..............
Station Oswego, NY..............................................          65,000  ..............  ..............
Station Port Huron, MI..........................................         185,000         130,000         250,000
Station Shinnecock, NY..........................................         125,000         105,000         160,000
Station St. Petersburg, FL......................................  ..............          50,000          70,000
Training Center Cape May, NJ....................................         155,000         300,000         300,000
USCG Yard, Baltimore, MD........................................  ..............  ..............         300,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Totals....................................................       5,000,000       6,577,000       7,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    AC&I PERSONNEL FUNDING INCREASE

    Question. The agency is requesting a $3.97 million increase for 
direct personnel costs. Why is such a large increase necessary?
    Answer. The $54.151 million fiscal year 2001 request for direct 
personnel costs is a $3.97 million increase over the fiscal year 2000 
appropriation level. The increase is required to account for additional 
personnel costs and entitlements such as civilian and military pay 
increases, Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) adjustments and increased 
medical costs. The slight increase also allows for an additional 9.5 
Full Time Equivalents (FTE) over the actual fiscal year 2000 level. The 
increase is required in order to provide for the increased personnel 
requirements associated with the National Distress & Response System 
Modernization, Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement, and Deepwater 
projects during fiscal year 2001. These increases are taking place at 
the same time that other large AC&I projects such as Coastal Patrol 
Boats, Seagoing Buoy Tender Replacement, and Motor Lifeboat Replacement 
are in full-scale production.

                         C&I PERSONNEL INCREASE

    Question. How many new personnel are requested?
    Answer. The requested funding level will provide for an increase of 
9.5 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) over the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2000 
actual FTE level.

                         AC&I PERSONNEL LISTING

    Question. Please provide a table listing all personnel funded with 
AC&I appropriations, similar to the information the Coast Guard 
provided on pages 806 and 807 of last year's House hearing record.
    Answer. Information is attached.

                                         FISCAL YEAR 2000 ACI PERSONNEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              PROJECT                        LOCATION            CO  CWO  ENL  CIV  TOTAL  EXPLANATION OF CHANGE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIREYE PROJECT....................  HEADQUARTERS..............  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
AVIATION LOGISTICS MGMT INFO SYS..  AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY      1    1  ...  ...     2
                                     CENTER.
                                                               ===========================
AVIATION NEAR TERM SUPPORT          HEADQUARTERS..............    2  ...  ...  ...     2   First established in
 STRATEGY.                                                                                  fiscal year 1999 as
                                                                                            LRSCP reprogrammed
                                                                                            to ANTSS billets.
                                                               ===========================
BUOY BOAT (BUSL)..................  ENGINEERING LOGISTICS       ...  ...    3  ...     3
                                     COMMAND.
BUOY BOAT (BUSL)..................  HEADQUARTERS..............    1    2  ...    1     4
                                                               ---------------------------
      BUOY BOAT (BUSL) TOTAL......  ..........................    1    2    3    1     7   Last hull scheduled
                                                                                            for FISCAL YEAR 2001
                                                                                            delivery.
COASTAL PATROL BOAT...............  PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE       5    2    8    1    16
                                     BOLLINGER.
COASTAL PATROL BOAT...............  ENGINEERING LOGISTICS       ...    1    1  ...     2
                                     COMMAND.
COASTAL PATROL BOAT...............  HEADQUARTERS..............    7  ...    3    2    12
COASTAL PATROL BOAT...............  R&D CENTER................  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
                                                               ---------------------------
      COASTAL PATROL BOAT TOTAL...  ..........................   12    3   12    3    30   Decreased
                                                                                            requirement. Last
                                                                                            hull scheduled for
                                                                                            FISCAL YEAR 2003
                                                                                            delivery.
                                                               ===========================
COMMUNICATION SYS 2000............  MAINTENANCE & LOGISTICS       1    1  ...  ...     2
                                     COMMAND (LANT).
COMMUNICATION SYS 2000............  MAINTENANCE & LOGISTICS       1    1  ...  ...     2
                                     COMMAND (PAC).
COMMUNICATION SYS 2000............  TISCOM....................    1    1  ...  ...     2
                                                               ---------------------------
      COMMUNICATION SYS 2000 TOTAL  ..........................    3    3  ...  ...     6   3 billets terminated
                                                                                            on schedule.
                                                               ===========================
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT..........  HEADQUARTERS..............    1    1  ...  ...     2
CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE............  HEADQUARTERS..............  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE............  OPERATIONS SYSTEMS CENTER.  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................  AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY      3  ...    1    1     5   S&D billet est at
                                     CENTER.                                                ARSC.
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................  C\2\ ENGINEERING CENTER...    8    3    1    6    18
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................  ENGINEERING LOGISTICS         3    1   16   31    51
                                     COMMAND.
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................  FINANCE CENTER............  ...  ...  ...    6     6
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................  HEADQUARTERS..............   28    2    3   65    98
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................  PERSONNEL COMMAND.........    1  ...  ...    1     2
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................  R&D CENTER................    1  ...  ...    2     3
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................  TISCOM....................    4  ...    2  ...     6
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................  YORKTOWN..................  ...  ...  ...    4     4
                                                               ---------------------------
      CORE PROGRAM STAFF TOTAL....  ..........................   48    6   23  116   193   Workload
                                                                                            redistribution.
                                                               ===========================
DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM............  HEADQUARTERS..............    1  ...  ...  ...     1
DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM............  TISCOM....................    4    6    1    1    12
                                                               ---------------------------
      DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM TOTAL  ..........................    5    6    1    1    13
                                                               ===========================
DEEPWATER PROJECT.................  HEADQUARTERS..............   44    3    4   20    71
DEEPWATER PROJECT.................  ELC.......................    1  ...  ...    2     3
DEEPWATER PROJECT.................  DETACHED--MSI.............    1  ...  ...  ...     1
                                                               ---------------------------
      DEEPWATER PROJECT TOTAL.....  ..........................   46    3    4   22    75   Increased project
                                                                                            requirements.
                                                               ===========================
DIFFERENTIAL GPS..................  HEADQUARTERS..............  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
EDENTON...........................  HEADQUARTERS..............  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
EDENTON...........................  ENGINEERING LOGISTICS       ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
                                     COMMAND.
                                                               ---------------------------
      EDENTON--TOTAL..............  ..........................  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....  Project phase
                                                                                            completed.
                                                               ===========================
ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP PROJECT....  HEADQUARTERS..............  ...  ...  ...    1     1
ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP PROJECT....  C\2\ ENGINEERING CENTER...  ...    1  ...  ...     1
ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP PROJECT....  TISCOM....................  ...    1  ...  ...     1
                                                               ---------------------------
      ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP        ..........................  ...    2  ...    1     3
       PROJECT TOTAL.
                                                               ===========================
FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM............  HEADQUARTERS..............    8  ...    1    7    16
FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM............  DETACHED--GREENBELT.......    3  ...  ...  ...     3
                                                               ---------------------------
      FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM TOTAL  ..........................   11  ...    1    7    19   Scheduled termination
                                                                                            of billet.
                                                               ===========================
GLOBAL MARITIME DISTRESS & SAFETY   TISCOM....................  ...  ...  ...    1     1
 SYS.
                                                               ===========================
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM INSTAL..  AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY    ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
                                     CENTER.
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM INSTAL..  HEADQUARTERS..............  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKING CAP         HEADQUARTERS..............    6  ...  ...    5    11
 REPLACE.
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKING CAP         ENGINEERING LOGISTICS       ...  ...  ...    2     2
 REPLACE.                            COMMAND.
                                                               ---------------------------
      GREAT LAKES ICE CAP REPLACE-- ..........................    6  ...  ...    7    13   Increased project
       TOTAL.                                                                               requirements.
                                                               ===========================
HC-130 ENGINE CONVERSION..........  AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY    ...    1  ...    1     2   Terminate billet in
                                     CENTER.                                                FISCAL YEAR 2000.
                                                               ===========================
HU-25 AIRCRAFT AVIONICS IMPROV....  AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY      1    1    4  ...     6
                                     CENTER.
HU-25 AIRCRAFT AVIONICS IMPROV....  HEADQUARTERS..............    1  ...  ...  ...     1
HU-25 AIRCRAFT AVIONICS IMPROV....  ..........................    2    1    4  ...     7   Increased project
                                                                                            requirements.
HH-65 KAPTON WIRE/MISSION COMPUTER  AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY      2    1  ...  ...     3
                                     CENTER.
HH-65 KAPTON WIRE/MISSION COMPUTER  HEADQUARTERS..............  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
                                                               ---------------------------
      HH-65 KAPTON WIRE/MISSION     ..........................    2    1  ...  ...     3
       COMPUTER TOTAL.
                                                               ===========================
HH-65 LTS 101 LCC REDUC...........  ..........................    1    1    1  ...     3   Additional engine
                                                                                            control
                                                                                            requirements.
HH-60J INDEPENDENT NAV PROJECT....  HEADQUARTERS..............  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
HH-60J INDEPENDENT NAV PROJECT....  AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY    ...  ...    1  ...     1
                                     CENTER.
                                                               ---------------------------
      HH-60J INDEPENDENT NAV        ..........................  ...  ...    1  ...     1
       PROJECT TOTAL.
                                                               ===========================
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT  HEADQUARTERS..............    1  ...  ...  ...     1
 (RIP).
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT  MAINTENANCE & LOGISTICS       1    1  ...    7     9
 (RIP).                              COMMAND (PAC).
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT  NAVAL ENGINEERING SUPPORT     2  ...    4  ...     6
 (RIP).                              UNIT SEATTLE.
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT  ENGINEERING LOGISTICS         1  ...  ...  ...     1
 (RIP).                              COMMAND.
                                                               ---------------------------
      ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY        ..........................    5    1    4    7    17
       IMPROVEMENT (RIP) TOTAL.
                                                               ===========================
ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT (HEALY)....  ENGINEERING LOGISTICS       ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
                                     COMMAND.
ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT (HEALY)....  HEADQUARTERS..............  ...  ...  ...    1     1
ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT (HEALY)....  PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE     ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
                                     AVONDALE.
                                                               ---------------------------
      ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT        ..........................  ...  ...  ...    1     1
       (HEALY) TOTAL.
                                                               ===========================
LONG RANGE SEARCH.................  HEADQUARTERS..............  ...  ...  ...    1     2   Reduced project
                                                                                            requirement.
                                                               ===========================
MISLE PROJECT.....................  HEADQUARTERS..............    7  ...  ...    6    13
MISLE PROJECT.....................  OPS CENTER................    1  ...  ...  ...     1
                                                               ---------------------------
      MISLE PROJECT TOTAL.........  ..........................    8  ...  ...    6    14   Increased project
                                                                                            requirements.
                                                               ===========================
MOTOR LIFEBOAT....................  ENGINEERING LOGISTICS       ...  ...    2  ...     2
                                     COMMAND.
MOTOR LIFEBOAT....................  HEADQUARTERS..............    4    1  ...    4     9
MOTOR LIFEBOAT....................  PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE       2    2    8  ...    12
                                     TEXTRON.
                                                               ---------------------------
      MOTOR LIFEBOAT TOTAL........  ..........................    6    3   10    4    23   Last hull scheduled
                                                                                            for fiscal year 2002
                                                                                            delivery.
                                                               ===========================
NATIONWIDE DIFFERENTIAL GPS         C\2\ ENGINEERING CENTER...  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....  .....................
 PROJECT.
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM..........  HEADQUARTERS..............   10    3  ...    9    22
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM..........  MLC (PAC).................  ...    1  ...    1     2
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM..........  MLC (LANT)................    1  ...    1  ...     2
                                                               ---------------------------
      NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM      ..........................   11    4    1   10    26   Increased project
       TOTAL.                                                                               requirements.
                                                               ===========================
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS......  HEADQUARTERS..............    3    1    0    9    13
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS......  PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE     ...  ...  ...    1     1
                                     NEW ORLEANS.
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS......  District Eight............  ...  ...  ...    1     1
                                                               ---------------------------
      PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS  ..........................    3    1  ...   11    15
       TOTAL.
                                                               ===========================
SELECTED MAJOR ACQUISITIONS.......  HEADQUARTERS..............    1  ...  ...  ...     1
SELECTED MAJOR ACQUISITIONS.......  AR&SC.....................  ...    1  ...  ...     1
                                                               ---------------------------
      SELECTED MAJOR ACQUISITIONS   ..........................    2    1  ...  ...     3
       TOTAL.
                                                               ===========================
SHORE CORE PROJECT................  CIVIL ENGINEERING UNITS...    7  ...  ...  ...     7
SHORE CORE PROJECT................  FACILITIES DESIGN &           9  ...    2   50    61
                                     CONSTRUCTION CEN (LANT).
SHORE CORE PROJECT................  FACILITIES DESIGN &           8  ...  ...   29    37
                                     CONSTRUCTION CEN (PAC).
SHORE CORE PROJECT................  HEADQUARTERS..............    1  ...  ...   16    17
SHORE CORE PROJECT................  MAINTENANCE & LOGISTICS       1    1    2    3     7
                                     COMMAND (LANT).
SHORE CORE PROJECT................  MAINTENANCE & LOGISTICS     ...  ...    1    5     6
                                     COMMAND (PAC).
                                                               ---------------------------
      SHORE CORE PROJECT TOTAL....  ..........................   26    1    5  103   135
                                                               ===========================
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL.........  C\2\ ENGINEERING CENTER...    1  ...    1  ...     2
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL.........  HEADQUARTERS..............    1  ...  ...    2     3
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL.........  COAST GUARD YARD..........  ...    1  ...  ...     1
                                                               ---------------------------
      SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL     ..........................    2    1    1    2     6   Last system installed
       TOTAL.                                                                               4th QTR fiscal year
                                                                                            2001.
                                                               ===========================
TRAFFIC COLLISION & AVOIDANCE.....  AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY    ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
                                     CENTER.
TRAFFIC COLLISION & AVOIDANCE.....  HEADQUARTERS..............  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
                                                               ---------------------------
      TRAFFIC COLLISION &           ..........................  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....  Project completed.
       AVOIDANCE TOTAL.
                                                               ===========================
VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-17)...  ELECTRONIC SUPPORT DET      ...  ...    1  ...     1
                                     KETCHIKAN.
VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-17)...  INTEGRATED SUPPORT COMMAND  ...  ...    2  ...     2
                                     KETCHIKAN.
VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-17)...  TISCOM....................  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
                                                               ---------------------------
      VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-  ..........................  ...  ...    3  ...     3
       17) TOTAL.
                                                               ===========================
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)........  ENGINEERING LOGISTICS       ...    1    1    2     4
                                     COMMAND.
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)........  HEADQUARTERS..............   12    1  ...    5    18
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)........  PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE     ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
                                     MARINETTE.
                                                               ---------------------------
      WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)    ..........................   12    2    1    7    22   Reduced project
       TOTAL.                                                                               requirement.
                                                               ===========================
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL)........  HEADQUARTERS..............  ...  ...  ...    1     1
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL)........  PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE      15   11   23  ...    49
                                     MARINETTE.
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL)........  TRACEN PETALUMA...........    1  ...  ...    1     2
                                                               ---------------------------
      WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL)    ..........................   16   11   23    2    52   Reduced project
       TOTAL.                                                                               requirement.
                                                               ===========================
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER).........  ENGINEERING LOGISTICS       ...    1    2  ...     3
                                     COMMAND.
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER).........  HEADQUARTERS..............    4  ...  ...    2     6
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER).........  PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE     ...  ...    2  ...     2
                                     MARINETTE.
                                                               ---------------------------
      WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER)     ..........................    4    1    4    2    11
       TOTAL.
                                                               ===========================
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL)          AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY    ...    1    1  ...     2
 Recompete.                          CENTER.
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL)          ENGINEERING LOGISTICS       ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
 Recompete.                          COMMAND--TEMP.
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL)          HEADQUARTERS..............  ...  ...  ...  ...  .....
 Recompete.
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL)          TISCOM....................    1    2  ...  ...     3
 Recompete.
                                                               ---------------------------
      WLB RECOMPETE TOTAL.........  PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE       1    3    1  ...     5   Second WLB contract
                                     MARINETTE.                                             award.
                                                               ===========================
      TOTAL.......................  ..........................  237   60  103  316   716
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to maximize authorized FTP/FTE this plan includes a total of 716 billets/positions, 8 percent above
  the fiscal year 2000 request of of 663. This plan reflects the fact that many of the billets are partial year
  FTE and assumes that the historical lapse rate associated with additions/deletions will continue and that any
  reduction due to unanticipated increase in the fill rate can be realized by postponing fourth quarter adds.

         CHANGES TO AC&I PERSONNEL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTES)

    Question. By program, project, and activity, please provide a table 
indicating the changes from 1999 to 2000 in positions and FTE and the 
reasons for such changes, similar to the information the agency 
provided on pages 809 through 811 of last year's House hearing record.
    Answer. Information is attached.

                                                           FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 ACI PERSONNEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 FISCAL YEAR
                                                                   ---------------------------------------   CHG
                PROJECT                           LOCATION           2000                2001                FTP    CHG FTE      EXPLANATION OF CHANGE
                                                                      FTP    2000 FTE     FTP    2001 FTE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLIR/RADAR PROJECT.....................  AR&SC....................  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
FLIR/RADAR PROJECT.....................  HEADQUARTERS.............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
AIREYE PROJECT.........................  HEADQUARTERS.............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
ALEX HEALY PHASE II....................  ENGINEERING LOG CMD......  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
ALEX HEALY PHASE II....................  HEADQUARTERS.............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
AVIATION LOGISTICS MGMT INFO SYS.......  AR&SC....................       2        2          2       2     ......  .........  ..........................
AVIATION NEAR TEAM SUPPORT STRATEGY      HEADQUARTERS.............       2        0.5        2       0.5   ......  .........  ..........................
 PROJECT.
BUOY BOAT (BUSL).......................  ENGINEERING LOG CMD......       3        3          3       3     ......  .........  ..........................
BUOY BOAT (BUSL).......................  HEADQUARTERS.............       4        4          2       3.75      -2      -0.25  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      BUOY BOAT (BUSL) TOTAL...........  .........................       7        7          5       6.75      -2      -0.25  Reduced project
                                                                                                                               requirements
                                                                   ==========================================================
C130 NVG...............................  HEADQUARTERS.............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
COASTAL PATROL BOAT....................  PRO BOLLINGER............      16       16         16      16.25  ......       0.25  ..........................
COASTAL PATROL BOAT....................  ENGINEERING LOG CMD......       2        2          2       2     ......  .........  ..........................
COASTAL PATROL BOAT....................  HEADQUARTERS.............      12       12         12      12     ......  .........  ..........................
COASTAL PATROL BOAT....................  R&D CENTER...............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      COASTAL PATROL BOAT TOTAL........  .........................      30       30         30      30.25  ......       0.25  2 billets extended in
                                                                                                                               fiscal year 2001. No
                                                                                                                               decrease. Full production
                                                                                                                               complete in fiscal year
                                                                                                                               2003.
                                                                   ==========================================================
COMMUNICATION SYS 2000.................  MLC (LANT)...............       2        2          2       2     ......  .........  ..........................
COMMUNICATION SYS 2000.................  MLC (PAC)................       2        2          2       2     ......  .........  ..........................
COMMUNICATION SYS 2000.................  TISCOM...................       2        2          2       2     ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      COMMUNICATION SYS 2000 TOTAL.....  .........................       6        6          6       6     ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ==========================================================
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT...............  HEADQUARTERS.............       2        2          2       2.5   ......       0.5   Increased project
                                                                                                                               requirements--implementat
                                                                                                                               ion.
CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE.................  HEADQUARTERS.............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE.................  OPERATIONS SYS CENTER....  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF.....................  AR&SC....................       5        5          5       5     ......  .........  ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF.....................  C\2\ ENGINEERING CENTER..      18       18         18      18     ......  .........  ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF.....................  ENGINEERING LOG CMD......      51       51         51      51     ......  .........  ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF.....................  FINANCE CENTER...........       6        6          6       6     ......  .........  ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF.....................  HEADQUARTERS.............      98       98        100      99.25       2       1.25  ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF.....................  PERSONNEL COMMAND........       2        2          2       2     ......  .........  ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF.....................  R&D CENTER...............       3        3          3       3     ......  .........  ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF.....................  TISCOM...................       6        6          6       6     ......  .........  ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF.....................  YORKTOWN.................       4        4          4       4     ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      CORE PROGRAM STAFF TOTAL.........  .........................     193      193        195     194.25       2       1.25  Required to support
                                                                                                                               increased AC&I budget.
                                                                   ==========================================================
DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM.................  HEADQUARTERS.............       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM.................  TISCOM...................      12        7.75      12       7.75  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM--TOTAL....  .........................      13        8.75      13       8.75  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ==========================================================
DEEPWATER PROJECT......................  HEADQUARTERS.............      71       56         95      65.75      24       9.75  ..........................
DEEPWATER PROJECT......................  ENGINEERING LOG CMD......       3        2.25       3       2.25  ......  .........  ..........................
DEEPWATER PROJECT......................  Detached--MSI............       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      DEEPWATER PROJECT TOTAL..........  .........................      75       59.25      99      69         24       9.75  Phase I Functional Design;
                                                                                                                               Phase II RFP development.
                                                                   ==========================================================
DIFFERENTIAL GPS.......................  HEADQUARTERS.............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
EDENTON................................  HEADQUARTERS.............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
EDENTON................................  ENGINEERING LOG CMD......  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP PROJECT.........  HEADQUARTERS.............       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP PROJECT.........  C\2\ ENGINEERING CENTER..       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP PROJECT.........  TISCOM...................       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP PROJECT     .........................       3        3          3       3     ......  .........  ..........................
       TOTAL.
                                                                   ==========================================================
FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM.................  HEADQUARTERS.............      16       11.75      15      10.75      -1      -1     ..........................
FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM.................  DETACHED--GREENBELT......       3        0.75       3       0.75  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM TOTAL.....  .........................      19       12.5       18      11.5       -1      -1     Reduced project
                                                                                                                               requirements.
                                                                   ==========================================================
GLOBAL MARITIME DISTRESS & SAFETY SYS..  TISCOM...................       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM INSTAL.......  AR&SC....................  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM INSTAL.......  HEADQUARTERS.............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKING CAP............  HEADQUARTERS.............      11        8         22      12.25      11       4.25  ..........................
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKING CAP............  ENGINEERING LOG CMD......       2        2          3       2.25       1       0.25  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKING TOTAL....  .........................      13       10         25      14.5       12       4.5   Increased project
                                                                                                                               requirements.
                                                                   ==========================================================
HC-130 ENGINE CONVERSION...............  AR&SC....................       2        2     ......  .........      -2      -2     Reduced project
                                                                                                                               requirements.
HU-25 AIRCRAFT AVIONICS IMPROV.........  AR&SC....................       6        6          6       6     ......  .........  ..........................
HU-25 AIRCRAFT AVIONICS IMPROV.........  HEADQUARTERS.............       1        0.25       1       0.25  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      HU-25 AIRCRAFT AVIONICS IMPROV...  .........................       7        6.25       7       6.25  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ==========================================================
HH-65 KAPTON WIRE/MISSION COMPUTER.....  AR&SC....................       3        1     ......  .........      -3      -1     ..........................
HH-65 KAPTON WIRE/MISSION COMPUTER.....  HEADQUARTERS.............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      HH-65 KAPTON WIRE/MISSION          .........................       3        1     ......  .........      -3      -1     ..........................
       COMPUTER TOTAL.
                                                                   ==========================================================
LTS 101 LCC REDUC......................  .........................       3        3          3       3     ......  .........  ..........................
HH60J--INDEPENDENT NAV PROJECT.........  HEADQUARTERS.............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
HH60J--INDEPENDENT NAV PROJECT.........  AR&SC....................       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
HH60J--INDEPENDENT NAV PROJECT.........  .........................       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT       ENGINEERING LOG CMD......       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
 (RIP).
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT       HEADQUARTERS.............       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
 (RIP).
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT       M LC (PAC)...............       9        9          9       9     ......  .........  ..........................
 (RIP).
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT       NESU SEATTLE.............       6        6          6       6     ......  .........  ..........................
 (RIP).
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVE     .........................      17       17         17      17     ......  .........  ..........................
       (RIP) TOTAL.
                                                                   ==========================================================
ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT (HEALY).........  ENGINEERING LOG CMD......  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT (HEALY).........  HEADQUARTERS.............       1        1          1       1.25  ......       0.25  ..........................
ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT (HEALY).........  PRO AVONDALE.............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT (HEALY)     .........................       1        0.25       1       0.5   ......       0.25  Project complete; 0.25FTE
       TOTAL.                                                                                                                  for logistics wrapup @
                                                                                                                               HQ.
                                                                   ==========================================================
LONG RANGE SEARCH CAPABILITY PRES......  HEADQUARTERS.............       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
MISLE PROJECT..........................  HEADQUARTERS.............      13       12.25       8       8.25      -5      -4     ..........................
MISLE PROJECT..........................  OPS CENTER...............       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      MISLE PROJECT TOTAL..............  .........................      14       13.25       9       9.25      -5      -4     Reduced project
                                                                                                                               requirements.
                                                                   ==========================================================
MOTOR LIFEBOAT.........................  ENGINEERING LOG CMD......       2        2          2       2     ......  .........  ..........................
MOTOR LIFEBOAT.........................  HEADQUARTERS.............       9        9          9      11     ......       2     ..........................
MOTOR LIFEBOAT.........................  PRO TEXTRON..............      12       10.5       12      12.25  ......       1.75  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      MOTOR LIFEBOAT TOTAL.............  .........................      23       21.5       23      25.25  ......       3.75  Last hull scheduled for
                                                                                                                               fiscal year 2002
                                                                                                                               delivery.
                                                                   ==========================================================
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM...............  HEADQUARTERS.............      22       16.5       29      18.75       7       2.25  ..........................
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM...............  TRACEN PETALUMA..........  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM...............  MLC (PAC)................       2        0.75       2       0.75  ......  .........  ..........................
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM...............  MLC (LANT)...............       2        0.75       2       0.75  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM TOTAL...  .........................      26       18         33      20.25       7       2.25  Additional project
                                                                                                                               requirements--Phase I
                                                                                                                               eval.
                                                                   ==========================================================
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS...........  HEADQUARTERS.............      13        4.75      15       5.5        2       0.75  ..........................
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS...........  PRO NEW ORLEANS..........       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS...........  DISTRICT EIGHT...........       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS       .........................      15        6.75      17       7.5        2       0.75  Additional project
       TOTAL.                                                                                                                  requirements--deployments/
                                                                                                                               surveys.
                                                                   ==========================================================
SELECTED MAJOR ACQUISITIONS............  HEADQUARTERS.............       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
SELECTED MAJOR ACQUISITIONS............  AR&SC....................       2        0.25       2       0.25  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      SELECTED MAJOR ACQUISITIONS TOTAL  .........................       3        1.25       3       1.25  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ==========================================================
SHORE CORE PROJECT.....................  CIVIL ENGINEERING UNITS..       7        7          7       7     ......  .........  ..........................
SHORE CORE PROJECT.....................  FD & CC (LANT)...........      61       61         61      61     ......  .........  ..........................
SHORE CORE PROJECT.....................  FD & CC (PAC)............      37       37         37      37     ......  .........  ..........................
SHORE CORE PROJECT.....................  HEADQUARTERS.............      17       17         17      17     ......  .........  ..........................
SHORE CORE PROJECT.....................  MLC (LANT)...............       7        6.25       7       6.25  ......  .........  ..........................
SHORE CORE PROJECT.....................  MLC (PAC)................       6        5.5        6       5.5   ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      SHORE CORE PROJECT TOTAL.........  .........................     135      133.75     135     133.75  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ==========================================================
SIMULATOR ENHANCEMENT PROJECT..........  ATC MOBILE...............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL..............  C\2\ ENGINEERING CENTER..       2        2          2       2     ......  .........  ..........................
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL..............  COAST GUARD YARD.........       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL..............  HEADQUARTERS.............       3        2.25       3       2.25  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL TOTAL..  .........................       6        5.25       6       5.25  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ==========================================================
TRAFFIC COLLISION & AVOIDANCE..........  AR&SC....................  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
TRAFFIC COLLISION & AVOIDANCE..........  HEADQUARTERS.............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-17)........  ESD KETCHIKAN............       1  ..........       1  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-17)........  ISC KETCHIKAN............       2        1          2       1     ......  .........  ..........................
VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-17)........  TISCOM...................  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-17)    .........................       3        1          3       1     ......  .........  ..........................
       TOTAL.
                                                                   ==========================================================
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER).............  ENGINEERING LOG CMD......       4        4          4       4.25  ......       0.25  ..........................
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER).............  HEADQUARTERS.............      18       18         17      17         -1      -1     ..........................
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER).............  PRO MARINETTE............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER) TOTAL.  .........................      22       22         21      21.25      -1      -0.75  Change is -1.5 FTE to
                                                                                                                               balance increase in WLB
                                                                                                                               recompete for NO net
                                                                                                                               increase.
                                                                   ==========================================================
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL).............  HEADQUARTERS.............       2        2          2       2     ......  .........  ..........................
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL).............  PRO MARINETTE............      49       43.5       45      40.25      -4      -3.25  ..........................
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL).............  TRACEN PETALUMA..........       1        1          1       1     ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL) TOTAL.  .........................      52       46.5       48      43.25      -4      -3.25  Reduced project
                                                                                                                               requirements--last WLB to
                                                                                                                               be delivered fiscal year
                                                                                                                               2004.
                                                                   ==========================================================
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER)..............  ENGINEERING LOG CMD......       3        3          3       3     ......  .........  ..........................
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER)..............  HEADQUARTERS.............       6        5.5        3       4         -3      -1.5   ..........................
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER)..............  PRO MARINETTE............       2        2          2       2     ......  .........  ..........................
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER)..............  R&D CENTER...............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER) TOTAL..  .........................      11       10.5        8       9         -3      -1.5   Reduced project
                                                                                                                               requirements.
                                                                   ==========================================================
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)--RECOMPETE..  AR&SC....................       2        2          2       2     ......  .........  ..........................
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)--RECOMPETE..  ENGINEERING LOG CMD......  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)--RECOMPETE..  HEADQUARTERS.............  ......  ..........  ......  .........  ......  .........  ..........................
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)--RECOMPETE..  TISCOM...................       3        2.25       3       2.25  ......  .........  ..........................
                                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------
      WLB RECOMPETE TOTAL..............  PRO TBD AFTER AWARD......       5        4.25       5       4.25  ......  .........  Second WLB Contract award.
                                                                   ==========================================================
      TOTAL............................  .........................     716      650.5      742     660     ......  .........  ..........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: In an effort to maximize requested FTP/FTE, the current plan contains a total of 742 fiscal year 2001 billets/positions, 9.0 percent above the
  requested number of 704 and a total of 660 FTE. This plan reflects the fact that many of the billets are partial year FTE and assumes that (a) the
  historical lapse rate associated with additions/deletions will continue to some degree and that (b) any reduction necessary due to unanticipated
  increase in the fill rate can be realized by postponing fourth quarter adds.
NDRSMP, GLIB and Deepwater project requirements require maximum utilization of AC&I personnel funding.

                 FISCAL YEAR 2001 ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

    Question. What bridges is the Coast Guard proposing to fund with 
the fiscal year 2001 budget request and at what level of funding?
    Answer. The Coast Guard proposes to fund the below list of bridges 
in fiscal year 2001. Section 101(b) of public Law 104-324 (Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 1996) allows for the transfer of funds, by the 
Secretary of Transportation from the FHWA Discretionary Bridge account 
to the Coast Guard Bridge Alteration account for highway bridge 
alterations:

                          [Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Name of bridge                     Location          Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Lanier Highway................  Bridge Brunswick,              $1
                                        Georgia.
Limehouse Highway Bridge.............  John's Island, South            1
                                        Carolina.
Florida Avenue Railroad/Highway        New Orleans, Louisiana..        1
 Bridge.
Chelsea Street Bridge................  Boston, Massachusetts...        1
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad  Burlington, Iowa........        3
 Bridge.
Fort Madison Railroad Bridge.........  Fort Madison, Iowa......        2
Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railway     Divine, Illinois........        1
 Company Bridge.
CSX Transportation Company Bridge....  Hurricane, Alabama......        1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   OBSTRUCTIVE BRIDGES TO NAVIGATION

    Question. Please provide a list of all bridges that have been 
declared obstructions to navigation as well as their location, the 
estimated total cost of each bridge, and expenditures to date if 
appropriate.
    Answer:
    1. Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge located across the Upper 
Mississippi River at milepost 403.1 in Burlington, Iowa. Estimated 
total project cost is $32 million and expenditures to date are 
$777,363.00.
    2. Fort Madison Railroad Bridge located across the Upper 
Mississippi River at milepost 383.9 in Fort Madison, Iowa. Estimated 
total project cost is $40 million and expenditures to date are 
$206,518.00.
    3. Sidney Lanier Highway Bridge located across the Brunswick River 
at milepost 4.6 in Brunswick, Georgia. Estimated total project cost is 
$112 million and expenditures to date are $30,728,000.00.
    4. Florida Avenue Railroad/Highway Bridge across the Inner Harbor 
Navigation Canal at milepost 1.7 in New Orleans, Louisiana. Estimated 
total project cost is $43 million and expenditures to date are 
$1,513,455.00.
    5. Chelsea Street Bridge across the Chelsea Creek at milepost 1.2 
in Boston, Massachusetts. Estimated total project cost is $42 million 
and expenditures to date are $415,074.00.
    6. Limehouse Highway Bridge across the Stono River at milepost 
479.3 in Johns Island, South Carolina. Estimated total project cost is 
$33 million and expenditures to date are $2,536,368.00.
    7. Bordeaux Railroad Bridge across the Cumberland River at milepost 
185.2 in Bordeaux, Tennessee. Estimated total alteration project cost 
is $21 million. The Coast Guard decision to alter or remove this bridge 
is pending. No funds have been appropriated for this project.
    8. Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railway Company Bridge across the 
Illinois Waterway at milepost 270.6 in Devine, Illinois. Estimated 
total project cost is $25 million and expenditures to date are 
$4,000,000.
    9. Union Pacific Railroad Bridge across the Upper Mississippi River 
at milepost 518.0 in Clinton, Iowa. Estimated total project cost is 
$26.5 million. No funds have been appropriated for this project.
    10. Union Pacific Railroad Bridge across the Illinois Waterway at 
milepost 151.2 in Pekin, Iowa. Estimated total project cost is $23 
million. No funds have been appropriated for this project.
    11.Canadian Pacific Rail System Bridge across the Upper Mississippi 
River at milepost 534.9 in Sabula, Iowa. Estimated total project cost 
is $20 million. No funds have been appropriated for this project.
    12.Gateway Western Railway Company Bridge, across the Upper 
Mississippi River at milepost 282.1 in Louisiana, Missouri. Estimated 
total project cost is $21.5 million. No funds have been appropriated 
for this project.
    13.CSX Transportation Company Bridge across the Mobile River at 
milepost 13.6 in Hurricane, Alabama. Estimated total project cost is 
$27 million and expenditures to date are $2,000.00.
    14. Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge across the Upper Mississippi 
River at milepost 699.8 in LaCrosse, Wisconsin. Estimated total project 
cost is $29 million. No funds have been appropriated for this project.

                    FUNDING FOR OBSTRUCTIVE BRIDGES

    Question. The budget requests to fund these bridges from the 
Federal-Aid Highways program. Are all of the bridges eligible for 
funding under the Truman-Hobbs Act also eligible for funding under the 
Federal-Aid Highways program?
    Answer. No, only the highway bridges determined to be unreasonable 
obstructions to navigation under the Truman-Hobbs Act are eligible for 
funding from the Federal Aid Highways (FAH) program. Railroad bridges 
are not eligible under the FAH program.

                              RETIRED PAY

    Question. Is the retired pay appropriation based on an actuarially 
sound system?
    Answer. Yes. Annually, the Coast Guard retains the services of a 
certified actuary firm to estimate the size of the Coast Guard's 
liability for retirees. These estimates are used in the process of 
preparing the Coast Guard's Retired Pay Appropriation Request.

                            RESERVE TRAINING

    Question. What is the shortfall, if any, in the reserve training 
account for fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. As we are currently managing it, there is no shortfall in 
the Reserve Training account for fiscal year 2000.

                       SELECTIVE RESERVE STRENGTH

    Question. The budget justification indicates that the Coast Guard 
intends to reduce SELRES strength by 300 to 7,300. I have been 
informed, however, that the Selected Reserve strength is greater than 
8,000 personnel, which would require a reduction of more than 600 
personnel to meet the requested funding level. What accounts for this 
discrepancy?
    Answer. As directed in fiscal year 2000 report language, the Coast 
Guard has made every effort to maintain a Selected Reserve of 8,000 by 
adjusting the frequency of member drills. The Coast Guard has 
determined, however, that this policy is less than optimal in the long 
run and is subsequently adjusting the Selected Reserve to a level that 
can be fully trained and supported. Furthermore, additional active duty 
in fiscal year 2000 will relieve some of the Coast Guard's dependence 
on the Selected Reserve to conduct normal operations and missions.

                    COAST GUARD PERSONNEL REDUCTION

    Question. How does the Coast Guard propose reducing 600 people in 
one year and what is your schedule?
    Answer. The Coast Guard would reduce accessions and offer Reserve 
personnel voluntary separations. If further reductions are needed, the 
Coast Guard would pursue involuntary separations of personnel.

                            RESERVE FUNDING

    Question. What would the cost be to fully fund the reserve 
component at the present strength (about 8,000) at the optimal training 
level?
    Answer. The Coast Guard supports the President's Budget, which 
supports a Selected Reserve of 7,300. To adequately fund a selected 
reserve of 8,000 in fiscal year 2001, the Coast Guard Reserve Training 
(RT) Appropriation would require an appropriation of $79.952,000,000.

               OMB STUDY OF COAST GUARD SELECTIVE RESERVE

    Question. Does the Coast Guard still agree with the findings of the 
OMB directed study which concluded that a Selected Reserve of 12,300 is 
necessary?
    Answer. The 1997 Coast Guard Reserve Roles and Missions Study 
concluded that 12,300 Selected Reserve (SELRES) would be required under 
specific threat conditions. Under current treat conditions, the Coast 
Guard supports the President's Request for 7,300 SELRES in fiscal year 
2001.

                      FULL--TIME SUPPORT POSITIONS

    Question. The budget justification indicates a reduction of 5 
military full-time support billets and 2 civilian FTEs. What are the 
number of full-time support positions requested for this account and 
what functions do they perform?
    Answer. There are currently 494 Full Time Support positions funded 
by the Reserve Training Appropriation. Full Time Support personnel 
perform functions associated with the organization, administration, 
recruitment, instruction, maintenance, and supply support of the 
Reserve. Full Time Support billets are deployed where they can optimize 
and leverage Reserve Component readiness. Coast Guard reservists are 
largely integrated into active component commands, and perform 
virtually all Coast Guard functions side by side with their active duty 
counterparts. The operations-focused deployment of the Coast Guard 
Selected Reserve requires a similarly broad-focused deployment of Full 
Time Support structure. These fulltime billets enable Reserve Component 
readiness in the following areas:
  --Attaining and Maintaining Reserve Component Strength (recruiting, 
        medical, personnel and systems support);
  --Maximizing the Reserve Component Training (HQ and Training 
        Commands);
  --Providing Augmentation Training to Maximize Mobilization Readiness 
        (organic training and administrative support for deployable 
        units, field units/activities); and
  --Managing Reserve Force Plans, Policy, Organization and Employment/
        Deployment (HQ policy/programs and regional force optimization 
        staffs).
   research, development, test, and evaluation appropriation increase
    Question. The Coast Guard is requesting an approximately 12 percent 
increase for the RDT&E appropriation. Why is this increase necessary?
    Answer. COLA increases account for $505,000 (2.6 percent) of the 
$2,327,000 increase over the fiscal year 2000 request to fund increases 
in pay and support service costs. The rest of the increase is needed to 
fund new and current research and development (R&D) project work.
    The fiscal year 2001 R&D project portfolio was developed to make 
measurable improvements toward meeting Government and Performance 
Results Act (GPRA) goals. The increase in project work is needed to 
pursue three technologies having the potential to significantly improve 
progress towards Coast Guard performance goals. Three new projects show 
great potential to improve performance in the Coast Guard's GPRA goals 
for safety and drug law enforcement.
    A ``risk management'' project will provide the Coast Guard with 
tools needed to analyze complex, interwoven systems most likely to 
cause accidents and injuries. A ``fatigue countermeasures'' project 
builds on successes to help reduce accidents in hazardous commercial 
operations such as fishing and towing. New work in ``new sensor 
technology'' includes investigation of a variety of airborne, surface, 
and sub-surface sensor systems that provide Coast Guard commanders with 
real time information about all threats in their area of 
responsibility.

             SEARCH AND RESCUE FUNDING RESEARCH ALLOCATION

    Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity how the 
Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $1.855 million requested for 
research related to search and rescue. How does this compare to funding 
provided for fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. The Program & Finance Digest (page RDTE-2) provides the 
Coast Guard's best estimate of that portion of all research proposed 
for fiscal year 2001 that will contribute to advancing the state of a 
given mission area. The Program & Finance Digest displays the seven 
traditional Coast Guard Mission Areas, which do not correlate directly 
with entries under ``Program by activities'' on the Line Item Summary 
exhibit (p. RDTE-8). The Program Digest is a part of every 
appropriation's budget presentation to provide a consistent view, based 
on seven traditional Coast Guard missions areas, between very 
dissimilar appropriations.
    The amount requested in fiscal year 2001 for search and rescue is 
$457,000, which appears on the Line Item Summary exhibit (p. RDTE-8) 
and on Budget Sheet G1: IMPROVE SEARCH AND RESCUE CAPABILITY (p. RDTE-
9). The Budget Sheet explains how the funds requested in fiscal year 
2001 will be used. The $457,000 requested is for Search Planning Tool 
Methodology research and direct project personnel costs. By comparison, 
the fiscal year 2000 request contained $1.162 million for research 
related to search and rescue.

             AIDS TO NAVIGATION RESEARCH FUNDING ALLOCATION

    Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity how the 
Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $2.577 million requested for 
research related to aids to navigation. How does this compare to the 
allocation of funding provided for fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. The Program & Finance Digest (p. RDTE-2) provides the Coast 
Guard's best estimate of that portion of all research proposed for 
fiscal year 2001 that will contribute to advancing the state of a given 
mission area. The Program & Finance Digest displays the seven 
traditional Coast Guard Mission Areas, which do not correlate directly 
with entries under ``Program by activities'' on the Line Item Summary 
exhibit (p. RDTE-8). The Program Digest is a part of every 
appropriation's budget presentation to provide a consistent view, based 
on seven traditional Coast Guard missions areas, between very 
dissimilar appropriations.
    The amount requested in fiscal year 2001 for aids to navigation is 
$1.196 million, which appears on the Line Item Summary exhibit and on 
Budget Sheet G2: WATERWAYS SAFETY AND MANAGEMENT AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION 
(p. RDTE-10). The Budget Sheet explains how the funds requested in 
fiscal year 2001 will be used. The $1,196,000 requested is for research 
in Advanced Vessel Traffic Systems, International Communications and 
Navigation Standards, Navigational Aids Mix System Analysis, and for 
direct project personnel costs. By comparison, the fiscal year 2000 
request contained $725,000 for research related to waterways management 
and safety and aids to navigation.

               MARINE SAFETY RESEARCH FUNDING ALLOCATION

    Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity how the 
Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $7.427 million requested for 
research related to marine safety. How does this compare to the 
allocation of funding provided for fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. The Program & Finance Digest provides the Coast Guard's 
best estimate of that portion of all research proposed for fiscal year 
2001 that will contribute to advancing the state of a given mission 
area. The Program & Finance Digest displays the seven traditional Coast 
Guard Mission Areas, which do not correlate directly with entries under 
``Program by activities'' on the Line Item Summary exhibit (p. RDTE-8). 
The Program Digest is a part of every appropriation's budget 
presentation to provide a consistent view, based on seven traditional 
Coast Guard missions areas, between very dissimilar appropriations.
    The amount requested in fiscal year 2001 for marine safety is 
$5.448 million, which appears on the Line Item Summary exhibit (p. 
RDTE-8) and on Budget Sheet G3: MARINE SAFETY (p. RDTE-11). The Budget 
Sheet explains how the funds requested in fiscal year 2001 will be 
used. The $5.448 million requested is for research in Risk-based 
Planning and Management, Human Error and Human Performance, Fire Safety 
for Commercial Vessels, and for direct project personnel costs. By 
comparison, the fiscal year 2000 request contained $3.108 million for 
research related to marine safety.

      MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RESEARCH FUNDING ALLOCATION

    Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity how the 
Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $2.87 million requested for 
research related to marine environmental protection. How does this 
compare to the allocation of funding provided for fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. The Program & Finance Digest provides the Coast Guard's 
best estimate of that portion of all research proposed for fiscal year 
2001 that will contribute to advancing the state of a given mission 
area. The Program & Finance Digest displays the seven traditional Coast 
Guard Mission Areas, which do not correlate directly with entries under 
``Program by activities'' on the Line Item Summary exhibit (p. RDTE-8). 
The Program Digest is a part of every appropriation's budget 
presentation to provide a consistent view, based on seven traditional 
Coast Guard missions areas, between very dissimilar appropriations.
    The amount requested for fiscal year 2001 for marine environmental 
protection is $1.142 million, which appears on the Line Item Summary 
exhibit (p. RDTE-8) and on Budget Sheet G5: MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL 
PROTECTION (p. RDTE-13). The Budget Sheet explains how the funds 
requested in fiscal year 2001 will be used. The $1,142,000 requested is 
for research in Spill Response Planning, Management and Training, 
Aquatic Nuisance Species Control, and for direct project personnel 
costs. By comparison, the fiscal year 2000 request contained $2,465,000 
for research related to marine environmental protection.

      ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS AND TREATIES RESEARCH FUNDING ALLOCATION

    Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity how the 
Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $5.80 million requested for 
research related to enforcement of laws and treaties. How does this 
compare to the allocation of funding provided for fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. The Program & Finance Digest provides the Coast Guard's 
best estimate of that portion of all research proposed for fiscal year 
2001 that will contribute to advancing the state of a given mission 
area. The Program & Finance Digest displays the seven traditional Coast 
Guard Mission Areas, which do not correlate directly with entries under 
``Program by activities'' on the Line Item Summary exhibit (p. RDTE-8). 
The Program Digest is a part of every appropriation's budget 
presentation to provide a consistent view, based on seven traditional 
Coast Guard missions areas, between very dissimilar appropriations.
    The amount requested for fiscal year 2001 for enforcement of laws 
and treaties is $4,422,000, which appears on the Line Item Summary 
exhibit (p. RDTE-8) and on Budget Sheet G6: COMPREHENSIVE LAW 
ENFORCEMENT (p. RDTE-15). The Budget Sheet explains how the funds 
requested in fiscal year 2001 will be used. The $4,422,000 requested is 
for research in Improved Surveillance Capability, Improved Vessel 
Search Capability, Non-lethal Vessel Disabling Technologies, and for 
direct project personnel costs. By comparison, the fiscal year 2000 
request contained $3,826,000 for research related to enforcement of 
laws and treaties.

               ICE OPERATIONS RESEARCH FUNDING ALLOCATION

    Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity how the 
Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $406,000 requested for research 
related to ice operations. How does this compare to the allocation of 
funding provided for fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. The Program & Finance Digest provides the Coast Guard's 
best estimate of that portion of all research proposed for fiscal year 
2001 that will contribute to advancing the state of a given mission 
area. The Program & Finance Digest displays the seven traditional Coast 
Guard Mission Areas, which do not correlate directly with entries under 
``Program by activities'' on the Line Item Summary exhibit (p. RDTE-8). 
The Program Digest is a part of every appropriation's budget 
presentation to provide a consistent view, based on seven traditional 
Coast Guard missions areas, between very dissimilar appropriations.
    There are no funds requested in fiscal year 2001 for research in 
this specific area, nor were any requested for fiscal year 2000.

             DEFENSE READINESS RESEARCH FUNDING ALLOCATION

    Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity how the 
Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $381,000 requested for research 
related to defense readiness. How does this compare to the allocation 
of funding provided for fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. The Program & Finance Digest provides the Coast Guard's 
best estimate of that portion of all research proposed for fiscal year 
2001 that will contribute to advancing the state of a given mission 
area. The Program & Finance Digest displays the seven traditional Coast 
Guard Mission Areas, which do not correlate directly with entries under 
``Program by activities'' on the Line Item Summary exhibit (p. RDTE-8). 
The Program Digest is a part of every appropriation's budget 
presentation to provide a consistent view, based on seven traditional 
Coast Guard missions areas, between very dissimilar appropriations.
    There are no funds requested in fiscal year 2001 for research in 
this specific area, nor were any requested for fiscal year 2000.

  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPEMNT PERSONNEL, PROGRAM SUPPORT AND OPERATIONS 
                               BREAKDOWN

    Question. Please break down in further detail the line, ``R&D 
Personnel, Program Support & Operations'' on page RDTE-8 of the budget 
justification.
    Answer. This line item is comprised of:

Administration/Support Personnel & Related Costs..............$3,049,000
Support and Operations........................................ 1,214,000
Fire and Safety Test Detachment, Mobile, AL Operations and 
    Mainten- 
    ance......................................................    20,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total................................................... 4,283,000

          NATIONAL RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY PROGRAM FUNDING

    Question. The TEA-21 Act made the appropriation for boat safety 
mandatory spending and set the level of funding for this important 
activity for fiscal year 2001 at $64 million, which is the same amount 
as was provided for fiscal year 2000. Is this level of funding adequate 
to maintain a national recreational boating safety program or is there 
a shortfall as some have claimed? If there is a shortfall, what is the 
amount?
    Answer. The minimum funding level for State RBS programs was set in 
TEA-21 at $59 million per year for fiscal years 1999 through 2003. An 
additional $5 million for the Coast Guard's national coordination 
activities is also a component of the TEA-21 formula. This funding is 
provided through a transfer from the Sport Fish Restoration Account's 
mandatory appropriation when there is no discretionary funding 
provided. TEA-21 does not adjust the mandatory funding level to account 
for inflation or for growth in recreational boating. This level was 
adequate for the national recreational boating safety program in fiscal 
year 2000.
                                 ______
                                 

           Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                    COAST GUARD YARD--CORE FACILITY

    Question. I'd like to raise the issue of the Curtis Bay Coast Guard 
Yard with Vice Admiral Card. As you know, the Coast Guard Yard has 
played a vital role in ensuring the readiness of the Coast Guard fleet 
through the construction, repair, and renovation of both vessels and 
aids to navigation peculiar to the Coast Guard.
    The Yard provides essential capabilities that are simply not 
available in commercial shipyards. Those capabilities include the 
Yard's instant response for emergency and non-emergency work, special 
ordnance and electronic repair expertise, instant ability to obligate 
funds without pre- and post-contract requirements and delays, and no-
risk performance guarantees. Without the help of the Yard, the Coast 
Guard would be unable to maintain its fleet and therefore unable to 
meet its mission of saving lives.
    Do you consider the Curtis Bay Coast Guard Yard to be a Core 
Logistics Facility?
    Answer. Yes. In response to requirements outlined by the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act of 1988, the Secretary of Transportation 
provided a list of ``essential logistics'' activities. The Coast Guard 
Yard is on that list. The Yard remains an essential component to meet 
Coast Guard support requirements for our fleet.

                   COAST GUARD YARD POLICY STATEMENT

    Question. If so, will you state that the Curtis Bay Coast Guard 
Yard is a Core Logistics Facility in the policy statement that is 
currently being developed by Headquarters?
    Answer. Yes, the Coast Guard will reaffirm the essential nature of 
the Yard in our new policy statement. Over the past 100 years, the Yard 
has adapted to significant changes and challenges the Coast Guard has 
faced. The Yard's flexibility is a key component of its value to the 
Coast Guard. The Coast Guard continues to evaluate how the Yard can 
best meet the needs of the fleet and also lend its expertise to other 
government agencies. The Coast Guard's assessment in this regard is a 
continuous process and includes accounting for changes in its fleet 
size and opportunities for new business.

                      REFURBISHING USCGC MACKINAW

    Question. Also, is the Coast Guard giving serious consideration to 
refurbishing the Great Lakes Icebreaker at the Curtis Bay Coast Guard 
Yard?
    Answer. The Coast Guard intends to replace (not refurbish) Coast 
Guard Cutter MACKINAW with a new construction multipurpose icebreaker.
    The Coast Guard has determined that a competitive procurement is 
the most appropriate strategy to achieve performance, cost, and 
schedule objectives. Market surveys conducted by the Coast Guard 
reflect significant commercial interest in this acquisition.

             USCGC MACKINAW REFURBISHMENT DECISION TIMELINE

    Question. When will the Coast Guard decide where the Great Lakes 
Icebreaker will be refurbished?
    Answer. The Coast Guard intends to replace (not refurbish) Coast 
Guard Cutter MACKINAW with a new construction multipurpose icebreaker. 
The Coast Guard intends to award a commercial contract to design and 
build the Great Lakes Icebreaker during the third quarter of fiscal 
year 2001.

                             AIR-21 IMPACT

    Question. Admiral Card, as you know, the Senate and the House 
currently are conferencing on the so-called AIR-21, the FAA 
reauthorization bill. One of the areas that remains unresolved is the 
issue of budgetary treatment for aviation programs. The House has 
proposed to create a firewall that would guarantee both trust funds 
revenues as well as general tax revenues for aviation programs. What 
impact would the House's budgetary treatment proposal have on Coast 
Guard safety programs?
    Answer. AIR-21 mandates large increases for FAA capital spending 
under the budget caps, making it more difficult to fund other 
discretionary programs, including the Coast Guard. Nevertheless, safety 
programs are a core mission which we will attempt to protect and we 
will continue to seek your support for the funding levels for the Coast 
Guard requested in the President's Budget.
                                 ______
                                 

      Questions Submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
                             Administration

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                        NHTSA MAJOR CONTRACTORS

    Question. Please provide a list of NHTSA's major contractors, what 
projects they are working on, and the cost of each contract.
    Answer. A list of NHTSA's major contractors' follows.

        Contractor                                                Amount
TRW, San Diego, CA 92198: DTNH22-94-C-07125--National 
    Advanced Driving Simulator..........................     $12,440,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
General Motors Corporation, Warren, MI 48090: DTNH22-99-
    H-07019--Automotive Collision Avoidance System 
    (ACAS) Field Operational Test.......................       8,374,013
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
CALSPAN Corporation, Buffalo, NY 14225:
    DTNH22-93-C-07024--Intersection Collision Avoidance 
      Using IVHS Countermeasures........................         249,998
    DTNH22-93-C-07034--Operation of Zone Center #1 for 
      the NASS..........................................       3,343,463
    DTNH22-94-D-07058--Establishment of Special Crash 
      Investigative Teams...............................         388,948
    DTNH22-95-D-11000--Multiple FMVSS Compliance Testing          36,800
    DTNH22-96-D-02010--Composite Crash Testing for New 
      Car Assessment Program (NCAP).....................         292,034
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................       4,311,243
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
KLD Associates, Inc., Huntington Station, NY 11746:
    DTNH22-93-C-07035--Operation of Zone Center #2 for 
      the NASS..........................................       3,150,000
    DTNH22-95-C-02029--Analysis of Insurer Reports 
      Rec'd. Pursuant to Chapter 331 of 49 U.S.C........          43,618
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................       3,193,618
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Signal Corporation, Fairfax, VA 22031: DTNH22-96-D-
    01049--Information Technology Support...............       3,118,132
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Information Systems & SVCS., Inc., Silver Spring, MD 
    20910:
    DTNH22-95-D-07159--Base Level On-Going Technical 
      Support & Indefinite Technical Services...........       2,246,848
    DTNH22-97-C-07000--ADP Support for NHTSA Data Cen- 
      ter...............................................         763,132
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................       3,009,980
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Information Management Consultants, McLean, VA 22102: 
    DTNH22-96-D-03100--OIRM Information Technology 
    Technical Support...................................       2,540,566
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
National Safety Council, Itasca, IL 60611:
    DTNH22-93-Y-05240--National Safety Belt Coalition...         551,470
    DTNH22-94-Z-05063--Traffic Safety Rap Contest.......          43,935
    DTNH22-96-H-05243--Technical Assistance for Occupant 
      Protection........................................         645,000
    DTNH22-97-H-05015--Third Annual ``Strides For 
      Safety'' Campaign.................................          79,106
    DTNH22-97-H-05278--Research, Evaluation and Traffic 
      Records Initiatives and Support...................         945,565
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................       2,265,076
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Information Dynamics, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20024: 
    DTNH22-97D-07008--ADP Support for FARS and NCSA LAN 
    Opera- 
    tions...............................................       1,304,465
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Capital Consulting Corporation, Fairfax, VA 22031:
    DTNH22-93-D-07192--Computerized Quality Assurance, 
      QC & Stat. Support Services.......................          67,974
    DTNH22-94-C-01043--Hotline Contact Representatives/
      Transcribers......................................         720,000
    DTNH22-99-D-07009--Computerized Quality Assurance, 
      Quality Control, And Statistical Support Services.         497,601
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................       1,285,575
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
University of Michigan Transportation Research 
    Institute, Ann Arbor, MI 48109:
    DTNH22-94-Y-47016--Foster the Development, 
      Evaluation, and Deployment Of Collision Avoidance 
      Systems...........................................         296,000
    DTNH22-97-D-25018--Evaluations Support of Traffic 
      Safety Programs...................................          50,000
    DTNH22-99-H-07003--System for Assessing the Vehicle 
      Motion Environment................................         788,103
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................       1,134,103
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Enterprise III Systems, Reston, VA 22091: DTNH22-97-C-
    03004--Imaging Network Support &Scanning Services...       1,133,340
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL 35294: DTNH22-99G-
    05139--Model State Head Injury Program..............       1,000,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Louisiana Highway Safety Commission, Baton Rouge, LA 
    70806: DTNH22-99-H-15132--Targets of Opportunity: 
    State Demo. & Eval. Pgm. To Reduce Alcohol Related 
    Crashes.............................................       1,000,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Financial Technologies Inc., Chantilly, VA 22021: 
    DTNH22-98-C-05000--Teleprocessing for the National 
    DriverRegister (NDR)................................         992,968
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Tennessee Governor's Office of Highway Safety, 
    Nashville, TN 37243:
    DTNH22-99-H-07159--Crash Outcome Data Evaluation 
      System............................................         300,037
    DTNH22-99-H-25132--Targets of Opportunity: State 
      Demo. & Eval. Pgm. To Reduce alcohol Related 
      Crashes...........................................         600,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................         900,037
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22906: 
    DTNH22-93-Y-07028--Biomechanical Response of Human 
    Surrogates to Im- 
    pact................................................         900,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Internat'l Assoc. of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, VA 
    22314: DTNH22-96-G-05235--IACP Traffic Enforcement 
    Initiatives.........................................         879,810
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Global Exchange, Inc., Bethesda, MD 20814:
    DTNH22-95-D-05152--Public Information Technical 
      Assistance........................................         479,293
    DTNH22-97-F-05125--Roundtable on EMS & Managed
      Care..............................................          29,956
    DTNH22-98F-05335--Aggressive Driving Summit 
      Logistics.........................................         140,000
    DTOS59-95-C-00408--IQC for Conference/Media Support.         229,923
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................         879,172
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Conwal, Inc., McLean, VA 22101:
    DTNH22-98-C-05007--Operation of, and Information 
      Retrieval Support for, the Traffic Safety Pgm. 
      Resource Cen- 
      ter...............................................         693,601
    DTNH22-99-P-09019--TSD: Database Documentation of 
      Innovative State & Community Highway Safety 
      Projects..........................................          85,000
    DTNH22-99-P-09036--TSD: Database Documentation of 
      Innovative State & Community Highway Safety 
      Projects..........................................          21,996
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................         800,597

                          NHTSA REPROGRAMMINGS

    Question. Please provide the amount and description of all 
reprogrammings or transfers of funds that occurred during fiscal year 
1999 and thus far in fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA received Congressional approval 
to reprogram $2.35 million from the Research and Analysis and the 
Highway Safety programs for the National Advanced Driving Simulator. 
The reprogrammed funds were used to fund unanticipated cost overruns. 
Without the reprogrammed funds, the program would have been delayed or 
work would have stopped, causing greater delays to the program. In 
fiscal year 2000, there have been no reprogramming actions to date. Any 
funding shifts have been minor and represent minor but necessary fine-
tuning which typically takes place when the agency implements its 
budget.

                          UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

    Question. Please provide a list of any unobligated funds and 
carryover funds by subaccounts from previous fiscal years.
    Answer. In the Operations and Research appropriation, an 
unobligated balance of $8.669 million was brought forward and made 
available for use in fiscal year 2000. This represents 5.4 percent of 
the total funds available for spending in fiscal year 1999. 
Approximately 30 percent of the carryover funding ($2.617 million) is 
earmarked for the ITS program. The following is a listing of 
unobligated balances brought forward:

                       [In thousands of dollars]

Salaries and Benefits.............................................   615
Headquarters and Regional Operating Expenses......................   291
Contract Program:
    Safety Performance............................................   160
    Safety Assurance..............................................   409
    Highway Safety................................................   261
    State and Community Services..................................    20
    Research and Development...................................... 6,102
    General Administration........................................    53
Miscellaneous.....................................................   758
                                                                  ______
      Total....................................................... 8,669

    Salaries and Benefits.--Carryover resulted from delays in hiring 
and will be applied to the fiscal year 2000 personnel costs.
    Headquarters and Regional Operating Expenses.--This amount 
comprises carryover from both field and headquarters operating expenses 
and was the result of underruns in telecommunications costs.
    Safety Performance.--Carryover is associated with contract 
underruns and will be applied to the Vehicle Safety and Consumer 
Standards Program.
    Safety Assurance.--Carryover is associated with underruns in 
compliance testing. Highway Safety--Carryover is associated with 
underruns in various programs.
    State and Community Services.--Carryover is associated with 
underruns in various programs and will be applied to the Buckle Up 
America program.
    Research and Development.--$2.617 million is earmarked for the ITS 
program and resulted from delays in awards of ITS procurements; the 
remaining $3.485 million resulted from delays in contract awards and 
testing delays in the areas of Motor Vehicle Research ($1.185 million), 
Biomechanics ($.6 million), Crash Avoidance ($.3 million), and Heavy 
Vehicles ($.4 million). In addition, carryover resulted from delays in 
contract awards in NCSA ($.6 million), PNGV ($.4 million). Carryover 
will be applied to complete the awards and testing originally planned.
    General Administration.--Carryover is associated with underruns in 
various programs.
    Miscellaneous.--Unallocated deobligations from prior years totaled 
$758,000. Funds will be used to cover shortfalls in various operating 
expenses and unanticipated intermodal reimbursable agreements.

                           NHTSA REGULATIONS

    Question. Please prepare a list of all final rulemakings that have 
been issued since last year.
    Answer. Below is a list of all final rulemakings that have been 
issued since April 1, 1999 through April 5, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Standard Part No.                       Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
105...............................  In response to a petition for
                                     rulemaking, the agency corrected
                                     Table II--Stopping Distances, which
                                     contains the applicable stopping
                                     distance requirements that was
                                     published in the final rule on
                                     March 10, 1995 (9/7/99--64 FR
                                     48562).
105;135...........................  In response to petitions for
                                     reconsideration, the agency is
                                     allowing regenerative braking for
                                     electric vehicles (EV) to
                                     facilitate new technology in the
                                     braking system of an EV (2/9/00--65
                                     FR 6327).
108...............................  In response to a petition for
                                     rulemaking, the agency is allowing
                                     manufacturers of motor vehicles
                                     with headlamp concealment devices
                                     to choose between complying with
                                     the existing provisions, or with a
                                     new provision incorporating by
                                     reference the United Nations
                                     Economic Commission for Europe's
                                     standard (ECE standard) on those
                                     devices (8/23/99--64 FR 45895).
201...............................  In response to petitions for
                                     reconsideration, the agency deletes
                                     a humidity range specification for
                                     calibration of the test device used
                                     in the car-to-pole test (12/14/99--
                                     64 FR 69665).
209...............................  Deletes the provision requiring that
                                     the lap belt portion of a safety
                                     belt system be designed to remain
                                     on the pelvis under all conditions
                                     (5/19/99--64 FR 27203).
216...............................  In response to petitions for
                                     rulemaking, revises the test
                                     procedure to make it more suitable
                                     to testing vehicles with rounded
                                     roofs or vehicles with raised roofs
                                     (4/27/99--64 FR 22567).
216...............................  Partial response to petitions for
                                     reconsideration, the agency extends
                                     the effective date of the April
                                     1999 final rule to 10/25/00 to make
                                     the roof crush resistance more
                                     suitable to testing motor vehicle
                                     with raised roofs (1/31/00--65 FR
                                     4579).
221...............................  Partial response to petitions for
                                     reconsideration, the agency extends
                                     the effective date of the November
                                     final rule to 5/5/01 to reduce
                                     deaths and injuries resulting from
                                     the structural collapse of school
                                     bus bodies during crashes (3/6/00--
                                     65 FR 11751).
225...............................  In response to several petitions for
                                     reconsideration, the agency is
                                     allowing vehicle manufacturers to
                                     meet alternative requirements
                                     during an initial several year
                                     period (8/31/99--64 FR 47566).
531...............................  Provides a procedure by which a
                                     vehicle manufacturer may notify the
                                     agency of the model year (MY) in
                                     which it elects to consider
                                     production of components and
                                     automobile assembly in Mexico as
                                     domestic value added (5/19/99--64--
                                     27201).
533...............................  Establishes the average fuel economy
                                     standard for light trucks
                                     manufactured in model year (MY)
                                     2001 which is identical to the
                                     standard for MY 2000, 20.7 mpg (4/7/
                                     99--64 FR 16860).
533...............................  Establishes the average fuel economy
                                     standard for light trucks
                                     manufactured in model year (MY)
                                     2002 which is identical to the
                                     standard for MY 2001, 20.7 mpg (4/5/
                                     00--65 FR 17776).
572...............................  Establishes design and performance
                                     specifications for a more advanced
                                     6-year-old Hybrid III test dummy (1/
                                     13/00--65 FR 2059).
572...............................  Establishes design and performance
                                     specifications for a more advanced
                                     fifth percentile Hybrid III test
                                     dummy (3/1/00--65 FR 10961).
572...............................  Establishes design and performance
                                     specifications for a more advanced
                                     3-year-old Hybrid III test dummy (3/
                                     22/00--65 FR 15254).
572...............................  Establishes design and performance
                                     specifications for a more advanced
                                     12-month-old Hybrid III test dummy
                                     (CRABI) (3/31/00--65 FR 17180).
574...............................  In response to a petition for
                                     rulemaking, the agency amended the
                                     standard to allow the date to be
                                     expressed in 4 digits instead of 3
                                     and reduced the minimum size of the
                                     digits from 6 millimeters (mm) (\3/
                                     4\ inch) to 4 mm (\5/32\ inch) (7/8/
                                     99--64 FR 36807).
575...............................  In response to a petition for
                                     rulemaking, rescinds the
                                     requirement that passenger car
                                     manufacturers provide general
                                     uniform tire quality grading
                                     standard (UTQGS) information to
                                     purchasers and potential purchasers
                                     at the point of sale of new
                                     vehicles requiring instead that
                                     such information be included in
                                     owner's manual (5/24/99--64 FR
                                     27921).
575...............................  In response to a petition for
                                     reconsideration, the agency is
                                     allowing manufacturers: to combine
                                     the rollover and air bag alert
                                     labels in one label; to comply with
                                     either of two options for
                                     installing both labels on the same
                                     side of the sun visor until
                                     September 1, 2000; and voluntarily
                                     install on the same side of the sun
                                     visor as the air bag label,
                                     rollover warning labels in vehicles
                                     for which they are not required (8/
                                     30/99--64 FR 47119).
575...............................  In response to petitions for
                                     reconsideration, the agency is
                                     staying with the requirement for
                                     the inclusion of UTQGS information
                                     in the owner's manual for one year
                                     until 9/1/00 (9/27/99--64 FR
                                     51920).
583...............................  The agency extended the effective
                                     date of the Automobile Parts
                                     Content Labeling requirements to
                                     June 1, 2000, while permitting
                                     optional early compliance (7/28/99--
                                     64 FR 40777).
587...............................  Adds specifications for an offset
                                     deformable barrier used in offset
                                     deformable barrier test to evaluate
                                     the crashworthiness of vehicles (65
                                     FR 17196).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What is the number and nature of the major notices of 
proposed rulemaking that NHTSA has published in the Federal Register in 
the last 12 months.
    Answer. Below is a list of the six notices of proposed rulemaking 
published in the Federal Register from April 1, 1999 through April 5, 
2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Standard Part No.                       Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
121...............................  The agency is proposing that the
                                     braking-in-a-curve dynamic
                                     performance test requirement apply
                                     to single-unit trucks and buses
                                     that are required to be equipped
                                     with antilock braking systems (12/
                                     21/99--64 FR 71377).
122...............................  In response to a petition for
                                     rulemaking, the agency is proposing
                                     to reduce the minimum hand lever
                                     force from five pounds (presently
                                     specified to 2.3 pounds) and the
                                     minimum foot pedal force from 10
                                     pounds (presently specified to 5.6
                                     pounds) in the fade recovery and
                                     water recovery tests (11/17/99--64
                                     FR 62622).
201...............................  The agency is proposing to modify
                                     the minimum distance between
                                     certain target points on vertical
                                     surfaces inside a vehicle (4/5/00--
                                     65 FR 17842).
205...............................  In response to a petition for
                                     rulemaking, the agency is proposing
                                     to update the standard on glazing
                                     materials so that it incorporates
                                     by reference the 1996 version of
                                     the industry standard on motor
                                     vehicle glazing (8/4/99--64 FR
                                     42330).
401...............................  The agency is proposing the
                                     requirement that all new vehicles
                                     with trunks come equipped with a
                                     release latch inside the trunk
                                     compartment beginning January 1,
                                     2001 (12/17/9--64 FR 70672).
575...............................  In response to a petition for
                                     rulemaking, the agency is proposing
                                     to amend our consumer information
                                     regulations to require seat belt
                                     positioners to be labeled as not
                                     suitable for children for a certain
                                     age, e.g., under 6-year-old, or of
                                     a certain height (8/13/99--64 FR
                                     44164).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    tea-21 authorized funding level
    Question. Under TEA-21, as amended, what is the authorized level of 
funding for NHTSA for fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. TEA-21 authorized a total of $402.376 million for NHTSA. 
The authorization is as follows:

                         [Dollars in millions]

Motor Vehicle Safety Act......................................   $98.314
Motor Vehicle Information & Cost Savings Act..................     9.562
National Driver Register......................................     2.000
Highway Safety R&D (Section 403)..............................    72.000
Section 2003(b) Child Passenger Protection....................     7.500
Highway Traffic Safety Grants.................................   213.000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total Authorized........................................   402.376

    Question. Does NHTSA's budget request for fiscal year 2001 comport 
with the authorization act? If not, please submit to the Committee a 
revised budget request that matches the authorized level of funding.
    Answer. NHTSA's budget request exceeds the authorized levels by 
$97.1 million. However, NHTSA has asked for an increase of $35 million 
to the authorizing legislation. NHTSA does not propose to revise its 
budget request and encourages the Congress to support the full amount 
requested for NHTSA in the Presidents Budget.

                    SAFETY STANDARDS SUPPORT FUNDING

    Question. Please break out how the funds for safety standards 
support are expected to be used by rulemaking during fiscal year 2001 
and compare activities and funding amounts to the fiscal year 2000 
spending plan. Which rulemakings require additional analysis?
    Answer. The following chart compares safety standards support 
activities and funding amounts between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 
2000.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year
    Safety standards support activity      2000 enacted    2001 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crashworthiness.........................        $293,000        $671,000
    Fiscal year 2000--Funding is
     targeted for testing or studies
     relating to frontal offset and side
     impact crashes, improved dummy
     necks, head restraints, advanced
     air bags, door lock retention, and
     motorcycle helmet strength.
    Fiscal year 2001--Funding will be
     used on projects relating to
     frontal offset crash safety,
     improved child seats, child
     protection in school buses crashes,
     side impact protection, upgraded
     roof-crush protection and fuel
     system integrity.
Crash Avoidance.........................         315,000       1,037,000
    Fiscal year 2000--Funding is
     targeted for testing or studies
     relating to tire safety, motorcycle
     braking, and collecting data on
     adaptive equipment for the disabled
     population.
    Fiscal year 2001--Projects will
     cover safety issues such as light
     vehicle and heavy truck braking,
     tire safety, light vehicle rollover
     propensity, trunk entrapment and
     continued work relating to adaptive
     equipment for the disabled
     population.
Consumer Information Program............         100,000               0
    Fiscal year 2000 funds allocated to
     consumer information activities.
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................         708,000       1,708,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the activities listed for fiscal year 2001, the significant 
rulemaking projects carried over from fiscal year 2000 which require 
additional analysis and safety standards support funding include 
frontal offset and side impact protection, and light vehicle braking. 
Although not in support of a specific rulemaking, carryover funding is 
required to continue work begun on a non rulemaking project to collect 
data on adaptive vehicles for the disabled population.

                   SAFETY PERFORMANCE PROGRAM FUNDING

    Question. NHTSA is proposing to increase funding for the Safety 
Performance Standards program by more than 100 percent. Why is this 
large increase necessary?
    Answer. This large increase for the Safety Performance Standards 
program is necessary to accomplish goals in the following areas.

Safety Standards Support
    Funding will be used to support the following activities:
  --Based on the outcome of the current school bus occupant protection 
        research, develop test procedure to support rulemaking action 
        to amend the school bus occupant protection safety standard;
  --Continue the agency's efforts to improve child seat safety; and 
        develop, through testing and evaluation, a revised FMVSS No. 
        213 test procedure, specifically with respect to design and 
        development of a bench seat fixture that is more representative 
        of the seat geometry for the current vehicle fleet and other 
        associated concerns;
  --Continue agency information collection on vehicles that have been 
        adapted for the disabled population. Very little centralized 
        data exists on the number and types of vehicle modifications 
        and adaptive equipment installations done to accommodate 
        persons with disabilities. This lack of data hampers NHTSA's 
        efforts to determine the size of the modified vehicle fleet, 
        whether vehicles are made safely, and whether the consumers of 
        the equipment and modifications are experiencing any particular 
        problems, particularly those that might lead to crashes or 
        injuries;
  --Assess the capability of Electronically Controlled Braking Systems 
        (ECBS) to improve braking performance for heavy trucks and 
        buses. As part of this effort, the agency plans to conduct test 
        track evaluations and operational (fleet test) evaluations on 
        ECBS-equipped vehicles;
  --Continue development of test procedures for offset frontal testing;
  --Develop through testing and evaluation, a more appropriate test for 
        bead unseating of radial tires. This harmonization activity is 
        in response to a petition from six tire manufacturers. The 
        petition requested the agency to begin rulemaking to amend its 
        federal motor vehicle safety standard for passenger car tires 
        (FMVSS No. 109) to conform to a proposed new Global Tire 
        Standard 2000 (GTS-2000) that has been developed by tire 
        manufacturers around the world. However, NHTSA's testing has 
        shown that tires can separate from light car and truck wheels 
        during hard maneuvering;
  --Cost weight and lead time studies to support key rulemaking actions 
        in the areas of upgraded roof crush protection, side impact 
        protection, advanced electronic braking systems for trucks, 
        fuel system integrity, and child protection in school bus 
        crashes.

New Car Assessment Program
    One in four e-mails to the agency's crash test website is from an 
unhappy consumer who cannot find safety information on the vehicle he 
or she wants to purchase. In 2000, the agency provided safety 
information on 72 percent of vehicles sold. The agency needs increased 
funding for fiscal year 2001 frontal and side impact testing to cover 
80-90 percent of new vehicles for these most common crash modes. The 
increase would raise consumer information to the 1997 fleet coverage 
level of 86 percent.
    Additional funding is necessary to add small size dummy tests to 
NCAP. Distributions of trauma in real world crashes suggest that short 
stature occupants have as great a risk of injury as mid-size occupants. 
Also, the 10-15 crash tests for fiscal year 2001 using the small 
stature dummy in the driver and passenger positions will test the 
feasibility of using the 5th percentile female dummy in frontal crash 
tests, to supplement the information gathered with the 50th percentile 
male dummy.
    In response to calls for a broader range of vehicle safety consumer 
information, a demonstration project will conduct tests that will 
provide information on the braking performance of passenger cars and 
light trucks. In addition, support is needed for the development of 
test protocols for rating the headlighting performance of new vehicles.

Consumer Information Program
    Additional funding is necessary to expand our consumer information 
activities in an effort to motivate manufacturers to improve the safety 
of their vehicles and to further aid consumers with their purchasing 
decisions. Funding will be used for new requirements and to sustain and 
expand present activities and programs to meet the recommendations of 
the National Academy of Science's 1996 Special Report, Shopping for 
Safety: Providing Consumer Automotive Safety Information.
    The fiscal year 2001 program will use increased funding for 
consumer research to support emerging issues, such as child safety seat 
labeling, and expanding NCAP ratings and information (such as a summary 
rating score). Increased funding will allow the agency to produce more 
information products to meet the increasing demand for existing 
publications and materials, which we presently cannot meet. At the same 
time, the agency will undertake efforts to increase the content and 
improve the quality of existing materials. Resources also are necessary 
to sustain the growing needs of partnerships that we have established 
to promote vehicle safety information (AAA, Goodyear, Jiffy Lube, 
Championship Auto Racing Teams, etc.) and to cultivate new partnerships 
with other organizations.

                     CONSUMER INFORMATION PROGRAMS

    Question. How much is spent on consumer-related information 
activities in fiscal year 2000 using NCAP funds or other agency funds?
    Answer. Safety Performance Standards' consumer-related activities 
are currently funded using $247,000 of NCAP and $100,000 of Safety 
Standards Support funds.
    Question. What is the basis for the amount requested in fiscal year 
2001 for consumer-related information programs?
    Answer. The basis for the requested budget for consumer information 
programs in fiscal year 2001 is a combination of new requirements, and 
the need to sustain and grow current activities and programs to meet 
the recommendations of the National Academy of Science's 1996 Special 
Report, Shopping For Safety: Providing Consumer Automotive Safety 
Information. The study recommended that NHTSA broaden the scope of the 
information it provides to consumers, improve the presentation of the 
information, and expand the dissemination of the information. Further, 
increasing consumer awareness and demand for vehicle safety information 
also substantiates the need for greater resources. For instance, the 
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) web site hits have increased from 
1,100 per month when the site was created in 1996 to over 33,000 
presently. In the most recent NHTSA Customer Satisfaction Survey, 76 
percent of the respondents rate safety as ``very important'' in their 
selection of a motor vehicle for purchase.
    The fiscal year 2001 program will utilize increased funding for 
consumer research to support emerging issues, such as child safety seat 
labeling, and expansion of NCAP ratings and information, such as a 
summary rating score. Larger volumes of products will be produced to 
meet the increasing demand for existing publications and materials, 
which we presently cannot meet. At the same time, efforts to increase 
the content and improve the quality of existing materials will be 
undertaken. Resources are also necessary to sustain the growing needs 
of partnerships that have been established to promote vehicle safety 
information (AAA, Goodyear, Jiffy Lube, Championship Auto Racing Teams, 
etc.) and to cultivate new partnerships with other organizations.
    Question. If the consumer information activity were increased by 
$.5 million from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, what additional 
activities would be funded?
    Answer. At a reduced level of effort, funding would be used for the 
following activities: Conduct research for child safety seat labeling 
issues to determine how to best present new or revised warnings and 
information to child safety seat users.
  --Conduct research to determine how to best develop and present new 
        or revised vehicle safety information required by rulemakings, 
        and how to most effectively disseminate this information. This 
        includes warning labels and owner's manual information.
  --Develop new research-based information for development of new 
        campaigns and materials on high interest issues, such as air 
        bags, rollover, antilock brakes, adapted vehicles, and other 
        emerging issues. Use research results to upgrade and improve 
        existing publications, the web-site, and marketing strategies.
  --Develop and deliver NCAP and other vehicle safety information more 
        effectively through new and enhanced materials such as 
        brochures and pamphlets, mass media campaigns, and electronic 
        media materials. Increase the quantities of the annual Buying A 
        Safer Car and Buying A Safer Car for Child Passengers, and 
        other brochures to meet public demand.
  --Develop and deliver new comparative vehicle safety information on 
        braking performance. Facilitate the public's understanding of 
        the information and its value in making vehicle purchase 
        decisions.
  --Develop diversity initiatives and materials to better reach 
        underserved populations.
  --Continue and increase the leveraging effect of federal spending to 
        meet the requirements of participation in existing partnerships 
        and expand outreach efforts to new partners and constituents in 
        order to increase the marketing and dissemination of consumer 
        information materials.

                   NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (NCAP)

    Question. If funding for the NCAP were increased by $1.0 million 
from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, how many more vehicles would 
be tested? With this amount of funding, what is the percentage of 
vehicles in the U.S. fleet about which we would have frontal impact and 
side impact safety information?
    Answer. With a funding increase of $1.0 million over fiscal year 
2000, NHTSA would crash about twenty additional vehicles in model year 
2001. NHTSA had safety information on 72 percent of new vehicles sold 
in the U.S. in model year 2000. With an additional $1 million in fiscal 
year 2001, NHTSA would have safety information on 79 percent versus the 
85 to 90 percent that could be achieved at the fiscal year 2001 
requested level.
    Question. Assuming a funding level for NCAP below the fiscal year 
2001 budget request, what would NHTSA's priorities be in terms of 
conducting additional frontal crashes, additional side crashes, or 
testing smaller crash dummies?
    Answer. NHTSA would first reduce the number of frontal and side 
crashes by the same amount. As we drop frontal and side crashes, the 
fleet coverage would decrease. The fleet coverage would fall from a 
high of 85-90 percent of the vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2001. (NHTSA 
assumes coverage of 85-90 percent of the fleet if the fiscal year 2001 
budget request were to be approved.) Once the percentage of fleet 
coverage fell to 80 percent, NHTSA would cease dropping frontal and 
side tests. At the 80 percent level, testing with the smaller crash 
dummy would be reduced.
    Question. How many 6-year-old Hybrid III and 5th percentile female 
dummies does NHTSA need to acquire and calibrate? How much will it cost 
to procure and calibrate small stature dummies?
    Answer. NHTSA needs five 6-year-old Hybrid III dummies and six 5th 
percentile female Hybrid III dummies. To purchase five instrumented 6-
year-old dummies and do one calibration per dummy would cost roughly 
$173,000. To purchase six instrumented fifth percentile female Hybrid 
III dummies and do one calibration per dummy would cost roughly 
$249,000.
    Question. The agency's budget requests a $1 million increase for 
safety standards support. Please explain how NHTSA proposes to allocate 
the additional funds.
    Answer. Additional funds for safety standards support will be used 
to support the following activities:
  --To continue the agency's efforts to improve school bus safety;
  --To continue efforts to improve the child seat safety;
  --To continue agency data information collection on vehicles that 
        have been adapted for the disabled population;
  --To assess the capability of Electronically Controlled Braking 
        Systems for heavy trucks and buses;
  --To continue development of test procedures for offset frontal 
        testing;
  --To address the issue of increased glare from headlamps and other 
        front mounted lamps;
  --To develop a more appropriate test procedure for bead unseating of 
        radial tires; and
  --To support cost and lead time work in support of several priority 
        rulemaking actions.
    Question. Please explain how you would allocate additional funding 
if the contract funding for safety standards support were increased by 
$.5 million.
    Answer. If the agency were to receive $.5 million for safety 
standards support, the additional funds would be used to support our 
efforts to improve child seat safety, heavy truck brakes, frontal off-
set testing and tire safety.

                  SAFETY DEFECTS INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

    Question. How many safety defect investigations has NHTSA initiated 
each year over the past five years that led to a vehicle or equipment 
recall?
    Answer. [The information follows:]

        NUMBER OF DEFECT INVESTIGATIONS WHICH RESULTED IN RECALLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Vehicle        Equipment
    Year in which investigation began     investigations  investigations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995....................................              48              11
1996....................................              63              10
1997....................................              31              10
1998....................................              65               5
1999....................................              55               4
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................             262              40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vehicle investigations and equipment investigations in the 
above table reflect the number of investigations opened in the 
specified investigation year and not necessarily the year in which the 
recall occurred. As additional recalls are initiated, the numbers in 
the above table may increase slightly for investigation year 1998 and 
significantly for investigation year 1999.

                       VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE

    Question. Please explain how you would allocate the additional 
funds requested if the contract funding for the vehicle safety 
compliance program were increased by $1.0 million and $2.0 million.
    Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $5,000,000 for 
current services and $2,245,000 for increased funding. The increased 
funding would cover the following: $675,000 to return the agency's 
compliance test program of full-scale vehicle crash testing to the 
prior year level, $1,160,000 to purchase 16 new crash test dummies for 
advanced occupant protection in frontal crashes, and $410,000 to 
conduct five side-impact pole tests (which includes the cost of two 
specialized dummies and five vehicles, and the cost of five tests). We 
also requested funds to purchase 16 dummies for use in our forthcoming 
advanced air bag compliance test program (eight dummies, of two sets, 
would be required at each of two laboratories).
    Our first priority is to restore the $675,000 deleted from the 
compliance program in fiscal year 2000. If the program were only 
increased $1.0 million in fiscal year 2001, we would use the remaining 
$325,000 to purchase four dummies and not conduct any side impact pole 
tests. If the increase were $2.0 million, we would allocate the funds 
as follows:

Return full-scale vehicle tests to prior year level...........  $675,000
Purchase 13 dummies--advanced air bag testing................. 1,015,000
Purchase 3 side impact pole tests and 3 vehicles..............   150,000
Purchase 2 dummies--side impact pole tests....................   160,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

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

    The $2 million increase would provide for only 13 of 16 dummies 
which are required to conduct advanced air bag testing at two 
laboratories and would reduce the number of planned side impact pole 
tests from five to three.

                      ADVANCED AIR BAG PROTECTION

    Question. Please explain your plans for a testing program for 
advanced air bag protection, explaining the minimum amount that would 
be needed to initiate work in fiscal year 2001.
    Answer. Vehicle performance requirements for advanced air bag 
protection will be assessed using a number of test protocols, most of 
which are different from the tests that are currently being conducted. 
The differences involve how vehicles are tested, which test dummies are 
used in those tests, and how those dummies are calibrated and 
positioned in the vehicles. New test procedures (i.e., detailed 
instructions to independent testing facilities) will be prepared for 
positioning the test dummies in and performing tests on these vehicles. 
The test procedures for crash testing also specify requirements for the 
maintenance, preparation, and calibration of the test dummies used in 
those tests. The minimum amount needed to initiate this work in fiscal 
year 2001 would be $580,000 to purchase two sets of test dummies at a 
cost of $290,000 per set:

Two six-year-old dummies......................................  $160,000
Two three-year-old dummies....................................   160,000
Two fifth percentile female dummies...........................   200,000
Two 12-month-old dummies......................................    60,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   580,000

    Because of anticipated demand for these devices, it is imperative 
to have this funding available at the beginning of fiscal year 2001 so 
that orders can be placed. Also, past experience has shown that new 
test dummies, as manufactured, will require some corrections by the 
dummy manufacturer(s) prior to acceptance by NHTSA. Once the devices 
have been accepted, they will be used by the staff in the vehicle 
safety compliance office who will write the detailed test procedures. 
In addition, vehicle manufacturers will have the option to certify 
vehicles which have advanced air bag protection to the new requirements 
beginning in mid-model year 2000. Therefore, it is anticipated that 
some fiscal year 2001 tests for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 208 will use these new procedures. To be able to conduct these 
tests, it is imperative that the new test dummies be available quickly 
so that the test procedures can be completed.
    While work can begin in fiscal year 2001 with two sets of dummies, 
this amount is insufficient to conduct an advanced air bag compliance 
test program. As proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget, a minimum of 
two sets of dummies would be required at each of two test laboratories 
to conduct a compliance test program. The estimated cost for dummies 
would be $1,160,000 (4  $290,000 per set of dummies). A fully 
operational program would require three sets of dummies at each of 
three test laboratories. The third set of dummies would enable the 
program to continue without extensive time delays when dummies are 
damaged during testing. The estimated cost for dummies for a fully 
operational program would be $2,610,000 (9  $290,000).

                  SAFETY DEFECTS INVESTIGATION FUNDING

    Question. Please break out how the funds requested for safety 
defects investigation would be used and compare the amounts expended 
(or planned to be expended) in fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. [The information follows:]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                Activity                       2000            2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Defect Identification and Evaluation...      $1,613,000      $2,466,000
Testing and Surveys.....................         850,000       1,060,000
Recall Monitoring and Performance.......         200,000         200,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................       2,663,000       3,726,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The increases in the safety defect investigation request will 
enable the agency to:
  --$210,000--Restore defect investigation testing to the Vehicle 
        Research and Test Center;
  --$145,000--Provide staff support to monitor and investigate small 
        population vehicle groups as transit buses, recreational 
        vehicles, fire and rescue vehicles, and motorcycles for which 
        the consequences of a vehicle defect can be catastrophic;
  --$100,000--Enhance internet capabilities for both the agency and 
        public with additional hardware and software to expand Internet 
        search options;
  --$218,000--Purchase equipment and expertise to conduct computer-
        aided design analyses of vehicle components;
  --$290,000--Provide contract staff support to conduct on-site 
        investigations of crashes; and
  --$100,000--Enhance defect investigation databases to maintain 
        consistency with industry.

          COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

    Question. In what states and when has NHTSA entered into 
cooperative agreements to train law enforcement officers as odometer 
fraud investigators?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1998, NHTSA entered into cooperative 
agreements with the Florida Highway Patrol, the Colorado State Patrol, 
and the Utah Motor Vehicle Enforcement Division. Each of these states 
provided a law enforcement officer to NHTSA for training. In fiscal 
year 1999, there were no cooperative agreements. In fiscal year 2000, 
the agency entered into a cooperative agreement with Connecticut State 
Police. An officer from this state is currently assigned to NHTSA for 
training. The agency is in the process of soliciting applications from 
several states for a second officer to be assigned in fiscal year 2000.

                             ODOMETER FRAUD

    Question. The NHTSA budget submission requests funding to train 
odometer fraud investigators in two states. From what two states does 
NHTSA intend to train investigators?
    Answer. States for fiscal year 2001 have not been selected. When 
funds are available, NHTSA will solicit applications from all state 
enforcement agencies involved in odometer fraud enforcement.
    Question. What is the status and findings of the investigation to 
determine the effectiveness of the odometer fraud enforcement program?
    Answer. The Congress earmarked funds in fiscal year 1994 and an 
initial Request for Proposal was announced in fiscal year 1995 but no 
bids were submitted. A second Request for Proposals was announced in 
fiscal year 1996 and a contract to perform this research was awarded in 
July 1996. The contractor has collected the data and completed the 
requirement of the contract. The agency is assessing and analyzing the 
data and plans to complete the study by the spring of 2001.

                         HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM

    Question. Please submit a copy of your fiscal year 1999 and fiscal 
year 2000 spending plans which indicates major activities and contracts 
approved.
    Answer. Within the Highway Safety program areas, major activities 
(such as Impaired Driving, Occupant Protection, etc.) are further 
broken down in major areas of effort, e.g., Enforcement/Adjudication 
and Public Education/Prevention. Although smaller program areas would 
have similar areas of effort, the emphases and funding may vary from 
year-to-year.
    Attached is a table summarizing the major activities and funding 
categories for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000.

                         HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                               1999            2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCCUPANT PROTECTION:
    Program Development.................      $4,867,900      $4,602,000
    Public Information and Education....       2,880,000       2,698,800
    Technology Sharing..................       1,250,000       1,370,000
    Outreach............................       2,475,100       1,071,200
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Occupant Protection........      11,473,000       9,742,000
                                         ===============================
IMPAIRED DRIVING:
    Public Information and Education....       4,715,000       3,675,000
    Enforcement and Adjudication........       3,190,000       2,900,000
    Outreach............................       2,200,000       2,102,000
    Legislation.........................         543,000         615,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Impaired Driving \1\.......      10,648,000       9,292,000
                                         ===============================
RESEARCH AND EVALUATION:
    Alcohol and Drug Research...........       1,594,000       1,475,000
    Aggressive Driving (Earmark)........               0       1,000,000
    Occupant Protection Research........       1,018,000         969,000
    Rural Trauma (Earmark)..............               0         875,000
    Speed and Aggressive Driving........         928,000         801,000
    Evaluation and Technology Transfer..         657,000         574,000
    Pedestrian/Bicycle Research.........         380,000         522,000
    Older Driver Research...............         555,000         493,000
    EMS Research........................         305,000         305,000
    Fatigue Research....................               0         138,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Research & Evaluation......       5,437,000       7,152,000
                                         ===============================
RECORD/LICENSING AND DRIVER ED:
    Driver Licensing and Education......         373,000         826,000
    Traffic Records.....................         755,000         724,000
    State and Community Services........         789,000         746,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Record/Licensing & Driver         1,917,000       2,296,000
       Ed...............................
                                         ===============================
TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT:
    Enforcement Demonstrations..........         427,500         700,800
    National Organizations..............         270,000         460,200
    Training and Technical Assistance...         444,500         400,000
    Public Information and Education....         321,000         375,000
    Technology Transfer.................         250,000         100,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total Traffic Law Enforcement.....       1,713,000       2,036,000
                                         ===============================
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES:
    National Standard Curricula.........       1,600,000         755,000
    EMS Leadership......................         260,000         238,000
    EMS System Component Support........         387,000         220,000
    Injury Prevention and Control.......         235,000         128,000
    EMS Information, Technologies, and           110,000          84,000
     Dissemination......................
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Emergency, Medical Services       2,592,000       1,425,000
                                         ===============================
DRUGS, DRIVING, AND YOUTH:
    Public Information and Education....         267,000         310,000
    Advanced Drugged Driving Training...         733,000         280,000
    Law Enforcement Initiatives and New                0         260,000
     Technologies.......................
    Coordination and Data Collection....               0         218,000
    Drugged Driving Research............         250,000          50,000
    International Conference on Drug                   0          20,000
     Research...........................
    Juvenile Judge Prevention Program...               0               0
    National Summit Meeting.............         150,000               0
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Drugs, Driving and Youth...       1,400,000       1,138,000
                                         ===============================
NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER: Timesharing          1,110,000       1,110,000
 Computer Services & Help  Desk.........
                                         ===============================
PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND PUPIL
 TRANSPORTATION:
    Technical Assistance, Training, and          507,000         400,000
     Infrastructure Support.............
    Public Information and Education....         340,000         373,000
    Partnerships and Outreach...........         255,000         285,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Pedestrian, Bicycle and           1,102,000       1,058,000
       Public Transportation \2\........
                                         ===============================
NEW/EMERGING/TEA-21 ISSUES: Aggressive                 0       1,000,000
 driving, drowsy driving, older driving,
 training...............................
                                         ===============================
NOPUS: Surveys..........................         300,000         850,000
                                         ===============================
MOTORCYCLE SAFETY:
    Information and Education...........         200,000         200,000
    Technical Assistance, Training, and          234,000         164,000
     Infrastructure Support.............
    Partnerships and Outreach...........          75,000          50,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Motorcycle Safety..........         509,000         414,000
                                         ===============================
DRIVER LICENSE IDENTIFICATION: State             325,000               0
 driver licensing system grants.........
                                         ===============================
      Total.............................      38,526,000      37,513,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1999 combined the Alcohol and DEC programs.
\2\ Fiscal year 1999 included $357,000 from Patterns for Life.

    Question. With respect to the fiscal year 2000 program, how did you 
improve the allocation or targeting of the Highway Safety funds since 
last year? How is this allocation consistent with the agency's 
performance goals?
    Answer. This budget request aligns our major priority areas with 
funding needs. NHTSA's highway safety performance goals include 
reducing alcohol-related fatalities; increasing the use of seat belts, 
child safety seats, and motorcycle and bicycle helmets; reducing 
speeding and aggressive driving related fatalities; reducing pedestrian 
fatalities; reducing crashes associated with driver fatigue; enhancing 
the older driver's ability to drive safely; and reducing the over-
representation of young drivers in crashes.
    NHTSA's fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 budgets reflect small 
adjustments to augment and emphasize certain programs that are 
demanding the attention of the agency. For example, the small increase 
in the Traffic Law Enforcement program reflects the congressionally 
mandated pursuit driving training for law enforcement officers and the 
agency's Strategic Plan to reduce speeding-related fatalities which 
have been on the rise since the elimination of the national maximum 
speed limit. Funding increases in the Highway Safety Research program 
reflect congressional earmarks for an aggressive driving demonstration 
in Maryland and head trauma research in Alabama. Increases in the 
Records and Licensing budget will provide funds to examine different 
licensing policies of several states as they relate to older drivers as 
well as to enhance efforts to improve the quality, uniformity and 
utility of traffic records data. The new Emerging Traffic Safety Issues 
program provides educational programs and materials on problems 
involving older drivers, aggressive drivers, and drowsy drivers.
    The small decreases in the Occupant Protection and Impaired Driving 
Programs were necessary to allow for means to address the above and do 
not reflect a lower priority for these programs which remain NHTSA's 
and DOT's highest priority programs. NHTSA's complete fiscal year 2001 
budget request includes significant increases designed to meet 
Presidential and Secretarial goals to increase seat belt usage and 
reduce alcohol-related fatalities and child fatalities.
    Question. Please explain how you would allocate the additional 
funds if the contract funding for highway safety programs was increased 
by $.5 million and by $1.0 million?
    Answer. Any additional funding would be used to augment programs 
throughout the Highway Safety program areas with a significant amount 
of any funds going to the Impaired Driving and Occupant Protection 
priority programs which have critical program targets.

                          OLDER DRIVER PROGRAM

    Question. Please explain the scope and nature of your older driver 
program, describing current demonstrations underway, research projects, 
public information and educational activities, and assistance to state 
licensing agents and physicians.
    Answer. In 1989, NHTSA initiated a research program to address the 
behavioral aspects related to older drivers focusing on (a) identifying 
the functional capabilities required for driving, (b) identifying 
problem drivers, and (c) identifying those conditions that may be 
amenable to rehabilitation.
    One ongoing demonstration addresses all three of these areas. It is 
the Maryland Model Driver Screening and Evaluation Program. The primary 
outcome of this project will be an evaluation of the value of the Gross 
Impairment Screening tool (GRIMPS) in identifying drivers whose skills 
or capabilities have declined to the point where it is not safe for 
them to drive. Analyses will determine which individual portions of the 
GRIMPS are most predictive of poor driving performance. Occupational 
therapists in this study will determine if those persons identified as 
having poor functional capabilities can be rehabilitated or retrained 
to make them safer drivers.
    Other demonstrations include a Florida evaluation of an automated 
version of the GRIMPS in Memory Clinic settings, and a Texas project to 
document a successful pedestrian program operating in a health 
organization setting. This project will also adapt key components for 
use by Hispanic populations.
    Other research addresses the needs of licensing agencies, 
physicians, and others who work with elderly people. Past research 
includes an evaluation of the relative risk posed by drivers with 
reported medical conditions. It will help the licensing authority in 
the State of Utah to reexamine and revise its reporting requirements. 
Another investigation will develop a matrix of health symptoms or 
conditions that are common among older people. It will provide 
recommendations regarding driving by persons with those symptoms, based 
on the identified severity of the symptom. Such recommendations could 
include referral to the licensing authority, counseling, or a variety 
of rehabilitation options.
    Development of public information and education materials regarding 
older drivers is in its early stages. Currently, NHTSA is establishing 
partnerships with organizations that have an interest in older driver 
safety, including AARP and the USAA Educational Foundation. We will 
develop a brochure to help older drivers recognize health changes that 
might affect their driving, while directing them to changes in their 
driving patterns or to professionals who can help them maintain and 
improve their health and driving abilities.
    Question. If funding for the older driver program were increased by 
$.5 million, (not including the flagship initiative), what activities 
would be funded?
    Answer. With increased funding, our two primary objectives of 
implementing public awareness efforts and continuing critical research 
would be improved.
    In terms of research, additional funds would enable NHTSA to 
investigate the types of traffic safety messages that resonate with 
older persons including those in diverse communities. These messages 
would then be used to develop and produce materials that are relevant 
to diverse target audiences. NHTSA would also form additional strategic 
partnerships with senior citizen organizations and with other diverse 
organizations to promote the new public awareness materials.
    Additional funding would also enable NHTSA to redirect existing 
safety programs to provide more emphasis on the needs of older drivers 
and pedestrians. For example, increasing numbers of older people ride 
bicycles, but NHTSA does not have any programs that encourage older 
people to wear bicycle helmets. NHTSA could adapt bicycle helmet 
programs that were designed for younger audiences to meet the needs of 
this different population. NHTSA would examine all program areas and 
adapt the programs in those that would have the greatest potential 
safety impact.

                              .08 BAC LAWS

    Question. Please describe the activities that have been conducted 
or are planned in response to the Committee's assertion that more 
guidance and research is needed on the impacts of 0.08 BAC laws and on 
countermeasures targeted at drivers aged 21- to 34-year-old.
    Answer. Since 1991, NHTSA has published five studies regarding the 
effectiveness of .08 BAC laws in reducing alcohol-related fatal 
crashes. These studies have provided consistent and persuasive evidence 
that these laws, particularly in combination with administrative 
license revocation (ALR) laws, are associated with reductions in 
alcohol-related crashes and fatalities.
    A project that began in fiscal year 1999 is examining the impact of 
the Illinois .08 BAC law on alcohol-related crashes and the enforcement 
and court systems. The final report will be available in 2001.
    A fiscal year 2000 study will evaluate the .08 BAC legislation in 
Texas. The final report is scheduled to be available in 2002.
    Another fiscal year 2000 project will evaluate a program that is 
targeted at 21-34 year olds, the highest risk impaired driving 
population. In this study, scheduled to start in June 2000, NHTSA will 
identify and screen existing programs to select one amenable to 
evaluation. The study will describe the program, conduct a process 
evaluation, and determine whether the program was effective in changing 
DWI-related incidents and behavior(s).
    Question. Please delineate the nature and amount of fiscal year 
2000 contracts and fiscal year 2001 plans and associated funding 
amounts to continue your efforts to further the adoption and 
implementation of 0.08 BAC laws.
    Answer. NHTSA provides public information and educational materials 
that support the adoption and implementation of 0.08 BAC laws and, when 
requested by state officials, offers testimony on 0.08 BAC issues.
    In fiscal year 2000, $80 million is authorized for the Section 163 
0.08 BAC Law Incentive Grant program, which was designed to encourage 
states to pass and enforce 0.08 BAC laws. To be eligible for these 
grants, states have until July 15, 2000, to enact complying laws. 
Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia have 0.08 BAC laws in 
effect. For fiscal year 2001, $90 million is authorized for Section 
163.
    A fiscal year 2000 research and evaluation contract for $150 
thousand is in place to measure the effectiveness of the Texas 0.08 law 
and its impact on law enforcement and the courts. Similar research is 
planned for fiscal year 2001 in the State of Washington.
    Question. What studies has NHTSA initiated or supported to evaluate 
the effectiveness, costs, or benefits of 0.08 BAC laws? What is the 
status of the Illinois project? What studies on 0.08 BAC laws are 
planned with fiscal year 2001 funds? How much has been allocated for 
each study?
    Answer. NHTSA has published five studies regarding the 
effectiveness of .08 BAC laws in reducing alcohol-related fatal 
crashes. They are:
  --The Effects Following the Implementation of an 0.08 BAC Limit and 
        Administrative Per Se Law in California (1991) ($125,000)
  --The Impact of Lowering the Illegal BAC Limit to .08 in Five States 
        in the U.S. (1995) (Conducted in-house--no contract funds)
  --The Relationship of Alcohol Safety Laws to Drinking Drivers in 
        Fatal Crashes (1999) ($20,000)
  --The Effects of .08 BAC Laws (1999) ($65,000)
  --Evaluation of the Effects of North Carolina's .08 BAC Law (1999) 
        ($80,000)
    Other than the California study, these studies were restricted in 
scope to examining the effectiveness of .08 BAC laws on alcohol-related 
crashes. The California study analyzed changes in alcohol-related 
crashes, and also examined the law's effect on enforcement and court 
systems. The .08 law was not found to create a burden for either the 
police or courts.
    A fiscal year 1999 NHTSA study is examining the effectiveness of 
Illinois' .08 BAC law. That study, modeled after the California study, 
is also examining both alcohol-related fatalities and the impact on law 
enforcement and the courts. To-date, police officers, prosecutors, and 
judges have been interviewed in several Illinois jurisdictions 
regarding the impact of the law on their work and on their agencies. An 
interim report, documenting the results of these interviews, is due in 
May 2000. The final report, including fatal crash analysis, is due June 
2001. ($150,000)
    A fiscal year 2000 study of Texas' .08 BAC law will parallel the 
Illinois study, providing information on alcohol-related fatalities, 
and impact on law enforcement and the court system. The report will be 
available in 2002. ($150,000)
    There are no studies planned with fiscal year 2001 funds. The only 
other jurisdictions to recently adopt .08 are Washington (which 
simultaneously adopted 12 other impaired driving laws) and Kentucky 
(which we will consider evaluating in fiscal year 2002 when more data 
is available).

                          OPEN CONTAINER LAWS

    Question. Although the statutory deadline has not passed, how many 
states are likely to face a diversion of some of their federal aid 
highway funds for not adopting and enforcing an open container law as 
specified in TEA-21? How does the fiscal year 2001 budget address the 
issue of open container laws?
    Answer. As of April 19, 2000, 32 states, the District of Columbia, 
and Puerto Rico do not have laws in place that meet the open container 
provisions of TEA-21 and, therefore, face a diversion of some of their 
federal aid highway funds in fiscal year 2001. The following 18 states 
have enacted laws that comply: Arizona, California, Illinois, Iowa 
Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, 
Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 
Wisconsin.
    Open container laws are not addressed in the fiscal year 2001 
budget, however, a research and evaluation project on the effectiveness 
of open container laws is currently in progress and should be completed 
in fiscal year 2001.

                       REPEAT OFFENDER PROVISIONS

    Question. Although the statutory deadline has not passed, how many 
states are likely to face a diversion of some of their federal aid 
highway funds because they are not in compliance with the repeat 
offender provisions of TEA-21?
    Answer. As of April 19, 2000, 40 states, the District of Columbia, 
and Puerto Rico do not have laws in place that meet the requirements of 
the repeat intoxicated driver provisions of TEA-21 and face a diversion 
of some of their federal aid highway funds in fiscal year 2001. The 
following ten states have enacted laws that comply: Arkansas; Arizona; 
Colorado; Indiana; Maine; Michigan; Nevada; Nebraska; New Hampshire; 
and Washington.

                            IMPAIRED DRIVING

    Question. The states have adopted various statutes with the goal of 
curing impaired driving. Has NHTSA conducted any studies to determine 
which laws or combination of laws are the most effective? If so, what 
does the research tell us about the contribution of congressionally 
mandated laws, such as open container or repeat offender, in reducing 
impaired driving?
    Answer. Over the last 30 years, NHTSA and others have conducted 
research on impaired driving laws to determine if they reduce the 
number of alcohol-related fatalities. Studies include laws focused on 
minimum drinking age, mandatory jail sentences, per se BAC limits 
(including .08 BAC limits for adults and .02 BAC limits for drivers 
under age 21), administrative license revocation, graduated drivers' 
licensing programs, and vehicle sanctions.
    In general, research suggest that (1) most of these laws have had 
some impact in reducing alcohol-related crashes or fatalities; (2) 
these laws are more effective when accompanied by publicity and 
enforcement; and (3) combinations of laws (and other activities) are 
more likely to reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes than are 
individual laws (or activities).
    Federally mandated laws can be effective. As a result of federal 
legislation requiring age 21 Drinking Laws, all states enacted such 
laws and research provides very consistent and convincing evidence that 
they have reduced the number of alcohol-related crashes, deaths, and 
injuries.
    Prior to fiscal year 1999, NHTSA had not conducted any research on 
the effectiveness of open container laws. A study initiated in fiscal 
year 1999 is now examining the effectiveness of these laws in several 
states.
    No research has been conducted on the effectiveness of the repeat 
offender transfer provision. However, NHTSA has conducted several 
studies on the effectiveness of specific countermeasures included in 
that provision that are targeted at repeat offenders, including the use 
of vehicle sanctions, such as ignition interlocks, and vehicle 
impoundment or immobilization. A project to determine the effectiveness 
of the repeat offender provision is planned for 2001.

            DRUG EVALUATION AND CLASSIFICATION (DEC) PROGRAM

    Question. Please explain how the funds requested for the Drug 
Evaluation and Classification (DEC) program would be used and compare 
the fiscal year 2001 request to fiscal year 2000 expenditures.
    Answer. NHTSA estimates that drugs are used by approximately 10 to 
22 percent of drivers involved in crashes. Often these drugs are used 
in combination with alcohol.
    There is no longer a separate budget for the DEC Program. The DEC 
program has been incorporated into the overall impaired driving program 
and the Drugs, Driving, and Youth initiative. The following chart is 
reflective of the drug-impaired driving budgeted items.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                Projects                       2000            2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request Advanced Drugged Driving                $280,000        $250,000
 Training...............................
Drugged Driving Research................          50,000          50,000
International Conference on Drug                  20,000               0
 Research...............................
Law Enforcement Initiatives and New              260,000         350,000
 Technologies...........................
Public Information and Education........         310,000         300,000
Coordination and Data Collection........         218,000         200,000
Juvenile Judge Prevention Program.......               0         250,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................       1,138,000       1,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While great strides have been made in the area of reducing impaired 
driving over the past 15 years, America's impaired driving crash rate 
has stagnated for the past three years. Countermeasures are needed to 
reduce the number of alcohol-impaired and other drug-impaired drivers 
on the nation's highways. The funding will increase and promote 
training in drugged driving detection, drug detection and training for 
prosecutors; involvement of prosecutors in community drug prevention 
programs; uniform sanctions for drug offenders; DEC related research; 
collection and analysis of state arrest data on drug impaired drivers; 
development of courtroom skills for testifying in alcohol and drug 
impaired driving cases; and expansion of DEC to community policing 
programs.
    Public information and education materials are needed to educate 
the public, health care providers, and the courts on the risks of 
drugged driving. New programs will be initiated to involve juvenile 
judges in prevention activities at the community level and to develop 
educational materials for diverse communities.

                            IMPAIRED DRIVING

    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 efforts 
during fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. NHTSA currently has two important literature reviews 
underway that examine drug-impaired driving. One review focuses on 
antihistamine use and driving-related skills; the other is a state-of-
knowledge literature review covering the entire drug-impaired driving 
area. This review will include all available scientific studies, 
including specific studies of drug-impaired driving as it relates to 
the criminal justice system (e.g., studies on the arrest and 
adjudication process and sanctioning). Total funding for these two 
projects is approximately $200,000.
    A new fiscal year 1999 study will determine the feasibility of 
developing a drugged-driver detection system, similar to the 
Standardized Field Sobriety Test, based on observable signs and 
symptoms of drug use. This study, funded at $175,000 will identify 
potential performance measures that can be used to assess drug 
impairment in any setting, as well as measures that could be used in 
roadside situations. This project will include a field demonstration of 
the selected performance measures.
    Future funds will be used for a combination of epidemiological 
research (e.g., determining the incidence of drug-related driving or 
crash involvement), laboratory studies (e.g., measuring the 
performance-related effects of various drugs), and countermeasure 
development (e.g., developing tools for law enforcement).
    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 2000 spending plan and fiscal year 2001 budget request for that 
activity?
    Answer. NHTSA works with the states to provide public information 
and educational materials on effective laws through publications such 
as the Digest of State Alcohol-Highway Safety Related Legislation that 
contrasts each state's impaired driving (alcohol and other drug) laws 
and provides a resource for comparing and developing improved impaired 
driving laws.
    Considerable legal research and assistance are given to the states 
directly through a contract with the National Prosecutor Research 
Institute's National Traffic Law Center. The Center provides direct 
technical expertise on existing alcohol and drug impaired driving laws, 
provides opinions on proposed laws, and develops training for 
prosecutors and judges.
    The Drugs, Driving and Youth initiative of $1.1 million in fiscal 
year 2000 and $1.4 million in fiscal year 2001 provides funding for 
activities that support improvements to laws and countermeasures to 
reduce drug and alcohol impaired driving.
    Question. Please break out in detail by project or activity how 
NHTSA proposes to use the $11,181,000 requested for impaired driving 
and compare that to the allocation expected for fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. Alcohol-related fatalities account for 38 percent of all 
motor vehicle fatalities. While this represents a slight decline from 
1998 levels, more investment is needed for reaching the high risk 
groups.

                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                  Area                         2000        2001 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impaired Driving Program................          $9,292         $11,181
Public Information and Education........           3,675           3,975
Outreach................................           2,102           2,495
Legislation.............................             615             815
Enforcement and Adjudication............           2,900           3,896
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Slight increases are requested in the areas of public information 
and education, outreach, and legislation to meet the needs of states 
and communities. A more significant increase is requested in 
enforcement and adjudication to continue to focus on states with high 
alcohol-related fatalities using highly publicized enforcement 
initiatives. In addition, maintaining up-to-date training and 
technology applications for law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges in 
the detection and sentencing of DUI offenders will remain a priority 
activity.
    In fiscal year 2001, NHTSA will be exploring new strategies for 
reaching the youth population, including underage college students. 
Action grants will be awarded to engage strategic organizations to 
support highly visible enforcement. In addition, outreach grants are 
planned with national organizations and employers to support prevention 
activities. The national public education campaign entitled You Drink & 
Drive. You Lose. will be expanded to focus on a summer message due to 
the high number of alcohol-related fatalities during that period. This 
campaign will target the high risk 21-34 year old age group.

                           MOTORCYCLE SAFETY

    Question. The NHTSA budget requests to triple funding for 
motorcycle safety. Why is such a large increase necessary?
    Answer. Unlike other traffic safety performance indicators that 
reveal that fatalities are declining, motorcyclist fatalities are 
actually on an upward trend. In 1998, 2,284 motorcyclists were killed 
and an additional 49,000 were injured in traffic crashes in the U.S.--8 
percent more than the 2,116 motorcyclist fatalities, but 7 percent less 
than the 53,000 motorcyclists injured in 1997. For 1999, preliminary 
estimates indicate that this upward trend is continuing--while an 
estimated 48,000 motorcyclists were injured, an estimated 2,537 
motorcyclists were killed in 1999, 11 percent more than in 1998. 
Moreover, motorcyclists killed in traffic crashes continue to have 
higher rates of intoxication than driversof other vehicles.
    In 1998, NHTSA facilitated development of the National Agenda for 
Motorcycle Safety, a comprehensive plan that incorporates the diverse 
viewpoints of the motorcycling community. The draft National Agenda for 
Motorcycle Safety, released for comment in November, 1999, identified 
51 recommendations to improve motorcycle safety.
    Prior public investments in motorcycle safety issues have been 
minimal. Recommendations in the draft Agenda include studies on the 
efficacy of motorcycle training programs and the role of alcohol in 
motorcycling.
    In addition to continuing current program initiatives, the 
requested budget increase will support efforts to:
  --investigate the causes of motorcycle crashes;
  --collect data to determine the impact and relationship of licensing 
        programs, training curricula content, behavior and attitudes, 
        and vehicle characteristics (e.g., braking systems) on crash 
        occurrence and involvement;
  --undertake research to understand the role of alcohol in 
        motorcycling;
  --characterize the extent and impact of the injuries sustained in 
        motorcycle crashes by supporting efforts to enhance the Crash 
        Outcome Data Evaluation Systems (CODES) program for linking 
        medical and crash data; and
  --gather data on the costs of rehabilitation and disability resulting 
        from involvement in motorcycle crashes.

                        DRUGS, DRIVING AND YOUTH

    Question. Please explain the expected costs of each of the new and 
on-going initiatives specified under the Drugs, Driving & Youth 
initiative.
    Answer. The following table summarizes the planned expenditures, in 
fiscal year 2001, for drugs, driving, and youth.

                                                        Fiscal year 2001
        Projects                                                 request
Law Enforcement Initiatives & New Technologies................  $350,000
Public Information and Education..............................   300,000
Advanced Drugged Driving Training.............................   250,000
Juvenile Judge Prevention Program.............................   250,000
Coordination and Data Collection..............................   200,000
Drugged Driving Research......................................    50,000

    In 1998, 6,168 youth, ages 15 through 20, died in motor vehicle 
crashes, a 1.2 percent decrease from 1997. Of this number, 2,210 
fatalities were alcohol-related; this was a 4 percent decrease from 
1997. Since 1982, youth fatality trends have compared favorably to 
those of the adult (over age 21) population, with a 28 percent overall 
decline for youth compared to a 2 percent increase for adults. However, 
in terms of fatality rates per 100,000 population, youth are still 
over-represented by a factor of 3 to 2 (9 to 7 for alcohol-related 
fatalities).
    Countermeasures are needed to reduce the number of alcohol and 
other drug-impaired drivers on the nation's highways. Additional 
training for law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges are 
needed in the identification, prosecution, and adjudication of the 
drug-impaired driver. A focus on technology support for the trained 
drug recognition expert will also be supported. Funding will be 
provided to collect additionaldata to more clearly define and 
understand the extent of the drug impaired driving problem.
    Public information and education materials will be developed to 
educate the public, health care providers, and the courts on the risks 
of drugged driving (particularly among youth) and potential prevention 
strategies. A new program will be initiated to involve juvenile judges 
in prevention activities at the community level, as well as the 
development of educational materials for diverse communities.

                GRADUATED DRIVER LICENSING (GDL) SYSTEMS

    Question. How many states are now receiving grant funds to test and 
evaluate graduated licensing systems? Please indicate funding amounts 
and results of the various evaluations now being conducted.
    Answer. Novice drivers are over-involved in crashes. Graduated 
driver licensing systems are one means to reducing these crashes. Three 
states, Kentucky, Michigan, and North Carolina, have received funds to 
assist them in evaluations of their new graduated driver licensing 
systems. Kentucky has received a total of $230,000 (fiscal year 1998, 
fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000). Michigan has received a total 
of $370,000 (fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000), 
and North Carolina has received a total of $397,271 (fiscal year 1994).
    Preliminary evaluation results from all three states will be 
available in calendar 2000. However, until the evaluations are 
completed (i.e., in CY 2001 for Kentucky and North Carolina, and CY 
2003 for Michigan), it will not be possible to determine the impact of 
these laws. It is expected, however, that all three evaluations will 
further corroborate other graduated driver licensing systems 
evaluations which have shown crash reductions of 5 to 30 percent for 
novice drivers.

                    PRE-LICENSING DRUG TEST FUNDING

    Question. Will any funds be spent on random or pre-licensing drug 
tests for youth in fiscal year 2000 or fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. No funding will been expended on pre-licensing drug testing 
in fiscal year 2000 nor is any budgeted for in fiscal year 2001.

                            SEAT BELT USAGE

    Question. According to the Department's 1999 Performance Report, 
NHTSA missed its seat belt usage goal for 1999. NHTSA's goals for 2000 
and 2001 in this are even greater than the missed goal. When a 
performance objective like this is missed, does it make sense to review 
outyear goals and reassign current objective to the future?
    Answer. The seat belt use goal, while ambitious, has tremendous 
potential in terms of significantly increasing safety and reducing the 
toll associated with traffic crash fatalities and injuries. Reaching 85 
percent seat belt use would prevent an estimated 4,200 deaths and 
102,000 injuries and reduce substantially the societal costs associated 
with highway traffic crashes. The Department, with its many partners, 
has committed to mounting an all-out effort to meet the national goal 
of 85 percent by the end of 2000.
    The agency has outlined a two pronged approach to achieve a 
significant increase in seat belt use over the next year. This two 
pronged approach requires NHTSA to: (1) expand the scope of the Buckle 
Up America Campaign in all 50 states; and (2) focus on several 
opportunities including: states with high seat belt use rates, states 
with new primary laws, states with potential to increase belt use, and 
states likely to pass primary seat belt laws.
    A key element of the campaign is working with states and law 
enforcement agencies to increase enforcement activities throughout 2000 
and 2001. NHTSA will continue to build upon the cadre of 7,000 law 
enforcement agencies participating in the national seat belt 
enforcement mobilizations targeted to the Memorial Day and Thanksgiving 
Holiday weeks of each year.
    To support this enforcement effort, the agency will provide 
technical assistance to the states as they implement their fiscal year 
2000 Section 157 innovative grants ($25 million) provided to increase 
seat belt use. These funds were awarded under the TEA-21, Section 157 
discretionary grant program, and will institutionalize periodic waves 
of seat belt and child passenger protection enforcement. Additional 
funds of over $54 million were awarded through the Section 157 
incentive grant portion to states whose seat belt use rate exceeded the 
national average or reported an increase in seat belt use from the 
previous year.
    A significant portion of these grants along with Section 403 
Demonstration and 402 grant funds will support increased enforcement 
for states by funding additional enforcement waves, equipment, and 
statewide media campaigns.

                           MINI-NOPUS SURVEYS

    Question. What were the results of mini-NOPUS surveys that were 
conducted most recently in conjunction with the Buckle Up America 
campaign?
    Answer. The results of the mini-National Occupant Protection Use 
Surveys (NOPUS) conducted most recently in conjunction with the Buckle 
Up America campaign are as follows:

                  MINI-NOPUS PERCENT SHOULDER BELT USE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                May 98    June 98     Dec 98     Dec 99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall.....................         62         65         70         67
Drivers.....................         63         66         70         67
Passengers..................         60         63         69         64
Passenger Cars..............         66         69         72         70
Drivers.....................         67         70         73         71
Passengers..................         62         66         72         66
Other Pass Vehicles.........         56         60         66         62
Drivers.....................         57         61         67         62
Passengers..................         55         58         65         60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The mini-NOPUS conducted in May 1998 obtained observational 
shoulder belt use prior to the 1998 Memorial Day Buckle Up America 
blitz. The shoulder belt use rate obtained from this mini-NOPUS 
provided a baseline by which to monitor restraint use. The mini-NOPUS 
conducted in June 1998 obtained the data within five to seven days 
after the 1998 Memorial Day blitz. The December 1998 mini-NOPUS was 
conducted within five days after the 1998 Thanksgiving Day blitz. The 
December 1999 mini-NOPUS was conducted within five days after the 1999 
Thanksgiving Day blitz.

                          SEAT BELT USAGE RATE

    Question. How many states had a lower seat belt usage rate in 1999 
than 1998?
    Answer. Eleven states reported lower seat belt usage rates for 1999 
as compared to 1998. These included seven whose reported usage rates 
were more than one full percentage point below the rates reported for 
1998: The District of Columbia (down 3.9 percent); Indiana (down 4.5 
percent); Maine (down 2.3 percent); Mississippi (down 3.5 percent); New 
Hampshire (down 2.5 percent); Virginia (down 3.7 percent); and, West 
Virginia (down 5.8 percent). The other four states reported decreases 
of less than one full percentage point from 1998 to 1999: Colorado 
(down 0.8 percent); Hawaii (down 0.2 percent); Texas (down 0.4 
percent); and Puerto Rico (down 0.5 percent). South Dakota and Wyoming 
reported no seat belt surveys for 1999.

                  SECTION 157 INNOVATIVE GRANT PROGRAM

    Question. How many employees work on the innovative grant portion 
of the Section 157 innovative grant program?
    Answer. Because of the competitive nature of the Section 157 
innovative program and the grant requirements themselves, a NHTSA 
committee of interdisciplinary experts was formed to review the grant 
proposals. Seven members serve on this committee. In addition to the 
seven headquarters staff who serve on the grant evaluation committee, 
two staff members in the Office of State and Community Services provide 
coordination services to the regional office staff who have oversight 
responsibilities for the Section 157 innovative grants.
    In the Office of Contracts and Procurement, a contract specialist 
is responsible for communicating and coordinating all correspondence 
and information between the 52 potential applicants and the evaluation 
committee. In addition, this staff person prepares all award documents, 
contract modifications and other grant obligations.
    In the NHTSA Regional offices, 41 staff members serve as 
Contracting Officer's Technical Representatives (COTRs) to carry out 
management and oversight responsibilities for the 46 innovative grants 
that were awarded.
    Question. Please describe in detail each of the reasons why funds 
for the innovative grant portion of the Section 157 program were not 
distributed by October 1, 1999.
    Answer. Current legislation requires states to submit applications 
in the prior fiscal year with the intention that Section 157 innovative 
grants will be awarded on the first of the new fiscal year, October 1. 
However, grant funds cannot be awarded until annual appropriations laws 
are signed and funds are made available to the agency. In addition, 
funding for Section 157 innovative grants could not be determined until 
after the award of Section 157 incentive grants. The Section 157 
incentive grants were not awarded until November 2, 1999. Therefore, 
final negotiations were delayed in 1999 until the exact amount of 
funding available for fiscal year 2000 Section 157 innovative grants 
was known.
    Following the award of the Section 157 incentive grants, when exact 
funding amounts could be determined, additional time was needed to 
allow the transfer of funds from FHWA to NHTSA. Current legislation 
requires funding to be allocated to FHWA and then distributed to NHTSA.
    Even if the budget process would have allowed an October 1, 1999 
award, the time to review the proposals would have made this date 
difficult to meet. The competitive process for awarding these 
innovative grants involved the review of 49 proposals and technical 
negotiation with each applicant. The negotiation process involved two 
or more rounds of technical questions about the proposal and 
suggestions for improvement to raise the chances of award for each 
particular state. Each state was given the required minimum of 10 days 
to respond to technical questions. The six month time period time was 
necessary to study and evaluate the proposals and negotiate the 
contents of each proposal, within the guidelines of a competitive grant 
process, prior to awarding 46 innovative grants.
    Question. What steps are underway to ensure a more timely delivery 
of those funds during the next grant cycle?
    Answer. NHTSA is taking several steps to ensure that the Section 
157 review-approval-award process proceeds more expeditiously in future 
years.
    First, NHTSA is seeking a legislative change in the timeline for 
allocation of Section 157 innovative funds (moving application and 
award dates forward), to create more separation between the incentive 
and innovative portions of the program. In this way the agency expects 
to provide the state applicants better information about available 
balances for innovative grants, after incentive funds are allocated, 
and to ensure that full funding is available and transferred from the 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to NHTSA at the time award 
decisions are scheduled to be made.
    Second, NHTSA has conducted an assessment with the State Highway 
Safety Offices to determine ways to improve the application, review and 
approval process of the fiscal year 2000 Section 157 innovative grant 
program.
    Third, the Federal Register Notice for fiscal year 2001 will 
contain more details about the specific components that need to be 
included in each proposal and the criteria that will be used to 
evaluate each proposal. Providing the states with more information in 
the Federal Register Notice should improve the overall grant award 
process.
    The combined effect of these steps should result in a streamlined, 
more efficient grant award process.
    Question. What process did you use to award the innovative Section 
157 grants?
    Answer. The Section 157 innovative grants are intended to provide 
funding to develop and implement new programs that increase seat belt 
use.
    To award the Section 157 innovative grants, an evaluation committee 
comprised of seven staff people was established to review the 
applications, prepare technical questions, evaluate the responses, and 
make recommendations for awards.
    The process for this grant program, similar to other discretionary 
competitive grant programs, required that the committee members 
evaluate the individual proposals, assign scores to each proposal based 
on criteria described in the Federal Register Notice, assess applicant 
responses to technical questions, and reach consensus on which 
proposals to recommend for award.
    Given the unique situation of evaluating proposals for future 
fiscal year dollars, it was necessary for the committee to further 
negotiate with several of the state applicants to ensure that the level 
of effort proposed by the states matched the amount of grant funding 
available.
    Once decisions were made to award the selected states, funds were 
transferred from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to NHTSA. 
Current legislation requires funding to be allocated to FHWA and then 
distributed to NHTSA.
    Once the award and budget decisions were finalized, NHTSA prepared 
grant award documents for signature.

          SECTION 157 INNOVATIVE GRANT AND SECTION 403 FUNDING

    Question. Please prepare estimates of the amount of funds that will 
be available for the innovative grant portion of the Section 157 
program for fiscal year 2001 and each of the remaining years of the 
TEA-21 authorization period. How will these funds be integrated with 
the ongoing NHTSA Section 403 program?
    Answer. It is estimated that the Section 157 innovative grant 
portion of the program will remain constant at 20 to 25 million dollars 
annually. Currently the only estimates of funding available under 
Section 157 are the amounts provided in the Transportation Equity Act 
for the 21st Century (TEA-21) legislation for both the incentive and 
innovative portions. Under Section 157, the TEA-21 legislation provides 
for federal funding in the amounts of: $92 million for 2000, $102 
million for 2001,$112 million for 2002 and $112 million for 2003. These 
figures illustrate a steady upward trend in funding that levels off in 
2002 and 2003.
    As specified in the legislation, before determining the innovative 
portion of the grant, the incentive portion for each state must be 
calculated. Incentive grant amounts for each state are calculated based 
upon savings in medical costs to the federal government that result 
from increased seat belt use rates. As additional states qualify for 
the incentive portion, the total amount allocated for that portion will 
increase. However, given that the overall budget for the Section 157 
program is also scheduled to increase, it is estimated that the 
innovative grant amounts will remain relatively constant.
    Section 403 funds are used primarily to develop, demonstrate, 
evaluate and research new countermeasures or strategies and conduct 
national public information and education campaigns. Section 157 
innovative grant funds are used for developing and implementing 
innovative strategies at the state level to increase seat belt use. 
These strategies are based on each state's individual set of 
circumstances. Section 157 innovative grant fund programs will utilize 
information and countermeasures developed with Section 403 funds. The 
combination of programs to increase seat belt use funded by Section 157 
and Section 403 funds should provide the best opportunity for raising 
seat belt use in individual states and, subsequently, raise our 
nationwide performance.

                        PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT LAWS

    Question. How many additional states enacted primary enforcement 
laws last year? What was NHTSA's role in those legislative initiatives?
    Answer. In 1999, Alabama and Michigan enacted primary enforcement 
laws. NHTSA provided technical assistance to both states on the 
effectiveness of a primary enforcement seat belt law in reducing deaths 
and serious injuries in motor vehicle related crashes.

                             AIR BAG SAFETY

    Question. Please provide an update on the results of NHTSA'S 
efforts to reduce the adverse effects of airbag deployment, 
specifically as related to serious injuries and fatalities.
    Answer. To reduce the affects of airbag deployment, NHTSA has 
completed the following activities:
  --On March 19, 1997, NHTSA allowed vehicle manufacturers to quickly 
        change the design of air bags to make them less powerful. This 
        action resulted in air bags in most 1998 vehicles being 
        redesigned and reduced in power.
  --On November 21, 1997, NHTSA changed the vehicle safety rules to 
        permit dealerships and repair shops to legally install air bag 
        on-off switches for consumers meeting certain criteria.
  --The agency took broad steps of exploratory research to improve 
        future air bags. Collectively, these future improvements will 
        be called advanced air bags and result from this major program 
        of research to test and evaluate air bag systems.
  --On September 17, 1998, and November 5, 1999, NHTSA published 
        proposals to amend the federal motor vehicle safety standards 
        to require advanced air bags in the near future. On May 12, 
        2000, the Final Rule for advanced air bags was published in the 
        Federal Register (65 FR 30680) amending Federal Motor Vehicle 
        Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to specify 
        the details of the required phase-in of advanced air bags.
    This agency continues its program to increase belt usage. NHTSA's 
educational activities to reduce the adverse effects of air bag 
deployment are conducted through the Buckle Up America campaign to 
increase education to consumers on the correct use of both safety belts 
and child safety seats and to get children to ride in the back. For 
example, since the Buckle Up America campaign began in 1996, motor 
vehicle deaths of children (0-4 years) have been reduced 12 percent. 
This reduction was the direct result of NHTSA's efforts to implement 
the strategies of high visibility enforcement of child passenger safety 
laws combined with public education. NHTSA plans to continue these same 
strategies.
    Question. How much of the fiscal year 2001 budget request would be 
allocated to that area? Please break out those funds in detail.
    Answer. In fiscal year 2001, $23.2 million is programmed for 
addressing air bag safety. This includes $11.9 million in funding 
requested for air bag research to reduce the adverse effects of air bag 
deployment, specifically as related to serious injuries and fatalities, 
and $11.3 million for Highway Safety programs.
    The following provides a brief description for each of the major 
research areas:
    Biomechanics Program--($5.0 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-vehicle occupant interaction. These efforts have as their goal the 
development of essential tools for the assessment of current and 
emerging air bag deployment systems.
    Safety Systems Program--($4.4 million).--Research will continue on 
the development, performance, and monitoring of advanced air bag 
systems that build upon the technological solutions to air bag problems 
identified in the field experience, including those injuries resulting 
from aggressive air bag deployments (especially to children and 
occupants of short stature). Production vehicles with advanced safety 
systems will be evaluated and performance requirements established 
based on these systems. Such systems will include production multi-
stage air bag inflators, air bag suppression technologies through 
occupant detection, seat position sensors, adjustable pedals, etc. 
Research will also continue on the development of improved air bag 
deployment timing through the use of anticipatory crash sensing 
technology. High speed (56 kmph) crash protection will continue to be 
evaluated for belted small female occupants in high severity crashes 
(and mid sized male occupant protection will be analyzed through NCAP 
performance testing). 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.
    Special Crash Investigations--(SCI) (about $2.5 million).--During 
fiscal year 2001, over 400 advanced air bag and side air bag cases 
would be investigated. Research will continue to investigate, through 
its SCI program, approximately 200 motor vehicle crashes that qualify 
for NHTSA's Air Bag Investigations Program and non-air bag related 
vehicle safety problems.
    Highway Safety ($11.3 million).--The most effective action anyone 
can take to prevent air bag injury is to be properly restrained when 
riding in a vehicle with an air bag. Therefore, NHTSA does not 
distinguish between education to reduce the adverse effects of air bags 
and education to increase the correct use of safety belts and child 
safety seats. The entire fiscal year 2001 Highway Safety Occupant 
Protection budget request of $11.3 million should be considered as 
allocated to reducing the adverse effects of air bags.

                               SEAT BELTS

    Question. How much is being spent in fiscal year 2000 and proposed 
for fiscal year 2001 within the core NHTSA program (not counting 
flagship initiatives) to determine why people do not wear their seat 
belts?
    Answer. A total of $500,000 is being spent in fiscal year 2000, and 
$425,000 is proposed to be spent in fiscal year 2001, on projects that 
will collect data to determine why people do not wear their seat belts.
    NHTSA will conduct a national telephone survey on occupant 
protection in the Fall (fiscal year 2000) that will include questions 
regarding the reasons for seat belt use and non-use. This survey will 
also collect data on attitudes and knowledge related to seat belts in 
order to assess how (self-reported) seat belt use differs according to 
various attitudes and knowledge levels. This project is funded at 
$250,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $150,000 is proposed for fiscal year 
2001.
    NHTSA will also conduct telephone surveys both before and after 
upcoming Buckle Up America (BUA) Enforcement Mobilizations. These 
surveys will collect data to assess how enforcement-related and other 
information affects decisions to wear seat belts. This project is 
funded at $50,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $125,000 is proposed for 
fiscal year 2001.
    A third effort will explore reasons for non-use of seat belts among 
African Americans. This research is part of a larger program to 
identify the overall highway safety needs of African American 
communities and to develop more effective approaches for promoting 
highway safety in these communities. This project will be funded at 
$200,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $150,000 is proposed in fiscal year 
2001.
    Not included in the activities identified above is countermeasure 
development, based on past research to identify reasons for non-use of 
seat belts. Our past research has indicated that ``part time'' users of 
seat belts greatly outnumber persons who never use their seat belts. As 
a result, NHTSA is in the process of developing and testing 
interventions specifically designed for ``part time'' users. Project 
funding is $261,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $200,000 in fiscal year 
2001. These numbers are not included in totals provided above since 
these activities are not for the purpose of identifying reasons for 
non-use of seat belts. Rather, this project goes to the next step and 
is developing countermeasures based on such reasons.
    Question. How much is being spent in fiscal year 2000 and proposed 
for fiscal year 2001 within the core NHTSA program (not counting 
flagship initiatives) to develop and implement strategies to encourage 
those high risk groups to use their seat belts?
    Answer. Of the core NHTSA program, approximately $1,905,000 is 
being spent to increase high risk group seat belt use in fiscal year 
2000 and $1,794,000 in fiscal year 2001 through a combination of 
outreach programs, information and materials development and 
distribution, and research projects.
    Of this amount, $1,044,000 is being distributed to organizations 
that represent or serve people living in rural areas as well as youth, 
truck drivers, the African American, Hispanic, and Native American 
communities. Approximately 30 organizations are being funded in fiscal 
year 2000, most of which are conducting outreach activities targeting 
high risk populations. For example, a number of projects initiated in 
fiscal year 1999 under the Buckle Up America Cooperative Agreement will 
be continued and expanded in fiscal year 2000 and 2001. Of the 21 
organizations funded, eight represent African American organizations, 
five Hispanic organizations, and three youth, and two rural, with some 
crossover among them. Other youth targeted projects include Black 
Entertainment Television (BET), National Science Teachers Association, 
National Organizations for Youth Safety (NOYS), the Boys and Girls 
Clubs of America and the National Latino Children's Institute as well 
as support for the Healthy Child Care America Campaign and Buckle Up 
Kids Curriculum. We are continuing and expanding our outreach to the 
Native American community through our interagency agreement with the 
Indian Health Service. We are also funding several medical and health 
organizations to conduct educational outreach programs such as the 
Association of City and County Health Officials, American Hospital 
Association, the National Medical Association and the National Hispanic 
Medical Association, Emergency Nurses Association and Emergency Nurses 
CARE, Inc., and the Meharry Medical College.
    Approximately $300,000 is being spent on seat belt public 
information and education materials to support Buckle Up America and 
increase belt use among high-risk groups. This includes materials 
printed in languages other than English and materials that target other 
high-risk groups such as youth, truck drivers, the African American 
community, and Americans who reside in rural communities. NHTSA expects 
to devote roughly the same level of resources to these organizations 
and for printing costs of public information and education materials in 
fiscal year 2001.
    In addition, a NHTSA project will explore reasons for non-use of 
seat belts as part of a study focusing on African Americans. The 
project goals will be to identify highway safety needs of African 
American communities and ways of promoting highway safety to those 
communities. Project funding is $200,000 in fiscal year 2000 and 
$150,000 proposed in fiscal year 2001.
    Finally, advanced project work based on past NHTSA research on 
reasons for non-use of seat belts is being funded. That research has 
shown that ``part time'' users of seat belts greatly outnumber non-
users. NHTSA currently is developing and testing interventions for part 
time seat belt users. Project funding is $261,000 in fiscal year 2000 
and $200,000 in fiscal year 2001. An additional $100,000 will focus 
exclusively on research into pick-up truck driver non-seat belt use and 
children being allowed to ride in the cargo area of pick-up trucks in 
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.

                           STATE SURVEY DATA

    Question. Can NHTSA determine from state survey data of seat belt 
use counties or regions within a state that are below the national 
average? If so, please provide a table which depicts, on a state by 
state basis, the counties or regions of each state with low seat belt 
usage rates.
    Answer. NHTSA cannot determine from state survey data of seat belt 
use counties or regions within a state that are below the national 
average. Under the NHTSA guidelines for seat belt observational 
surveys, states use random probabilistic methods to select places where 
seat belt observations will occur. Generally, this involves randomly 
choosing a subset of sampling units and specific locations within the 
selected sampling units where observations take place. States are not 
required to sample usage in all counties or regions of the state. The 
large majority of counties throughout the country are not surveyed. 
Thus, it is not possible to list counties or regions where seat belt 
usage is below the national average.

                    TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

    Question. What are the major challenges facing the law enforcement 
community and how does your budget request address those challenges?
    Answer. The major challenge facing the law enforcement community is 
the need to continue conducting high visibility traffic law enforcement 
initiatives with dwindling resources and increasing demands for 
service. The traffic law enforcement budget request specifically 
addresses initiatives directed at increasing safety belt and child 
safety seat use and the reduction of impaired driving, speeding, and 
aggressive driving.
    Increasing safety belt and child safety seat usage and combating 
impaired driving, speeding, and aggressive driving behaviors will 
require innovative countermeasures and best practices that can be 
tailored for use by law enforcement agencies throughout the country. 
Also, agencies are looking for automated enforcement technologies to 
supplement limited personnel resources. NHTSA is involved in 
researching existing and new technologies to identify where and how 
automated devices can supplement enforcement efforts for red-light 
running, speeding and railroad grade crossing violations. Ensuring the 
accuracy and reliability of these automated devices is crucial to their 
acceptance in any legal proceeding.
    Law enforcement is committed to strongly supporting the NHTSA goals 
of reducing alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities to no more than 
11,000 by the year 2005 and increasing seat belt use to 90 percent by 
2005. To meet these ambitious goals and to also reduce the carnage 
resulting from speeding and aggressive drivers, law enforcement 
agencies must continue to conduct high visibility enforcement programs. 
These programs, coupled with public information and education 
campaigns, increase the public's perception that traffic law 
enforcement efforts are widespread and critical to reducing motor 
vehicle injuries and fatalities.
    In direct support of both the TEA-21 initiatives and the NHTSA 
strategic plan, the law enforcement community is working towards 
reducing speed related fatalities. These fatalities have been on the 
rise since the elimination of the national maximum speed limit. Through 
a joint NHTSA and FHWA field demonstration project, emphasis will be 
directed to restoring credibility to speed limits through enforcement, 
engineering and education. NHTSA will continue to respond to high risk, 
aggressive driving by promoting innovative enforcement practices and 
new technologies and bringing more public attention to the issue.

                           AGGRESSIVE DRIVING

    Question. What was the purpose and amount of each contract NHTSA 
let to reduce aggressive driving in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 
2000?
    Answer. A fiscal year 1999 NHTSA demonstration and evaluation 
project will soon be implemented in two sites. Two metropolitan law 
enforcement agencies, or combinations of agencies, have been selected 
to implement innovative enforcement techniques or strategies. Each 
program will include a public information and education (PI&E) 
component. The enforcement effort will be implemented in each site for 
a minimum of six months, and the effectiveness of each program will be 
evaluated. The funding for this effort in fiscal year 1999 was 
$500,000.
    In a fiscal year 2000 project, NHTSA is identifying specific 
enforcement practices that show promise for deterring aggressive 
driving. In addition, this project is developing a public education 
effort to increase the public's perception of high risk driving 
behavior. The cost of this project is $115,000.
    An estimated $20,000 in fiscal year 2000 is also being used to fund 
a law enforcement officer to work with NHTSA on a one-year assignment 
to collect and summarize information from law enforcement agencies 
across the nation that are conducting aggressive driving programs. This 
information will then be entered into a database of aggressive driving 
programs which can be used by other law enforcement agencies.
    NHTSA and FHWA have convened an Aggressive Driving Implementation 
Group to review progress in implementing the recommendations from the 
1999 Aggressive Driving and the Law symposium. The group has reviewed 
recommendations from this symposium and is currently establishing 
priorities, identifying partners, and determining the next steps for 
developing a National Action Plan. A total of $60,000 has been 
identified to support this activity for fiscal year 2000.

                    TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING

    Question. Please provide a table for the components in the Traffic 
Law Enforcement Program which shows how funds requested for fiscal year 
2001 are intended to be spent. In that table, please compare the amount 
provided for similar activities for fiscal year 2000 and provide a 
justification for the need for the requested increases above fiscal 
year 2000 appropriations.
    Answer. Efforts to reduce impaired driving, speeding, aggressive 
driving, and other unsafe driving acts in addition to promoting 
increased seat belt and child safety seat use are critical 
responsibilities of our nation's law enforcement agencies.
    The fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 funding levels for the 
five Traffic Law Enforcement Program components are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year
              Program area                     2000            2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement Demonstrations..............        $700,800        $903,000
Training and Technical Assistance \1\...         400,000       1,279,000
Technology Transfer.....................         100,000         262,000
National Organizations..................         460,200         452,000
Public Information and Education........         375,000         446,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................       2,036,000       3,342,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Congress has directed that NHTSA provide Pursuit Management training
  and TEA-21 authorized $1M to fund this program.

    The Traffic Law Enforcement budget directly supports both TEA-21 
initiatives and the agency's strategic plan to increase seat belt usage 
and reduce impaired, speeding and aggressive drivers.
    The fiscal year 2001 budget request seeks continued funding for our 
current partnerships with national law enforcement associations such as 
the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National 
Sheriffs Association, the National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement executives, and others. These partnerships provide an 
efficient and economical method of promoting our traffic safety 
initiatives. In addition, funding is needed for other traffic law 
enforcement projects that are included in the DOT and NHTSA Strategic 
Plan. The additional funds are needed to:
  --Provide seminars on Traffic Safety in the New Millennium: Law 
        Enforcement Strategies for law enforcement executives, designed 
        to enable and prepare them to address emerging traffic safety 
        challenges;
  --Provide a seminar on newly developed technologies designed to 
        supplement law enforcement efforts through automated 
        enforcement of red-light running, speeding, and railroad 
        crossing violations;
  --Develop a resource guide for new technologies to ensure the 
        accuracy and reliability of enforcement devices for enforcement 
        agencies, the courts, and the motoring public;
  --Develop a training program for law enforcement administrators 
        designed to aid in developing a broader, general emphasis on 
        traffic safety related programs while protecting the individual 
        rights of the motoring public; and
  --Continue the development of the aggressive driving public in 
        formation materials.

                   INTEGRATED DRIVER LICENSING SYSTEM

    Question. What is the status of the comprehensive integrated driver 
licensing system? What costs, broken out by year, are associated with 
its development? How much work remains to be done to fully implement 
the system?
    Answer. Currently, NHTSA is preparing a Report to Congress 
regarding the National Driver Register's (NDR's) Problem Driver Pointer 
System (PDPS), operated by NHTSA, and the Commercial Driver License 
Information System (CDLIS), formerly operated by the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) and now operated by the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration (FMCSA). This evaluation, required by the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (TEA-21), focuses on the 
ability of these two systems to transfer records electronically and to 
identify drivers with multiple licenses.
    NHTSA is also conducting an assessment of various technologies to 
facilitate processing of the large volume of data and transactions 
which would be associated with an integrated driver licensing system. 
The total expenditure for this activity, also required by TEA-21, is 
$250,000provided to the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators (AAMVA). No additional funds have been provided for this 
activity.
    Much of the information for the Report to Congress comes from a 
1997 study, conducted by NHTSA, FHWA, and AAMVA, which recommended 
combining PDPS and CDLIS with the Driver License Reciprocity (DLR) 
System (operated by AAMVA) to form an integrated national system. This 
report suggested that such a system would greatly facilitate the 
ability of motor vehicle administrators to transfer records 
electronically and to identify drivers with multiple licenses.
    There are some significant obstacles which must be overcome before 
such a system, which would contain information on nearly 200 million 
drivers, can be fully developed. First, as the 1997 Report concluded, 
some form of unique identifier (e.g., social security number) will be 
needed to differentiate between potentially thousands of similar 
records in the system (e.g. nearly 2.4 million persons have the surname 
``Smith''). This need for a unique identifier has been strongly opposed 
by privacy advocates. Second, in order to identify drivers with 
multiple licenses, it will be essential that all states participate. 
Finally, the costs associated with developing such a system will be 
formidable. Each of these issues will be addressed in the Report to 
Congress.

                          OLDER DRIVER PROGRAM

    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 that directive 
reflected in the fiscal year 2001 budget request and in the fiscal year 
2000 spending plan for the transportation safety program? Please 
provide a list of each activity and its spending level.
    Answer. For the fiscal year 2001 budget request, $300,000 is 
planned for conducting up to three demonstration activities designed to 
enhance the safety and mobility of older drivers and pedestrians. NHTSA 
is still reviewing program alternatives to determine which specific 
programs will be demonstrated. Programs under consideration include: 
senior fitness programs that incorporate pedestrian safety and driving 
health; conducting assessment activities at senior health fairs; and 
assistance to a state licensing authority's medical advisory board to 
develop an evaluation program for referrals that is grounded in 
research. For the fiscal year 2000 spending plan, $130,000 is planned 
for conducting demonstration activities specifically for identification 
and potential rehabilitation of at-risk older drivers.
    Question. How many states are involved in older driver 
demonstrations supported with NHTSA funds?
    Answer. Three states are currently involved in NHTSA older driver 
demonstrations. They are as follows:
  --Maryland is conducting an effort to determine the value of the 
        Gross Impairment Screening tool (GRIMPS) as a means for 
        identifying potential problem drivers in Department of Motor 
        Vehicle (DMVs) settings and in senior centers and its value in 
        providing counseling or rehabilitation to such persons.
  --Florida is involved in a project to assess the value of using an 
        automated version of GRIMPS for identifying problem drivers. 
        The program, which will be administered in memory clinics, aims 
        to address those drivers whose cognitive abilities may have 
        declined and who may be unaware of how the declines are 
        affecting their driving. Beyond simply assessing individuals 
        with cognitive impairments, the program also aims to provide 
        counseling with regard to potential rehabilitation or, if 
        indicated, counseling individuals to stop driving and use other 
        options.
  --Texas is in the process of documenting a program on elderly 
        pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver safety that is operated by 
        the Texas Department of Health and the Texas Department of 
        Transportation. This very successful and popular program will 
        be described in an evaluation report so that people in other 
        states or local agencies can copy components of the program. 
        This effort also involves modifying portions of the program to 
        meet the needs of Spanish-speaking older adults, a large 
        audience that has remained largely unaddressed.
    Question. How much is allocated toward those efforts in fiscal year 
2000? Will those efforts be expanded during fiscal year 2001? How much 
is requested for those efforts in fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. A total $263,000 in funding is planned for fiscal year 2000 
older driver demonstration projects. Depending on the outcomes of the 
efforts in Florida, Texas, and Maryland, NHTSA will either fund 
additional activities at these sites or, if the results are 
sufficiently definitive, new demonstrations will be initiated. These 
additional activities might include aiding the Maryland medical 
advisory board in adapting assessment tools for use on referred 
drivers. Another program could entail the use of automated assessment 
tools at senior health fairs to generate an understanding among seniors 
of how their health influences their driving. For fiscal year 2001, 
$300,000 has been requested for demonstration projects on older driver 
and pedestrian safety. Thus, the level of effort will increase slightly 
in fiscal year 2001.

                        HIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCH

    Question. Please break out how the $7.446 million requested under 
highway safety research would be allocated.
    Answer. The Highway Safety Research breakdown is as follows:

Impaired Driving..............................................$1,900,000
Occupant Protection........................................... 1,400,000
Older Driver..................................................   850,000
Pedestrian and Cyclist........................................   876,000
Speed & Aggressive Driving.................................... 1,120,000
Emergency Medical Services....................................   400,000
Evaluation....................................................   650,000
Driver Fatigue & Inattention..................................   250,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total................................................... 7,446,000

                NATIONAL OCCUPANT PROTECTION USE SURVEY

    Question. What are the status and the results to date of the 
National Occupant Protection Use Survey?
    Answer. The results of the National Occupant Protection Use Survey 
(NOPUS) to date are as follows:

 TABLE 1.--NATIONAL OCCUPANT PROTECTION USE SURVEY--MOVING TRAFFIC STUDY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Percent restraint use
          Belt and helmet use           --------------------------------
                                         Fall 1994  Fall 1996  Fall 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall................................         58         61         69
    Drivers............................         59         62         70
    Passenger..........................         55         59         65
Passenger Cars.........................         63         65         71
    Drivers............................         64         65         72
    Passengers.........................         59         62         68
Other Pass Vehicles....................         50         56         66
    Drivers............................         51         58         67
    Passengers.........................         49         53         61
Helmet Use.............................         63         64         67
    Operators..........................         67         66         64
    Riders.............................         54         58         84
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The restraint use rates presented in Table 1 were obtained through 
the Moving Traffic Study portion of the NOPUS which provides overall 
restraint use rates for drivers and right front passengers in passenger 
vehicles (passenger vehicles are defined as passenger cars, pickup 
trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles).

                 TABLE 2.--NATIONAL OCCUPANT PROTECTION USE SURVEY CONTROLLED INTERSECTION STUDY
                        [Percent Restraint Use by Year, Age, Sex, Race, and Urbanization]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       1994            1996            1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age:
    Infant......................................................            87.7            85.2            96.9
    Toddler.....................................................            60.7            60.1            90.7
    Youth.......................................................            57.7            64.6            71.8
    Young Adult.................................................            52.6            49.5            57.2
    Adult.......................................................        \1\ 59.1            62.4            69.8
    Senior......................................................        \1\ 59.1            68.8            77.3
Sex:
    Female......................................................            64.4            68.0            76.3
    Male........................................................            54.4            56.8            62.8
Race:
    White.......................................................            59.6            62.6            69.8
    Black.......................................................            53.0            51.2            65.4
    Other.......................................................            54.6            58.0            65.3
Urbanization:
    City........................................................            57.7            61.1            73.8
    Suburban....................................................            62.9            64.4            66.5
    Rural.......................................................            52.8            60.1            66.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1994 NOPUS collected only Adult (25 years or older).

    Table 2 shows the restraint use rates obtained from the Controlled 
Intersection Study portion of the NOPUS which provides more detailed 
information about shoulder belt use by type of vehicle and person 
characteristics and child restraint use for occupants of passenger 
vehicles.

                    EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS)

    Question. How much funding is NHTSA requesting to fund the proposal 
to develop strategies for wireless E9-1-1? Please explain the specific 
projects of this proposal and the level of funding associated with 
each.
    Answer. More than 100,000 wireless emergency calls are made per day 
across the United States. The dramatic increase in the use of wireless 
technology to call for help has heightened the need to address 
institutional and other barriers to effective management of these 
important calls, including proper call routing. The fiscal year 2001 
budget request includes $162,000 to complete funding of a three-year 
demonstration program in New York. This project will model strategies 
for overcoming a range of institutional barriers to implementing 
wireless E9-1-1. The total cost of this project will be $962,000, with 
$600,000 being contributed by the Intelligent Transportation System 
program and the remainder from the EMS Program.
    To implement wireless E9-1-1, states need to resolve a number of 
institutional issues, such as determining which state agency will 
control the routing of wireless emergency calls. The New York 
demonstration will model a consensus approach to resolving these 
issues, led by members of the emergency medical community. The 
emergency medical community is particularly well positioned to host 
these negotiations, since they are focused on quick resolution of the 
issues and are unbiased concerning specific institutional arrangements. 
Resolving the wireless E9-1-1 issue was one of the top priorities in 
the recent EMS strategic planning document, the EMS Agenda for the 
Future.
    Question. What are the planned activities and funding amounts 
requested for the proposal to train emergency dispatchers for wireless 
911 calls?
    Answer. With more than 100,000 wireless emergency calls per day 
coming in to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP's) across the 
country, emergency dispatchers must be prepared to receive the calls, 
identify location of the incident (with help of emerging technologies) 
and dispatch appropriate EMS, fire or law enforcement resources to 
thescene.
    NHTSA is requesting approximately $100,000 to develop training 
materials and outreach techniques to help local dispatch centers 
implement wireless E9-1-1. To begin receiving and responding to 
wireless E9-1-1 calls, each of the approximately 6,000 PSAP's across 
the nation will need to make changes to current procedures and 
equipment. This project will speed the adoption of these changes by 
ensuring that dispatch centers receive accurate information and 
guidance. The training is expected to include details about relevant 
federal rules and regulations, options for local institutional 
arrangements, and details on technology choices.

                      NATIONAL BYSTANDER TRAINING

    Question. What are the objectives of the national bystander caren 
training network? Please break down funding requested for this activity 
and compare to fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. Uninjured vehicle occupants or other motorists are often 
the first people at the scene of a motor vehicle crash. These 
``bystanders'', with proper training, could provide valuable lifesaving 
assistance until emergency personnel arrive at the scene. During fiscal 
year 2000, NHTSA is introducing a bystander care program to prepare 
motorists to take proper actions when coming on the scene of a recent 
crash. The program instructs the motorist to immediately call 9-1-1 and 
then render lifesaving medical care, if needed, while waiting for 
emergency medical services to arrive.
    The bystander care program encourages medical professionals to 
teach hands-on training to the public. In fiscal year 2000, NHTSA 
dedicated $75,000 to initiate an outreach program to fund the costs of 
conducting national bystander care training. These funds were 
distributed through a number of national medical associations to 
provide bystander care training at ten national medical conferences. 
The goal is to establish a nationwide database network of bystander 
trainers.
    In fiscal year 2001, an additional $50,000 will be directed to 
completing the training initiatives by funding five additional training 
sessions in selected states.

                    EMS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES NETWORK

    Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity the 
proposal to expand EMS involvement in delivering community traffic 
safety messages through the Safe Communities network. Is it necessary 
to utilize the Safe Communities network to expand EMS involvement in 
public safety campaigns?
    Answer. The 1996 EMS Agenda for the Future, a consensus strategic 
planning document supported by NHTSA, highlighted the importance of EMS 
participation in prevention activities and specifically pointed out the 
value of EMS involvement in the Safe Communities program. In fiscal 
year 2000, NHTSA responded to this recommendation by initiating a 
revision of the EMS PIER (Public Information, Education and Relations) 
program to incorporate a module on Safe Communities. The agency's 
fiscal year 2001 request includes funds to complete this revision.
    The PIER program was developed in 1996 to encourage and prepare EMS 
personnel to conduct community education activities. The program 
instructs EMS personnel in community outreach and media skills. The new 
module will educate EMS providers concerning their potential role in 
Safe Communities either as leaders or participants.
    While it is not necessary to use Safe Communities to engage EMS 
personnel in prevention activities, this approach offers an attractive 
incentive and efficient mode of giving EMS a clear and appropriate role 
in community injury prevention.

                        EMERGING TRAFFIC ISSUES

    Question. Please break out in detail by project or activity how 
NHTSA proposes to use the $1,500,000 requested for new/emerging issues 
and compare the requested amount to the allocation for fiscal year 
2000.
    Answer. Last year, Congress appropriated $1,000,000 for NHTSA to 
use for new, emerging, and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21) issues.
    Primarily, the funds are used to develop, print and distribute 
program materials, including aggressive driving, older drivers, and 
drowsy driving, specifically identified by emerging research, and 
requiring NHTSA's attention. Surveys suggest that aggressive driving is 
becoming the top highway safety concern of the public. As the Baby 
Boomers move into their later years, demographics show that problems 
facing the older driver are becoming an increasing problem. A number of 
states have identified drowsy driving as a significant problem; 70,000 
injury-causing crashes and 1,550 fatalities annually are attributed to 
drowsy driving. Specifically, the agency is (1) collaborating with the 
Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc. on a national campaign 
(billboards and bus placards) to curb aggressive driving; (2) 
partnering with USAA to develop, and the American Association of 
Retired People to develop, market and distribute materials targeted to 
consumers and care providers to help older drivers remain safe and 
mobile as long as possible; and (3) working with the Network of 
Employers for Traffic Safety to market and distribute the drowsy 
driving comprehensive program materials targeted to shift workers and 
their families. Additionally, these funds are being used for large-
scale revisions to all of the NHTSA Professional Development training 
programs for state and local highway safety officials in order to 
incorporate major changes in programs due to the Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). In addition, a new one-half day 
course has been developed to provide a TEA-21 presentation piece for 
use with highway safety executives and new employees.
    With the training completed, the agency would continue the 
activities initiated in 2000 and would initiate the following 
activities with the $1,500,000 requested: (1) expand the drowsy driving 
program materials to include the high-risk group that includes high 
school youth and college students; (2) develop additional older drivers 
program materials, market and distribute the program and materials to 
additional intermediaries such as the increasing number of senior 
centers, geriatric physicians, law enforcement, and the courts; (3) 
develop new and focused media messages relating to aggressive driving 
behaviors as we identify additional high risk groups, and materials on 
aggressive driving; and (4) raise awareness and develop countermeasures 
for the increasing problems related to increased activities inside the 
vehicle, such as the use of cell phones, eating, reading, putting on 
make-up and faxing, which can overload the driver with distractions.

                      TRAFFIC SAFETY DATA SYSTEMS

    Question. How much funding is NHTSA requesting to assist states in 
developing and implementing traffic safety data systems?
    Answer. Traffic safety data systems are critical for the 
identification of traffic safety problems and for the effective 
evaluation and management of traffic safety programs. One of the major 
deficiencies in state traffic safety data systems is the tracking and 
exchange of citation and driver history information. For this reason, 
NHTSA is requesting $325,000 to assist states in developing and 
implementing data systems that allow for information tracking and 
exchange. These funds will specifically be used for the development, 
testing and implementation of traffic safety data technologies that 
facilitate the exchange of traffic citation and driver history 
information between law enforcement, the courts and driver licensing 
agencies. This effort will be conducted in conjunction with the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which has been mandated by 
the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 to implement traffic 
safety data systems that integrate driver citation and conviction 
information.
    Question. What is the difference between the funding in the highway 
safety account for state safety records and the Section 411 incentive 
grants?
    Answer. Over the last 20 years, state and locally provided 
resources for traffic safety data systems have eroded. This has had 
negative consequences for state and national data bases that are used 
to identify traffic safety problems and evaluate implemented traffic 
safety countermeasures. As a result of the decreased state and local 
resources, funding in the highway safety account is used for traffic 
safety data system activities that provide information on both 
standards and best practices that allow a state or local traffic safety 
organization to maximize their available resources. Some of the 
activities funded by the highway safety account include local, state 
and national traffic safety data system conferences and meetings, 
traffic safety data systems assessments that provide information on 
best practices, data analysis courses and other training that promote 
effective problem identification and evaluation processes, and 
development, revision, and implementation of standards such as ANSI 
D16, ANSI D20, and the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). 
The adoption of traffic safety data system standards is critical if the 
impact of implemented traffic safety activities is to be compared over 
time and across geographic areas.
    Section 411 incentive grants are managed and coordinated by the 
states. Funds can be used for a number of state and local data system 
improvements and activities such as infrastructure development and 
improvement, data collection, data management, system linkages, and 
data access technologies. For many states, the availability of 411 
funds has been an important resource for making improvements to their 
traffic safety data system.

                        SAFE/LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

    Question. The Department has delegated NHTSA as the coordinator of 
the ``Livable Communities'' initiative. Please explain this initiative 
in greater detail and identify the modes, specific programs, and 
amounts that are being requested to further it.
    Answer. The Safe/Livable Communities Initiative incorporates safety 
and injury prevention programs into all Departmental programs involved 
with ``quality of life'' issues (i.e. Transportation and Community and 
System Preservation Pilot Program, Rural Initiative, and Livability 
Initiative). The initiative promotes the implementation, in as many 
communities as possible, of programs designed to improve safety, 
efficiency and accessibility of all modes of transportation. Much of 
the technical assistance the Department provides at the community level 
is delivered through regional intermodal safety teams, working in 
concert with state transportation agency partners. The initiative also 
seeks to incorporate safety and injury prevention into community 
improvement programs sponsored by other federal agencies.
    The safety elements of the initiative include:
  --Clearinghouse--$500,000.--NHTSA will expand the Safe Communities 
        Clearinghouse and website to incorporate information on other 
        agency community-based transportation safety initiatives and 
        will link to technical assistance sites.
  --Training--$450,000.--NHTSA's Safe Communities Community 
        Practitioner's Course and Intermodal/Interagency Executive 
        Seminar will include information on ONE DOT safety messages and 
        modal safety training programs.
  --Technical Assistance--$1,000,000.--NHTSA will coordinate a network 
        of multi-disciplinary assessment teams of experienced 
        practitioners to conduct assessments of communities' resources, 
        safety problems, capabilities, and trends and provide an action 
        plan for affecting improvements in the community.
  --Materials--$791,000.--The Regional ONE DOT Teams are working across 
        modes to develop and deliver similar safety messages, i.e., 
        buckle up in the car, in the air and on the water, to the 
        Department's wide range of partners.
  --Partnerships--$300,000.--Through the Safe/Livable Communities 
        Initiative, NHTSA can deliver its highway traffic safety 
        message to partners to whom the agency might not have access 
        otherwise. NHTSA is able to expand the agency's reach across 
        the nation by having other modes and programs deliver buckle-up 
        and impaired driving messages.
    Each modal administration assigns staff to the Department's 
Community Outreach Task Force (chaired by NHTSA), which provides 
overall direction to the Safe/Livable Communities Initiative. Each mode 
has programs that enhance safety, mobility, economic development, 
environmental protection and other factors that impact the quality of 
community life. Each mode works within its organizational structure and 
budget to develop and support these programs. Through the Task Force, 
the modes lend overall support to one another's communication and 
outreach efforts, and help to promote them through their own networks 
of customers and partners. To date, these efforts have been part of the 
ongoing activities of the field staffs of the individual modes. It is 
not possible to segregate out the exact amount of funds that each 
agency will expend to support this effort.
    Question. What are the differences between funding requested by 
NHTSA for this initiative and the Section 402 formula program and the 
Safe Communities program?
    Answer. The Section 402 formula grant program provides funds to the 
states, the Indian Nations and the Territories to support a wide range 
of highway safety programs to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities, 
including occupant protection, impaired driving, motorcycle safety, 
traffic records, and roadway safety programs. The states must direct at 
least 40 percent of these funds to support community level programs. 
Safe Communities is a tool for communities to utilize in identifying 
their own injury problems and developing solutions to those problems. 
At the discretion of the states, Section 402 funding can be used to 
support Safe Communities.
    The Safe/Livable Communities Initiative seeks funding for the 
Department of Transportation efforts to incorporate safety and injury 
prevention programs into the vast array of Departmental programs 
designed to make communities better places to live and work, such as 
the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program, 
Rural Initiative, and Livability Initiative. To implement this effort 
in as many communities as possible, the funds will be used to support a 
clearinghouse, training, technical assistance, materials and 
partnerships--all developed intermodally. The initiative will be 
directed by the Department's Community Outreach Task Force, which has 
representation form all modes and is chaired by NHTSA.

                           ADVANCED AIR BAGS

    Question. What is the status of your R&D to advance smart air bags? 
What are some of the remaining challenges and how does the fiscal year 
2001 budget address them?
    Answer. NHTSA recently completed near-term research and testing in 
support of the Final Rule to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection'' to require 
advanced air bags. Full-vehicle crash tests were conducted with belted 
and unbelted mid-sized male and small female crash test dummies in 
different crash configurations, seating positions and impact speeds. 
Vehicles with advanced air bag technologies, such as dual stage 
inflators, advanced crash sensors, belt use sensors and seat position 
sensors were selected in the program. Air bag aggressivity tests were 
conducted with out-of-position small female driver dummies and child 
passenger dummies. NHTSA also completed a two-year cooperative 
agreement effort with a major air bag supplier studying dual stage air 
bag performance (both in terms of restraint potential and aggressivity 
to out-of-position occupants of various sizes). NHTSA also worked 
cooperatively with a vehicle manufacturer to test and evaluate pre-
production prototype MY 2000 vehicles equipped with advanced air bag 
technologies. NHTSA continued another cooperative agreement working 
with a supplier on the development of a dynamic occupant sensing system 
for modulating air bag deployment. Additionally real world crash 
investigations are continually being collected and analyzed on 
redesigned air bag systems (model year 1998-2000 vehicles) and on air 
bag-related serious injury and fatality cases. High severity crashes in 
the National Automotive Sampling System were recently reviewed for 
cases where the air bag was determined to be the cause of the fatality 
or conversely, the air bag was not powered enough. Pediatric and small 
female injury research was continued, and assessment tools in 
predicting injury to out-of-position occupants were evaluated. NHTSA 
will be publishing its latest injury criteria formulations for the 
proposed family of dummies in the Final Rule on FMVSS No. 208.
    The remaining challenges associated with smart air bag systems 
include the evaluation and development of production-ready occupant 
sensing systems. 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-vehicle occupant 
interaction. These efforts have as their goal the development of 
essential tools for the assessment of current and emerging air bag 
deployment systems. Additionally, research will continue on the 
development, performance, and monitoring of advanced air bag systems 
that build upon the technological solutions to air bag problems 
identified in the field experience, including those injuries resulting 
from aggressive air bag deployments (especially to children and 
occupants of short stature). Production vehicles with advanced safety 
systems will be evaluated and performance requirements established 
based on these systems. Such systems will include production multi-
stage air bag inflators, air bag suppression technologies through 
occupant detection, seat position sensors, adjustable pedals, etc. 
Research will also continue on the development of improved air bag 
deployment timing through the use of anticipatory crash sensing 
technology. High speed (56 kmph) crash protection will continue to be 
evaluated for belted small female occupants in high severity crashes 
(and mid sized male occupant protection will be analyzed through NCAP 
performance testing). 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. During fiscal 
year 2001, over 400 advanced air bag and side air bag cases would be 
investigated. Research will continue to investigate, through its 
Special Crash Investigation program, approximately 200 motor vehicle 
crashes that qualify for NHTSA's Air Bag Investigations Program and 
non-air bag related vehicle safety problems.

                        ADVANCED AIR BAG FUNDING

    Question. If this account were funded at $10 million above the 
fiscal year 2000 level, how would you allocate the fundings? Please 
explain your allocation within the context of your performance goals 
and strategic plan.
    Answer. Funding would be allocated as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                          Program area                              2000 level     2000 level +   Delta ($k) (b-
                                                                     ($k) (a)     $10 M ($k) (b)        a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crashworthiness.................................................           8,858           9,901           1,043
NTBRC...........................................................          13,232          14,200             968
Crash Avoid & Driver/Vehicle Perf...............................           2,948           8,050           5,102
Heavy Vehicles..................................................           1,892           2,200             308
Fatality Analysis Reporting System..............................           5,213           5,500             287
National Automotive Sampling System.............................           9,987          10,200             213
Data Analysis Program...........................................           1,924           2,800             876
State Data Systems..............................................           2,344           2,500             156
Special Crash Investigation.....................................           1,553           2,600           1,047
Technology Transfer.............................................               0               0               0
PNGV............................................................               0               0               0
VRTC............................................................             950             950               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and Analysis..............................          48,901          58,901          10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the past 30 years, NHTSA has developed successful strategies 
in addressing fatalities and injuries through occupant protection and 
injury mitigation vehicle based countermeasures. However, easy gains in 
safety improvements have already been made and new approaches through 
collision avoidance, driving behavior, driving performance, and driver-
vehicle interaction research as well as research into the use of 
advanced technologies to occupant protection and human injury research 
must be undertaken to achieve the performance goals set by the agency. 
Additionally, monitoring of real-world safety performance of vehicles 
must continue at an increased pace to keep up with the changing vehicle 
technologies.
    Question. If this account were funded at $8 million above the 
fiscal year 2000 level, how would you allocate the funding? Please 
explain your allocation within the context of your performance goals 
and strategic plan.
    Answer. Funding would be allocated as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                          Program area                              2000 level     2000 level +   Delta ($k) (b-
                                                                     ($k) (a)      $8 M ($k) (b)        a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crashworthiness.................................................           8,858           9,401             543
NTBRC...........................................................          13,232          13,700             468
Crash Avoid & Driver/Vehicle Perf...............................           2,948           7,050           4,102
Heavy Vehicles..................................................           1,892           2,200             308
Fatality Analysis Reporting System..............................           5,213           5,500             287
National Automotive Sampling System.............................           9,987          10,200             213
Data Analysis Program...........................................           1,924           2,800             876
State Data Systems..............................................           2,344           2,500             156
Special Crash Investigation.....................................           1,553           2,600           1,047
Technology Transfer.............................................               0               0               0
PNGV............................................................               0               0               0
VRTC............................................................             950             950               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and Analysis..............................          48,901          56,901           8,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the past 30 years, NHTSA has developed successful strategies 
in addressing fatalities and injuries through occupant protection and 
injury mitigation vehicle based countermeasures. However, easy gains in 
safety improvements have already been made and new approaches through 
collision avoidance, driving behavior, driving performance, and driver-
vehicle interaction research as well as research into the use of 
advanced technologies to occupant protection and human injury research 
must be undertaken to achieve the performance goals set by the agency. 
Additionally, monitoring of real-world safety performance of vehicles 
must continue at an increased pace to keep up with the changing vehicle 
technologies.
               national advanced driving simulator (nads)
    Question. Please delineate funding requests, by project, for 
operation of the NADS.
    Answer. The following human factors research projects are being 
planned on the NADS. They will be conducted utilizing up to $5 million 
of the fiscal year 2001 budget request. The detailed spending plan will 
be determined only after the final appropriation of the funds.
  --Relationship between Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) and driver 
        performance under demanding driving situations
  --Driver Distraction due to advanced in-vehicle communications 
        systems
  --Identification of driver cues in rollover crashes

                          DRIVER DISTRACTIONS

    Question. Please discuss the scope, nature, and anticipated funding 
amount for research regarding driver distractions.
    Answer. NHTSA's program of research on driving distraction is a 
coordinated effort involving the total human factors research spectrum 
for which a total of up to $7 million may be allocated. To address 
concerns on the level of driver distraction caused by advanced 
information and communication systems, the Office of Human Centered 
Research will conduct research using the National Advanced Driving 
Simulator (NADS). Initial efforts will focus on: (1) the relative 
safety of using various types of wireless devices (e.g., cell phones) 
including hand-held, hands-free and voice activated systems in 
vehicles, and (2) the level of driver distraction from more complex 
information systems, including navigation, e-mail and general Internet 
access.
    This effort will develop design guidelines that will assist vehicle 
designers in successfully integrating communication services and will 
synthesize the results for major in-vehicle systems to ensure that 
drivers can safely and effectively process inputs from multiple 
information sources. The NADS will be used to identify knowledge gaps 
and to help determine the optimal manner of organizing and presenting 
in-vehicle information to drivers and preferable control/display 
characteristics. Integration of information for the driver will include 
such areas as message priority, multiple sensory channels, and modes of 
driver-information integration.

      NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION BIOMECHANICS RESEARCH CENTER (NTBRC)

    Question. With respect to the medical institutions, hospitals, 
trauma centers, and universities that are under contract to NHTSA in 
support of the biomechanics program, what is the nature of research and 
level of funding at each of them?
    Answer. The following lists the medical institutions, hospitals, 
trauma centers, and universities supporting the NHTSA's biomechanics 
program, the nature of the research they are providing, and their 
individual fiscal year 2000 levels of funding:
  --Children's National Medical Center (Washington, DC): $400,000--
        Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) 
        participant with emphasis on pediatric injuries.
  --Duke University: $300,000--Experimental investigations quantifying 
        mechanisms of injury to cervical spine.
  --Harborview Hospital (Seattle, WA): $400,000--CIREN participant with 
        emphasis on pediatric injuries.
  --Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory (Baltimore, 
        MD):--$140,000--Experimental and analytical investigations of 
        mechanisms of injury to lower body.
  --Lehman Research Center/University of Miami (Miami, FA): $400,000--
        CIREN participant with emphasis on thoracic injuries.
  --Medical College of Wisconsin: $500,000--Experimental investigations 
        quantifying mechanisms of injury in side impact, cervical spine 
        injuries, and lower extremity injuries.
  --National Study Center for Trauma and Emergency Medical Services 
        (Baltimore, MD): $400,000--CIREN participant with emphasis on 
        orthopaedic injuries.
  --Ohio State University (Columbus, OH): $200,000--Experimental 
        biomechanics quantifying mechanisms of injury in side impact 
        crashes.
  --San Diego County Trauma System (San Diego, CA): $400,000--CIREN 
        participant with emphasis on regional EMS issues.
  --University of Medicine and Dentistry (Newark, NJ): $400,000--CIREN 
        participant with emphasis on frontal and side impact crashes.
  --University of Alabama (Birmingham, AB): $1,250,000--Experimental 
        biomechanics investigating mechanisms of injury to the brain, 
        pelvis, and lower extremities. (also Mercedes funded CIREN 
        participant).
  --University of Virginia (Charlottesville, VA): $1,051,000--
        Experimental biomechanics investigating mechanisms of injury to 
        the thorax and lower extremities in frontal crashes, thoracic 
        and abdominal injuries resulting in out-of-position situations, 
        and evaluation of advanced test dummy components.
  --University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI): $140,000--Experimental 
        biomechanics efforts investigating mechanisms of injury to 
        thorax, lower extremities, and the pelvis. $400,000--CIREN 
        participant with emphasis on trauma and burns.
  --University of Washington (Seattle, WA): $138,000--Experimental 
        investigations quantifying injury mechanisms to the pediatric 
        cervical spine.
  --Veterans Administration Medical Center (Milwaukee, WI): $200,000 
        from previous fiscal year--Experimental investigations 
        quantifying injury mechanisms to the pediatric and adult 
        cervical spine.
  --U.S. Army Medical Research Command: $700,000--Development of 
        advanced head/brain and torso injury criteria, assessment of 
        motorcycle helmet performance, research in airbag noise-related 
        ear injuries, and quantifying airbag-occupant interaction when 
        in close proximity.
    Question. Congress has urged NHTSA to redouble its efforts to 
obtain cost-sharing with other organizations which benefit from the 
national center. What progress has been made?
    Answer. The National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center 
(NTBRC) has entered into a long term Cooperative Agreement with the 
Daimler Chrysler Corporation to fund a new Crash Injury Research and 
Engineering Network (CIREN) center at the University of Alabama at 
Birmingham Medical Center. The center is being funding by Daimler 
Chrysler at $500 thousand per year for two years with options for 
renewal for an additional three years. The NTBRC is also in the final 
stages of negotiation with a major domestic auto company to fund 
another CIREN center in Virginia. Additionally, the NTBRC has employed 
``Cooperative Agreements'' as its main contractual mechanism with its 
university-based research organizations whereby they contribute a 
negotiated additional portion of support, in kind, to the total 
research effort, either in the form of enhanced facilities, additional 
equipment, and/or more staff time.
    Other significant cost-sharing opportunities have been created by 
the NTBRC's world-wide cooperative efforts to have interested parties 
evaluate the performance of NHTSA's new advanced frontal dummy, THOR. 
By offering use of the physical device along with technical support, 
more than 16 research organizations, from both other governments and 
the automotive industry, have extensively tested this device and shared 
their test results and analyses with the NTBRC. This has offered the 
participants the opportunity to preview and gain experience with 
NHTSA's newly developed testing technologies as well as providing the 
NTBRC the equivalent of more that $2 million worth of testing effort 
without charge.
    NHTSA has also had other agencies, such as the Federal Railroad 
Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration, using the 
agency's dummies for evaluation of occupant protection in rail and 
airline transportation.

                             CIREN CENTERS

    Question. How much funding was provided to each of the CIREN 
centers in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000? What is the budget 
request for each of the CIREN centers for fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. The funding and budget request follow:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                          CIREN Center                                 1999            2000            2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehman Research Center/University of Miami......................        $425,000        $400,000    \1\ $500,000
University of Medicine and Dentistry............................         425,000         400,000     \1\ 500,000
National Study Center for Trauma and Emergency Medical Services.        425,0090         400,000     \1\ 500,000
Children's National Medical Center..............................         425,000         400,000     \1\ 500,000
Harborview Hospital:
    General Motors \2\..........................................         150,000               0               0
    Federal.....................................................         133,000         400,000     \1\ 500,000
University of Michigan:
    General Motors \2\..........................................         150,000               0               0
    Federal.....................................................         133,000         400,000         500,000
San Diego County Trauma System:
    General Motors \2\..........................................         150,000               0               0
    Federal.....................................................         133,000         400,000         500,000
University of Alabama: Mercedes \3\.............................         500,000         500,000         500,000
New CIREN Center................................................               0               0     \1\ 500,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................       3,049,000       3,300,000       4,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pending fiscal year 2001 Authorization, requested increase will enable centers to collect and analyze
  additional biomechanics measurements for CIREN.
\2\ General Motors Funded CIREN Center.
\3\ Mercedes Funded CIREN Center.

                  INTELLIGENT VEHICLE INITIATIVE (IVI)

    Question. Please break out in detail by project or activity how 
NHTSA proposes to use the $30,000,000 requested for the IVI program and 
compare that to spending in the area in fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. Please see the table below. This table includes all IVI 
projects funded by the DOT Intelligent Transportation System's (ITS) 
Joint Program Office; those that involve NHTSA, as well as those that 
do not. NHTSA staff will serve as contract technical representatives on 
several light vehicle research projects, however only about $7 million 
of these funds will be obligated for ongoing research projects through 
NHTSA's Office of Contracts and Procurement.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year
            Activity/project                   2000            2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Generation 0 Operational Tests and         $5,500,000      $4,600,000
 Evaluations............................
2. Generation 1 Rear-End Collision             4,250,000   \1\ 4,500,000
 Avoidance System Field Test and
 Evaluation.............................
3. Generation 1 Rear-End Collision             1,400,000     \2\ 700,000
 Avoidance Systems Research
4. Generation 1 Lane Change/Merge                850,000       1,900,000
 Collision Avoidance Systems Research...
5. Generation 1 Road Departure Crash           2,250,000       1,000,000
 Avoidance Systems Research.............
6. Generation 1 Safety Impacting Systems         335,000         ( \3\ )
 Research...............................
7. Generation 1 Electronic Braking               250,000               0
 Systems for Commercial Vehicles........
8. Generation 1 Commercial Vehicle                     0       1,000,000
 Stability System Field Test and
 Evaluation.............................
9. Generation 1 Drowsy Driver System           1,000,000       1,500,000
 Field Test and Evaluation..............
10. Generation 1 Pedestrian Safety                     0         600,000
 Systems Research.......................
11. Enabling Research for Multiple               940,000     \4\ 500,000
 Systems Integration....................
12. Enabling Research for Forward                500,000         ( \5\ )
 Collision Warning......................
13. Enabling Research on Driver Workload         600,000         500,000
 Metrics................................
14. Enabling Research on Enhanced              1,500,000         ( \6\ )
 Digital Maps...........................
15. Enabling Research on Transit Rear-           550,000               0
 End Collision Avoidance Systems........
16. Transit Rear-End Collision Avoidance               0       1,500,000
 Systems Field Test and Evaluation......
17. Cross Cutting Human Factors Research         425,000         600,000
 into Information Systems, Societal and
 Institutional Issues, and Cost Benefit
 Methodology............................
18. Generation 2 Rear-End Collision                    0         700,000
 Avoidance Systems Research.............
19. Generation 2 Road Departure Crash                  0       1,000,000
 Avoidance Systems Research.............
20. Driver Vision Enhancement Research..         ( \7\ )     \4\ 250,000
21. Intersection Collision Avoidance             800,000   \8\ 2,000,000
 Systems Research.......................
22. Generation 2 Cross Cutting Research          500,000       1,000,000
 on Sensor Friendly Roadway, Short Range
 Communication, Radio Navigation, and
 Cooperative System Requirements........
23. Generation 2 Commercial Vehicle                    0         700,000
 Stability Systems Research.............
24. Program Support.....................       1,351,000   \9\ 2,450,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total Budget Request..............      23,001,000      30,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA--GM Project under Cooperative Agreement.
\2\ NHTSA--Naturalistic Driving Data Collection.
\3\ Continued under (11) below.
\4\ NHTSA Project.
\5\ Continued under (3) above.
\6\ Continued under (3)-(5) above.
\7\ Continued under (6) above.
\8\ NHTSA Project for Data Collection--$550K.
\9\ NHTSA Project for Data Collection--$400k.

Notes:
--Generation 0 will assess the technical performance, determine user
  acceptance, and measure the benefits of driver assistance systems that
  are expected to enter production preparation by 2003.
--Generation 1 is expected to address systems with more advanced
  capabilities than Generation 0, higher levels of integration and
  increased infrastructure cooperation, and focus mainly on driver
  warning and assistance systems.
--Generation 2 is expected to build on the accomplishments of Generation
  1, especially with a greatly increased role of infrastructure-vehicle
  cooperation.

              CRASH OUTCOME DATA EVALUATION SYSTEM (CODES)

    Question. Please update your answer from last year's hearing record 
regarding how NHTSA has conducted work 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. In fiscal year 2000, NHTSA funded four new CODES states--
Arizona, Delaware, Minnesota, and Tennessee--to continue the 
implementation of Crash Outcome Data Evaluation Systems (CODES) and the 
development of state-specific applications for the CODES linked data. 
These four states plan to focus on safety belt and roadway issues by 
comparing injury severity and average hospital inpatient charges for 
restrained and unrestrained victims of motor vehicle crashes. Arizona 
plans to evaluate belt effectiveness in terms of sex and age group, 
geographic location, type of road and driver characteristics. Delaware 
wants the linked data to support primary belt legislation and identify 
costs and injuries suffered by children involved in motor vehicle 
crashes.Minnesota will partner with the surrounding CODES states (Iowa, 
North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin) to identify the public's 
share of the costs associated with non-use of safety belts. Tennessee 
proposes to determine the relationship between the driver, vehicle, 
roadway and crash characteristics and to use this information to 
support law enforcement, EMS, roadway engineering and other prevention 
efforts. Also, in fiscal year 2000, NHTSA has published ``Standardizing 
Reporting Using CODES'' which presents management formats for reporting 
medical and financial outcome information related to the use of seat 
belts, air bags, and other engineering enhancements. In addition, ten 
existing CODES states will be funded by NHTSA during May 2000 to 
develop a CODES Data Network. Through this network, NHTSA and the Data 
Network states will collaboratively evaluate crash injury costs and 
outcome by payer source, air bag location, lateral impact crashes for 
vehicles of a particular size and weight, injury type including lower 
extremity injuries and injury patterns for the most recent five year 
period. As the Data Network expands with the addition of more linked 
data from both existing and new Data Network states, the range of 
research opportunities for NHTSA analysts and the state CODES experts 
also will expand.
    Question. How is this different from the Section 411 grant program?
    Answer. The Section 411 grant program provides three levels of 
funding to states to organize a Traffic Records Coordinating Committee 
(TRCC), develop a plan and then implement the plan for developing or 
improving their traffic records. CODES, in comparison, does not fund 
the development of traffic records data systems. Instead, it adds value 
to existing traffic safety data by linking them to medical and 
financial outcome information related to motor vehicle crashes. Data 
quality problems which are identified during the linkage process can be 
forwarded to the respective data owners. This feedback information, 
available to the states which have implemented CODES, is useful to the 
TRCC to target those areas that need the most resources. In turn, CODES 
benefits when the quality of the data files being linked improves.

                   AUTOMATIC CRASH NOTIFICATION (ACN)

    Question. Your agency is requesting funding for automatic crash 
notification (ACN) in several different programs. Please provide a 
table that lists each request for ACN, the amount requested, and a 
description of each item.
    Answer. The table below provides the requested information. This 
research will address the final issues to fine tune capabilities 
demonstrated in a recent field operational test of ACN by NHTSA, and 
should facilitate the deployment of this type of system.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Funds
           Budget Request             Requested         Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Crash Investigations of ACN     $300,000  The Special Crash
 vehicles.                                         Investigations
                                                   Program will team
                                                   with an industry
                                                   partner (e.g.,
                                                   General Motors) to
                                                   perform 10 or more in-
                                                   depth investigations
                                                   for crashes involving
                                                   vehicles with a
                                                   current ACN-like
                                                   system such as
                                                   OnStar. This
                                                   knowledge will help
                                                   inform development of
                                                   evaluation criteria
                                                   for triage procedures
                                                   for injured
                                                   occupants.
Injury Prediction Algorithms.......      150,000  This research will
                                                   lead to advanced
                                                   injury prediction
                                                   algorithms so that
                                                   more detailed and
                                                   appropriate warnings
                                                   can be automatically
                                                   sent to EMS dispatch
                                                   centers by advanced
                                                   ACN systems.
Advanced Technologies for ACN            376,893  This research will
 Communication.                                    explore transmission
                                                   alternatives and
                                                   develop institutional
                                                   requirements to
                                                   enhance the readiness
                                                   of the 911 community
                                                   to receive and
                                                   process automatic
                                                   crash notification
                                                   transmissions from
                                                   vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

      AUTHORIZED FULL TIME POSITIONS (FTP'S) AND ON-BOARD STRENGTH

    Question. Please provide a table that compares, by office, 
authorized full time employees to actual filled positions.
    Answer. The following table compares the authorized full time 
positions to on-board full time positions by office as of February 29, 
2000.

             AUTHORIZED FTP'S AND ON-BOARD STRENGTH BY OFFICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Authorized FTP    Actual FTP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Performance Standards............              69              58
Safety Assurance........................              97              92
Traffic Safety..........................             203             194
Research and Development................             124             103
Office of the Administrator and Staff                 60              56
 Offices................................
General Administration..................             111             103
                                         -------------------------------
      Totals............................             664             606
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    NHTSA ON-SITE CONTRACT EMPLOYEES

    Question. During the last three years, how many outside employees 
are under contract with NHTSA? How much was spent on contract employees 
in each year? How much is estimated to be allocated in fiscal year 
2001?
    Answer. Listed below is the information requested for NHTSA 
contractor employees working on-site in the Nassif Building.

                                             [In million of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  No. Contractor                     Expended/        Planned
                   Fiscal year                       employees       Expended        projected      allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................................             117           $8.28  ..............  ..............
1999............................................             127           11.89  ..............  ..............
2000............................................             116  ..............          $11.48  ..............
2001............................................             108  ..............  ..............          $11.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

    Question. For fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000, and planned for 
fiscal year 2001, 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, overtime pay, 
travel and training.
    Answer. The following is a table showing the costs for awards and 
bonuses, PCS, overtime pay, travel and training:

                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                                    1999 actual    2000 enacted    2001 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awards and Bonuses..............................................            $707            $761            $820
PCS.............................................................              87              87              87
Overtime Pay....................................................             131             200             215
Travel..........................................................           1,141           1,155           1,777
Training........................................................             207             216             219
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  HIGHWAY SAFETY DATA SYSTEMS AND TRAFFIC RECORDS GRANTS (SECTION 411)

    Question. Please describe how the Highway Safety Data Systems and 
Traffic Records Grant Program is being implemented. How are the states 
using the funds received.
    Answer. By January 15 of each year, states can submit an 
application for a Highway Safety Data Systems and Traffic Records 
grant. A state that applies for a grant for the first time has three 
options for which it may apply: (1) an implementation grant, which 
requires that the state have in place a traffic records coordinating 
committee, an assessment or audit of its traffic records system that 
was conducted or updated within the past five years, and a strategic 
plan for effecting traffic records system improvements; (2) an 
initiation grant, that also requires an in place traffic records 
coordinating committee and an audit or assessment within the past five 
years, but only requires that development of a strategic plan has 
begun; or, (3) a start up grant, that requires the state to certify 
that it does not meet the criteria for either an implementation or an 
initiation grant. In fiscal year 2000--the second year of this 
program--NHTSA awarded 46 grants totaling $7.6 million to 42 states, 
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and Northern Marianas. Initiation 
grants ($96,480 each) were awarded to 5 states and implementation 
grants ($173,600) to 37 states, Puerto Rico, and the three territories. 
All states that applied received funding.
    A state that has previously received only a start up grant may 
apply for either an initiation or an implementation grant in a 
subsequent year, under the same criteria listed above. A state that has 
previously received either an initiation or an implementation grant may 
apply for a subsequent year grant, provided that its traffic records 
coordinating committee continues to be in operation and continues to 
oversee implementation of the strategic plan. States receiving any 
grant funds are required to certify that the funds will be used only to 
adopt and implement an effective highway safety data and traffic 
records program, in accordance with 23 CFR 1335.10(b). A team of agency 
subject matter experts reviews all applications from the states and 
determines compliance with the grant criteria.
    The following table indicates how the states are using the funds 
received.

                    FISCAL YEAR 2000 SECTION 411 STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY DATA IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Grant
             State                 amount                      How state is using grant funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................   $173,600  Traffic Records Assessment, update strategic plan, implement
                                             statewide electronic submission of traffic citations.
Alaska.........................    173,600  Implement strategic traffic records plan develop an upgraded crash
                                             report, develop health system and crash data linkages and improve
                                             traffic records database interface.
Arizona........................    173,600  Develop a simplified and timely system for data users to retrieve
                                             crash data from traffic data systems and improve the compatibility
                                             between the two systems, research the development of a statewide
                                             citation tracking system, and support and/or provide access to
                                             technology to local police agencies that will improve electronic
                                             transfer of traffic data and increase on site data gathering.
Arkansas.......................    173,600  Improve timeliness and efficiency of the data entry process for
                                             crash reports.
California.....................    173,600  Implemented Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Automation of Rural
                                             Courts Project that provided automation hardware and software
                                             technology to input, send and retrieve traffic conviction and other
                                             data electronically, develop a laptop computer system for
                                             completing crash reports at crash sites to facilitate the direct
                                             entry of data into the crash file, and equip and train Highway
                                             Patrol with evidential quality pre-arrest breath testing devices to
                                             improve upon the alcohol detection at crash sites and in traffic
                                             stops.
Colorado.......................    173,600  Complete a software upgrades for remote data entry of crash report
                                             data, and initiating development of probability matching of crash
                                             data and hospital data.
Connecticut....................    173,600  Complete a Traffic Records Assessment, update the Traffic Records
                                             Strategic Plan, complete an automated crash report form and report
                                             analysis package for use by State and local police departments,
                                             purchase new software to store the State crash file, develop an
                                             electronic ticketing system, complete development of GIS mapping
                                             capability, continue development of a data warehouse, and to
                                             improve user accessibility to Crash Outcome Date Evaluation System
                                             (CODES).
Delaware.......................    173,600  Create an Emergency Medical System (EMS) data network, develop an
                                             automated Crash Reporting System, and create a GIS Crash Database.
Florida........................    173,600  Implement regional data centers, revise crash report instruction
                                             manual, crash report training.
Georgia........................    173,600  Automate crash reporting system, survey & software.
Hawaii.........................    173,600  Develop file linkage, training for local police departments in crash
                                             reporting and alcohol screening devices, and develop electronic
                                             data transfer system.
Idaho..........................     96,480  Develop a strategic traffic records plan.
Illinois.......................     96,480  Develop a traffic records strategic improvement plan.
Indiana........................    173,600  Hire committee coordinator, improve crash data access, pilot test
                                             new crash location system.
Iowa...........................    173,600  Capture of crash reports electronically, review crash report data,
                                             technology transfer, emergency response information and mapping.
Kentucky.......................    173,600  Crash Project Phase IV--Develop, purchase Scanners.
Louisiana......................    173,600  Implement data entry, electronic data transfer, networking, and
                                             document imaging for crash reports and traffic records in State,
                                             parish, and local communities.
Maine..........................    173,600  Pilot test an automated crash report form, provide training to state
                                             and local police, develop a new crash reporting data base with GIS
                                             capabilities capable of receiving crash reports electronically,
                                             coordinate Strategic Planning among state agencies, and design a
                                             statewide system architecture for integrated traffic records files.
Maryland.......................    173,600  Support a Data Analysis Evaluation Coordinator, improve state crash
                                             form, expand scope and use of GIS, and implement statewide
                                             training.
Massachusetts..................    173,600  Update the traffic records assessment and the traffic records
                                             strategic plan. Activity continues to improve the quality of CODES
                                             data files and to update the state crash report form to comply with
                                             MMUCC (Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria).
Michigan.......................    173,600  Develop an internet access query system.
Minnesota......................    173,600  Link two commercial vehicle crash systems, revise crash report form,
                                             improve data collection.
Mississippi....................    173,600  Software/Hardware for crash & citation data collection, data linkage
                                             for state CODES study, revision of crash report.
Missouri.......................    173,600  STARS (Statewide Traffic Accident Reporting System) Data Base,
                                             conduct annual conference & workshop, Data Base Evaluation and
                                             Consultation.
Nebraska.......................    173,600  Crash file linkage, revise report for electronic transfer, update
                                             existing traffic records files.
Nevada.........................    173,600  Form an interagency subcommittee of the Traffic Records Committee to
                                             develop a 2001 legislative proposal to gain support and funding to
                                             implement an updated traffic records system, implement Traffic
                                             Accident System Planning and Design Project, and to promote a
                                             statewide traffic records conference.
New Hampshire..................    173,600  Purchase notebook PCs to complete crash reports in the field, revise
                                             crash report form to be in compliance with MMUCC, and to develop
                                             crash reporting software which can electronically capture driver
                                             license/vehicle registration data and Global Positioning System
                                             (GPS) location data.
New York.......................    173,600  Accident information system upgrade. This project would allow direct
                                             electronic transfer of crash information from investigation agency
                                             to the state DMV file. Another project is scheduled to upgrade the
                                             ticket file. This upgrade would establish a ticket file
                                             electronically on a client server data base and would allow the
                                             courts to data-enter ticket disposition information electronically
                                             to a data base.
North Carolina.................    173,600  Development of a new crash reporting form, pilot test for electronic
                                             citation in one State Patrol District, and development of system to
                                             retrieve data via Internet.
North Dakota...................     96,480  Development of traffic records strategic plan.
Ohio...........................    173,600  Complete interactive Internet web site, capture and image a redesign
                                             crash report form.
Oklahoma.......................    173,600  Update traffic records strategic plan, address customer/client
                                             access to data bases.
Oregon.........................    173,600  Linking health and crash data, DOT crash data retrieval and
                                             analysis, crash location upgrade and a Division of Motor Vehicles
                                             driver and vehicle files upgrade.
Pennsylvania...................    173,600  Conduct a series of regional traffic records symposiums to help
                                             determine and refine the information needs of the users/customers.
Rhode Island...................    173,600  Complete successful electronic transfer of crash reports from state
                                             and local police agencies to a central repository at DOT. All 39
                                             cities and towns will be on line by September, 2000. State crash
                                             file will have capability to reference intersection locations and
                                             GIS mapping. Mobile data capture and transfer capability from
                                             police cruiser laptops will also exist. ``Canned'' and ad hoc
                                             report capability will be available from state crash file. RI will
                                             be the first state in the nation with 100 percent of all police
                                             agencies participating in electronic transfer of crash data to a
                                             central repository.
South Carolina.................    173,600  Design/implement an upgraded statewide traffic records system with
                                             linked citation and crash data.
Tennessee......................    173,600  Improve state crash reporting equipment, establish data collection
                                             in local law enforcement.
Vermont........................    173,600  Redesign the uniform crash report to be in compliance with MMUCC,
                                             develop software for a new crash data storage system which can
                                             interface with law enforcement telecommunications systems, pilot
                                             test electronic capture of EMS run data, develop software for
                                             electronic transfer of data to a central repository at the
                                             Department of Transportation, and to provide for Traffic Records
                                             System program management capabilities.
Virginia.......................    173,600  Support statewide coordination, perform equipment and inventory
                                             assessments, develop communication standards, and develop a
                                             training package.
Washington.....................    173,600  Upgrade emergency Medical Services trauma registry, develop a
                                             collision reporting system with Wisconsin DOT, a traffic records
                                             awareness campaign and a collision analysis reporting system with
                                             the Washington State Patrol.
West Virginia..................     96,480  Support statewide coordination and strategic planning development.
Wisconsin......................     96,480  Develop a traffic records strategic improvement plan.
Puerto Rico....................    173,600  Contract data processing of Police Accident Report form, pilot test
                                             pen based system to improve data collection and the use of Global
                                             Positioning System to improve data related to location of crashes.
American Samoa.................    173,600  Develop a 24/7 network link, obtain computer workstation for police
                                             dispatch and e substations, and develop pen based citation system
                                             and citation form.
Guam...........................    173,600  Obtain manpower to input crash data, develop pilot project for a pen
                                             based citation entry system, and purchase computer system for
                                             Traffic Engineering Section.
Northern Marianas..............    173,600  Improve driver file system by eliminating double typing of license
                                             data and exploring adding a bar code/magnetic strip to driver
                                             licenses, provide computers and software for EMS database and
                                             connect the driver and EMS files to their main crash reporting
                                             system.
                                -----------
      Total....................  7,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. How are you overseeing the use of those funds by the 
states? What technical assistance is NHTSA providing to the states?
    Answer. States applying for Highway Safety Data Systems and Traffic 
Records grants must certify that the funds will be used only to adopt 
and implement an effective highway safety data and traffic records 
program. After grant award, a state must document for NHTSA how it 
plans to use these funds, as part of the its comprehensive Highway 
Safety Plan. Then, NHTSA's regional staff work with the states on a 
regular basis to provide oversight and technical assistance in 
implementation of the states' highway safety plan. Also, prior to 
receipt of a subsequent data grant, a state must document progress made 
in improving highway safety data systems and traffic records since the 
previous submission of a grant application, specifically including an 
accounting of how previous grant funds were used. NHTSA's technical 
assistance efforts include offering the services of regional data 
analysis contractors. In addition, at a state's request, NHTSA 
facilitates the conduct of an independent assessment of a state's 
traffic records system by experts from across the nation.

              HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT ADMINISTRATION

    Question. Please break out how the administrative takedown funds 
were used for each of the grant programs for fiscal year 1999 and 
fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. The following table represents how the administrative draw 
down funds were used in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000:

                          GRANT ADMINISTRATION
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                           1999 actuals    2000 enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Benefits...................           6,736           7,500
Travel..................................             334             336
Operating Expenses......................             506             815
Contract Program........................           1,562           1,689
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................           9,138          10,340
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. How do you propose to use the takedown funds for your 
grant programs in fiscal year 2001?
    Answer. The following is NHTSA's proposed used of the draw down 
from the grant programs in fiscal year 2001:

Fiscal year 2001 grant administration

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Salaries and Benefits............................................. 8,207
Travel............................................................   421
Operating Expenses................................................   815
Contract Program..................................................   555
                                                                  ______
      Total....................................................... 9,998

     CONTRACTS MANAGED OR OVERSEEN BY STATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

    Question. Please list the amount, nature, and benefits obtained 
from each contract managed or overseen by regional operations during 
fiscal year 1999 and thus far during fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. The following table lists the amount, nature, and benefits 
obtained from each contract managed or overseen by the Office of State 
and Community Services (formerly the Office of Regional Operations) 
during fiscal year 1999 and thus far during fiscal year 2000.

                              CONTRACTS MANAGED OR OVERSEEN BY STATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DURING FISCAL YEAR 1999 & 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Contract amount
                                             --------------------------------
                   Nature                       Fiscal year     Fiscal year                                    Benefits
                                                1999 funds      2000 funds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA          $49,006         $50,000  These contracts provide the services of statisticians and data analysis
 Region I.                                           ( \1\ )               0   experts who assist the states in setting goals and performance measures,
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA           50,038         ( \1\ )   designing and analyzing the results of seat belt observational surveys,
 Region II.                                           50,000         ( \2\ )   implementing Crash Outcome Data Evaluation Systems, evaluating key
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA          ( \1\ )         ( \2\ )   projects, updating strategic plans for traffic records and data systems
 Region III.                                          50,000         ( \2\ )   improvements and in carrying out other analytic services appropriate to
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA          ( \1\ )         ( \2\ )   the states' highway traffic safety missions.
 Region IV.                                           47,436         ( \2\ )
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA           90,100          90,048
 Region V.
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA
 Region VI.
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA
 Region VII.
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA
 Region VIII.
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA
 Region IX & X.
Law Enforcement Liaison--Region III.........          56,000         ( \2\ )  A key component of both the Presidential Initiative for Increasing Seat
Law Enforcement Liaison--Region V...........          27,500         ( \2\ )   Belt Use Nationwide and the DOT initiative to reduce alcohol-related
Law Enforcement Liaison--Region VI..........               0         ( \2\ )   deaths and injuries is high visibility law enforcement. The Regional Law
Law Enforcement Liaison--Region VII.........               0          75,000   Enforcement Liaisons provide comprehensive technical assistance to state,
Law Enforcement Liaison--Region VIII........          63,540          65,220   county, and local law enforcement agencies within the Region. The
Law Enforcement Liaison--Region IX..........          33,050         ( \2\ )   Liaisons market and coordinate law enforcement activities for these
Law Enforcement Liaison--Region X...........               0          72,952   efforts.
                                                                      75,740
Traffic Safety Digest.......................          85,000         ( \2\ )  The Traffic Safety Digest is a publication that highlights successful
                                                                               traffic safety programs that are being implemented around the country. It
                                                                               is distributed to over 3,000 traffic safety advocates on a quarterly
                                                                               basis. The Traffic Safety Digest allows traffic safety advocates to
                                                                               become aware of projects that are taking place nationwide and presents
                                                                               them with ideas that can be replicated.
Region I Internship Co-op with Boston                121,000         ( \2\ )  This internship allows minority students the opportunity to study and gain
 University.                                          21,000         ( \2\ )   hands-on experience in the field of traffic safety and other related
Region IV Internship Co-op with Clark                 21,000         ( \2\ )   areas.
 Atlanta University.
Region V Internship Co-op with Chicago State
 University.
Media Support Contract--Region I............          35,000          35,000  The purpose of the media support contract is to provide services for the
Media Support Contract--Region II...........          35,000          33,325   Regional Offices and their states to promote the goals of the Buckle Up
Media Support Contract--Region III..........          35,000          33,740   America Campaign, You Drink and Drive. You Lose. Campaign, and highway
Media Support Contract--Region IV...........          35,000          35,000   safety educational programs in general. Through the technical assistance
Media Support Contract--Region V............         ( \1\ )         ( \2\ )   of experienced media consultants, NHTSA's critical highway safety
Media Support Contract--Region VI...........          35,000          34,000   messages can be effectively communicated to the public and policy makers.
Media Support Contract--Region VII..........          35,000          29,127
Media Support Contract--Region VIII.........          35,000          35,000
Media Support Contract--Region IX...........          60,000          32,000
Media Support Contract--Region X............          35,000               0
Highway Safety Training Services............       1,555,000         787,647  The contract provides for a comprehensive package of highway safety
                                                                               training services from the Transportation Safety Institute. The training
                                                                               curricula is developed to assist the highway safety community in all
                                                                               aspects of highway safety program administration and implementation.
Computer Support Services...................          25,000          80,000  The contract provides the ten NHTSA regional offices with onsite computer
                                                                               service for both hardware and software on an ``as needed'' basis.
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region          35,000         ( \2\ )  NHTSA's Regional Offices are using injury control cooperative agreements
 I.                                                   35,000         ( \2\ )   to promote collaboration among State Highway Safety Offices, medical and
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region          35,000               0   public health professionals (including HMO's and health plan
 II.                                                  35,000         ( \2\ )   associations), law enforcement, insurance, business groups and non-
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region          30,000         ( \2\ )   traditional partners in an effort to promote traffic safety initiatives.
 III.                                                  5,000         ( \2\ )   Injury control contractorsare helping to expand Safe and Livable
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region          35,000         ( \2\ )   Communities and promote Buckle Up America and the agency's
 IV.                                                  35,000         ( \3\ )   impaireddriving prevention programs.
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region          35,000         ( \2\ )
 V.                                                   35,000          35,000
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region
 VII.
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region
 VIII.
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region
 IX.
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region
 X.
REGION I:
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase            ( \4\ )         354,200  These grants fund innovative statewide efforts to boost seat belt use rate
     Seat Belt Use--Maine.                                           346,000   and improve child passenger protection. Grants were awarded to states
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase                            153,134   based on competitive proposals. Each proposal included a plan for
     Seat Belt Use--Massachusetts.                                   450,000   periodic or sustained intensified enforcement of the state's seat belt
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase                            518,400   and child passenger protection laws, coupled with high visibility media
     Seat Belt Use--New Hampshire.                                             events and expanded partnerships.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase
     Seat Belt Use--Rhode Island.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase
     Seat Belt Use--Vermont.
REGION II:
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         685,620
     Seat Belt Use--New Jersey.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............       1,215,974
     Seat Belt Use--New York.
REGION III:
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         360,000
     Seat Belt Use--Puerto Rico.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         121,500
     Seat Belt Use--Delaware.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         271,302
     Seat Belt Use--District of Columbia.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         376,461
     Seat Belt Use--Pennsylvania.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         820,000
     Seat Belt Use--Virginia.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         229,500
     Seat Belt Use--West Virginia.
REGION IV:
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         810,405
     Seat Belt Use--Alabama.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............       1,353,000
     Seat Belt Use--Florida.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............       1,000,128
     Seat Belt Use--Georgia.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         569,300
     Seat Belt Use--Kentucky.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         499,432
     Seat Belt Use--Mississippi.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         800,000
     Seat Belt Use--North Carolina.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         884,286
     Seat Belt Use--South Carolina.
REGION V:
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         864,500
     Seat Belt Use--Tennessee.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         546,640
     Seat Belt Use--Illinois.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         669,800
     Seat Belt Use--Indiana.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............       1,042,277
     Seat Belt Use--Michigan.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         365,200
     Seat Belt Use--Minnesota.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         884,984
     Seat Belt Use--Wisconsin.
REGION VI:
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         237,000
     Seat Belt Use--Arkansas.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         775,000
     Seat Belt Use--Louisiana.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         316,000
     Seat Belt Use--New Mexico.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............       1,557,608
     Seat Belt Use--Texas.
REGION VII:
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         230,000
     Seat Belt Use--Iowa.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         200,000
     Seat Belt Use--Kansas.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         535,450
     Seat Belt Use--Missouri.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         436,680
     Seat Belt Use--Nebraska.
REGION VIII:
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         727,000
     Seat Belt Use--Colorado.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         204,000
     Seat Belt Use--Montana.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         450,298
     Seat Belt Use--North Dakota.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         221,700
     Seat Belt Use--Utah.
REGION IX:
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         490,900
     Seat Belt Use--Arizona.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         228,418
     Seat Belt Use--Hawaii.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         290,675
     Seat Belt Use--Nevada.
REGION X:
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         495,400
     Seat Belt Use--Alaska.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         500,000
     Seat Belt Use--Idaho.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         349,764
     Seat Belt Use--Oregon.
    S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase     ..............         500,000
     Seat Belt Use--Washington.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Continued with prior year funds.
\2\ TBD.
\3\ No contractor.
\4\ No funds expended in fiscal year 1999.

                 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS FUNDING

    Question. How many states are receiving Section 410 grant funds 
from fiscal year 2000 appropriations? Please indicate how much funding 
was provided to each state and how each state spent the grant money. 
Please provide similar tables for the other NHTSA administered grant 
programs.
    Answer. No state has received Section 410 Alcohol Incentive Grant 
funds from fiscal year 2000 appropriations yet. The applications for 
these funds are not due until August 1, 2000. Similarly, no fiscal year 
2000 funds have been awarded yet under the Section 163 .08 BAC Law 
Incentive Grant program and the Section 405 Occupant Protection 
Incentive Grant program, since applications are due July 15 and August 
1, respectively.
    The NHTSA administered grant programs which have already awarded 
fiscal year 2000 grant funds are (1) the Section 402 State and 
Community Highway Safety formula grant program, (2) the Section 157 
Seat Belt Use Incentive Grant program, (3) the Section 2003(b) Child 
Passenger Protection Education Grant program, and (4) the Section 411 
State Highway Safety Data Improvement Grant program. The following four 
tables provide information on how much fiscal year 2000 funding was 
provided to each state and how each state is spending the grant money 
under each of these programs.

              FISCAL YEAR 2000 SECTION 402 STATE AND COMMUNITY HIGHWAY SAFETY FORMULA GRANT FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Grant
               State                   amount                     How state is using grant funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................   $2,516,007  $184K Planning & Administration, $592K Alcohol programs, $425K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $252K Occupant Protection, $146K
                                                  Police Traffic Services, $912K Community Traffic Safety
                                                  Project, $5K Railroad/Highway Crossings.
Alaska............................      725,800  $67K Planning & Administration, $132K Alcohol Programs, $9K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $101K Occupant Protection, $52K
                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $238K Police Traffic Services, $63K Traffic
                                                  Records, $63K Safe Communities.
Arizona...........................    2,030,069  $203K Planning & Administration, $1,052K Alcohol programs, $90K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $104K Occupant Protection, $14K
                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $372K Police Traffic Services, $30K Traffic
                                                  Records, $48K Alcohol programs, $2K School Bus Safety, $45K
                                                  Safe Communities, $70K Roadway Safety.
Arkansas..........................    1,818,023  $122K Planning & Administration, $644K Alcohol, $705K Occupant
                                                  Protection, $30K Traffic Records, $101K Speed Control, $6K
                                                  Rail/Hwy Crossings, $110K Safe Communities, $100K Roadway
                                                  Safety.
California........................   13,888,151  $874K Planning & Administration, $134K Alcohol programs,
                                                  $2,561K Emergency Medical Services, $1,117K Occupant
                                                  Protection, $2,029K Pedestrian Safety, $4,311K Police Traffic
                                                  Services, $397K Traffic Records, $1,623K Safe Communities,
                                                  $842K Roadway Safety.
Colorado..........................    2,125,636  $180K Planning & Administration, $388K Alcohol programs, $25K
                                                  Motorcycle Safety, $524K Occupant Protection, $11K Pedestrian
                                                  Safety, $413K Police Traffic Services, $315K Traffic Records,
                                                  $119K Safe Communities, $150K Roadway Safety.
Connecticut.......................    1,555,073  $155K Planning & Administration, $315K Alcohol Countermeasures,
                                                  $175K Motorcycle Safety, $235K Occupant Protection, $535K
                                                  Police Traffic Services, $90K Traffic Records, $50K Child
                                                  Restraints.
Delaware..........................      725,800  $179K Alcohol Programs, $63K Planning & Administration, $254K
                                                  Occupant Protection, $38K Pedestrian Safety, $191K Police
                                                  Traffic Services, $1K School Bus Safety.
DC................................      725,800  $244K Alcohol, $62K Planning & Administration, $197K Occupant
                                                  Protection, $25K Pedestrian Safety, $136K Police Traffic
                                                  Services, $62K Safe Communities.
Florida...........................    6,418,232  $149K Planning & Administration, $1,761K Alcohol programs,
                                                  $1,701K Occupant Protection, $654K Pedestrian Safety, $1,003K
                                                  Police Traffic Services, $121K Traffic Records, $429K
                                                  Community Traffic Safety Project, $600K Roadway Safety.
Georgia...........................    3,704,007  $380K Planning & Administration, $355K Alcohol programs, $827K
                                                  Occupant Protection, $150K Pedestrian Safety, $204K Traffic
                                                  Records, $1,300K Community Traffic Safety Project, $128K Speed
                                                  Control, $360K Safe Communities.
Hawaii............................      725,800  $29K Planning & Administration, $342K Alcohol programs, $38K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $3K MC; $8K Occupant Protection,
                                                  $2K Pedestrian Safety, $1K Police Traffic Services, $192K
                                                  Speed Control, $111K Safe Communities.
Idaho.............................      850,553  $40K Planning & Administration, $251K Alcohol Programs, $37K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $160K Occupant Protection, $22K
                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $163K Police Traffic Services, $121K
                                                  Traffic Records, $12K Roadway Safety, $45K Paid Media.
Illinois..........................    5,986,792  $235K Planning & Administration, $1,032K Occupant Protection,
                                                  $1,021K Alcohol programs, $130K Emergency Medical Services,
                                                  $90K Pedestrian Safety, $1,705K Police Traffic Services, $60K
                                                  Traffic Records, $1,655K Community Traffic Safety Project,
                                                  $60K Roadway Safety.
Indiana...........................    3,136,224  $250K Planning & Administration, $1,029K Occupant Protection,
                                                  $1,083K Alcohol programs, $392K Police Traffic Services, $275K
                                                  Traffic Records, $107K Community Traffic Safety Project.
Iowa..............................    2,151,493  $125K Planning & Administration, $666K Alcohol Programs, $10K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $700K Occupant Protection, $25K
                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $599K Police Traffic Services, $26K Safe
                                                  Communities.
Kansas............................    2,211,418  $142K Planning & Administration, $35K Emergency Medical
                                                  Services, $160K Motorcycle Safety, $502K Occupant Protection,
                                                  $542K Police Traffic Services, $11K Traffic Records, $150K
                                                  Speed Enforcement, $187K Safe Communities,$482K Alcohol
                                                  programs.
Kentucky..........................    2,186,582  $91K Planning & Administration, $540K Alcohol Programs, $429K
                                                  Occupant Protection, $63K Pedestrian Safety, $799K Police
                                                  Traffic Services, $99K Community Traffic Safety Project, $125K
                                                  Driver Licensing, $40K Roadway Safety.
Louisiana.........................    2,296,547  $166K Planning & Administration, $402K Alcohol, $74K EMS, $299K
                                                  Occupant Protection, $865K Police Traffic Services, $269
                                                  Traffic Records, $179K Safe Communities, $43K Roadway Safety.
Maine.............................      725,800  $73K Planning & Administration, $65K Alcohol Countermeasures,
                                                  $45K Emergency Medical Services, $58K Police Traffic Services,
                                                  $180K Traffic Records, $104K Driver Education, $21K School Bus
                                                  Safety, $80K Child Restraints, $100K Safe Communities.
Maryland..........................    2,262,382  $110K Alcohol, $58K Planning & Administration, $137K Emergency
                                                  Medical Services, $301K Occupant Protection, $8K Pedestrian
                                                  Safety, $36K Police Traffic Services, $1,233K Comprehensive
                                                  Traffic Safety, $336K Safe Communities, $44K Roadway Safety
Massachusetts.....................    2,822,652  $250K Planning & Administration, $236K Alcohol Countermeasures,
                                                  $23K Emergency Medical Services, $72K Motorcycle Safety, $285K
                                                  Occupant Protection, $189K Pedestrian Safety, $765K Police
                                                  Traffic Services, $335K Traffic Records, $648K Community
                                                  Traffic Safety Project, $19K School Bus Safety.
Michigan..........................    4,950,255  $413K Planning & Administration, $720K Occupant Protection,
                                                  $1,283K Alcohol Programs, $25K Motorcycle Safety, $60K
                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $779K Police Traffic Services, $127K
                                                  Traffic Records, $1,202K Community Traffic Safety Project,
                                                  $71K Driver Education, $14K Safe Communities, $256K Roadway
                                                  Safety
Minnesota.........................    2,980,708  $110K Planning & Administration, $766K Occupant Protection,
                                                  $374K Alcohol Programs, $1,101K Police Traffic Services, $120K
                                                  Traffic Records, $510K Community Traffic Safety Project.
Mississippi.......................    1,719,141  $172K Planning & Administration, $209K Alcohol programs, $292K
                                                  Occupant Protection, $419K Police Traffic Services, $112K
                                                  Traffic Records, $118K Community Traffic Safety Project, $142K
                                                  Youth Alcohol programs, $172K Safe Communities, $83K Roadway
                                                  Safety.
Missouri..........................    3,217,266  $140K Planning & Administration, $1,279K Police Traffic
                                                  Services, $485K Alcohol programs, $408K Youth Alcohol
                                                  programs, $214K Occupant Protection, $131K Traffic Records,
                                                  $218K Safe Communities, $342K Roadway Safety.
Montana...........................      948,242  $59K Planning & Administration, $190K Alcohol programs, $100K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $1K Motorcycle Safety, $208K
                                                  Occupant Protection, $51K Pedestrian Safety, $101K Police
                                                  Traffic Services, $156K Traffic Records, $83K Safe Communities
Nebraska..........................    1,474,640  $50K Planning & Administration, $277K Alcohol programs, $122K
                                                  Occupant Protection, $75K Police Traffic Services, $20K
                                                  Traffic Records, $75K Identification & Surveillance, $788K
                                                  Speed Enforcement, $20K Speed Control, $48K Safe Communities.
Nevada............................      904,578  $90K Planning & Administration, $76K Alcohol programs, $59K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $62K Occupant Protection, $27K
                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $148K Police Traffic Services, $420K
                                                  Community Traffic Safety Project, $23K Roadway Safety.
New Hampshire.....................      725,800  $73K Planning & Administration, $146K Alcohol Countermeasures,
                                                  $13K Emergency Medical Services, $108K Occupant Protection,
                                                  $43K Pedestrian Safety, $93K Police Traffic Services, $36K
                                                  Traffic Records, $36K Community Traffic Safety Project, $156K
                                                  Speed Control, $11K Safe Communities, $11K Roadway Safety.
New Jersey........................    3,544,289  $338K Planning & Administration, $533K Alcohol programs, $307K
                                                  Occupant Protection, $131K Pedestrian Safety, $1,059K Police
                                                  Traffic Services, $238K Traffic Records, $449K Community
                                                  Traffic Safety Project, $335K Roadway Safety, $154K Paid
                                                  Advertising.
New Mexico........................    1,159,542  $40K Planning & Administration, $87K Alcohol, $80K Emergency
                                                  Medical Services, $268K Occupant Protection, $39K Pedestrian,
                                                  $195K Police Traffic Services, $250K Traffic Records, $200K
                                                  Safe Communities.
New York..........................    8,502,951  $560K, Planning & Administration, $400K Alcohol programs, $20K,
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $650K Occupant Protection, $360K
                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $2,000K Police Traffic Services, $1,400K
                                                  Traffic Records, $2,741K Community Traffic Safety Project,
                                                  $300K Roadway Safety, $72K School Bus Safety.
North Carolina....................    3,635,203  $275K Alcohol programs, $87K Motorcycle Safety, $553K Occupant
                                                  Protection, $292K Pedestrian Safety, $960K Police Traffic
                                                  Services, $197K Traffic Records, $48K Railroad/Highway
                                                  Crossings, $703K Safe Communities, $477K Roadway Safety, $43K
                                                  Youth Alcohol programs.
North Dakota......................    1,028,261  $42K Planning & Administration, $89K Alcohol programs, $12K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $12K Motorcycle Safety, $228K
                                                  Occupant Protection, $172K Police Traffic Services, $156K
                                                  Traffic Records, $317K Safe Communities.
Ohio..............................    5,552,083  $120K Planning & Administration, $1,007 Alcohol Programs, $370K
                                                  Occupant Protection, $1,395K Police Traffic Services, $75K
                                                  Traffic Records, $500K Community Traffic Safety Project, $410K
                                                  Speed Control, $1,600K Safe Communities, $75K Roadway Safety.
Oklahoma..........................    2,303,115  $7K Planning & Administration, $725K Alcohol, $344K Occupant
                                                  Protection, $5K Pedestrian Safety, $1,118K Police Traffic
                                                  Services, $54K Traffic Records, $50K Roadway Safety.
Oregon............................    1,933,728  $193K Planning & Administration, $344K Alcohol Programs, $50K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $195K Occupant Protection, $145K
                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $65K Police Traffic Services, $591K Drivers
                                                  Education, $50K Speed Control, $271K Safe Communities, $30K
                                                  Roadway Safety.
Pennsylvania......................    6,011,050  $1,750K Alcohol, $1,350K Police Traffic Services, $280K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $2,006K Occupant Protection, $175K
                                                  Youth Alcohol, $200K Safe Communities, $250K Motorcycle
                                                  Safety.
Rhode Island......................      725,800  $72K Planning & Administration, $348K Alcohol Countermeasures,
                                                  $27K Emergency Medical Services, $13K Occupant Protection,
                                                  $40K Pedestrian Safety, $25K Police Traffic Services, $10K
                                                  Community Traffic Safety Project, $50K Safe Communities, $140K
                                                  Paid Advertising.
South Carolina....................    2,026,802  $193K Planning & Administration, $24K Emergency Medical
                                                  Services, $542K Occupant Protection, $789K Police Traffic
                                                  Services, $288K Youth Alcohol programs, $190K Safe
                                                  Communities.
South Dakota......................    1,024,112  Planning & Administration $31K, Alcohol programs $72K,
                                                  Emergency Medical Services $191K, Occupant Protection $149K
                                                  Police Traffic Services $542K, SB $2K, Roadway Safety $37K.
Tennessee.........................    2,798,387  $250K Planning & Administration, $1,174K Alcohol programs,
                                                  $1,374K Occupant Protection.
Texas.............................    9,702,014  $41K Planning & Administration, $391K EMS, $394K Pedestrian
                                                  Safety, $2,147K Police Traffic Services, $2,737K Traffic
                                                  Records, $271K Drivers Education (Public Information/
                                                  Education), $3,049K Speed Control, $3K Safe Communities, $669K
                                                  Roadway Safety.
Utah..............................    1,083,050  $89K Planning & Administration, $678K Community Traffic Safety
                                                  Project, $35K Emergency Medical Services, $141K Occupant
                                                  Protection, $48K Pedestrian Safety, $44K Police Traffic
                                                  Services, $19K Traffic Records, $2K Youth Alcohol programs,
                                                  $28K Roadway Safety.
Vermont...........................      725,800  $63K Alcohol Countermeasures, $10K Emergency Medical Services,
                                                  $80K Occupant Protection, $291K Police Traffic Services, $25K
                                                  Traffic Records, $131K Community Traffic Safety Project, $126K
                                                  Driver Education.
Virginia..........................    3,198,873  $350K Alcohol programs, $300K Planning & Administration, $50K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $70K Motorcycle Safety, $327K
                                                  Occupant Protection, $78K Pedestrian Safety, $550K Police
                                                  Traffic Services, $85K Traffic Records, $350K Community
                                                  Traffic Safety, $549K Speed Control, $489K Roadway Safety.
Washington........................    2,737,952  $239K Planning & Administration, $357K Alcohol Programs, $6K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $237K Occupant Protection, $321K
                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $236K Police Traffic Services, $272K
                                                  Traffic Records, $92K Drivers Education, $564K Safe
                                                  Communities, $414K Roadway Safety.
West Virginia.....................    1,064,072  $100K Alcohol programs, $100K Planning & Administration, $100K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $100K Occupant Protection, $100K
                                                  Traffic Records, $564K Safe Communities.
Wisconsin.........................    3,027,355  $480K Alcohol Programs, $190K Emergency Medical Services, $160K
                                                  Motorcycle Safety, $610 Occupant Protection, $261K Pedestrian
                                                  Safety, $475K Police Traffic Services, $155K Traffic Records,
                                                  $646K Community Traffic Safety Project, $50K Roadway Safety.
Wyoming...........................      725,800  Planning & Administration $58K, Alcohol programs $143K,
                                                  Emergency Medical Services $30K, Occupant Protection $81K,
                                                  Pedestrian Safety $10K, Police Traffic Services $29K, Traffic
                                                  Records $22K, Youth Alcohol programs $72K, Speed Enforcement
                                                  $234K, Safe Communities $40K, Roadway Safety $7K.
Puerto Rico.......................    1,599,990  $160K Planning & Administration, $382K Alcohol programs, $72K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $64K Occupant Protection, $159K
                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $279K Police Traffic Services, $55K Traffic
                                                  Records, $63K Community Traffic Safety Project, $239K Youth
                                                  Alcohol programs, $126K Roadway Safety.
BIA...............................    1,088,700  $478K Alcohol, $60K Occupant Protection, $263K Police Traffic
                                                  Services, $193K Safe Communities, $53K Roadway Safety, 41K
                                                  Planning & Administration.
American Samoa....................      362,900  $36K Planning & Administration, $59K Alcohol programs, $26K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $51K Occupant Protection, $27K
                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $57K Police Traffic Services, $44K Traffic
                                                  Records, $38K Youth Alcohol programs, $10K Safe Communities,
                                                  $15K Roadway Safety.
Guam..............................      362,900  $36K Planning & Administration, $107K Alcohol programs, $152K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $30K Occupant Protection, $20K
                                                  Youth Alcohol programs, $18K Safe Communities.
N. Marianas.......................      362,900  $36K Planning & Administration, $160K Alcohol programs, $10K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $10K Occupant Protection, $147K
                                                  Police Traffic Services.
Virgin Islands....................      362,900  $36K Planning & Administration, $91K Alcohol programs, $70K
                                                  Emergency Medical Services, $70K Occupant Protection, $20K
                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $60K Police Traffic Services, $15K Traffic
                                                  Records.
                                   -------------
      Total.......................  145,160,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           FISCAL YEAR 2000 SECTION 157 SEAT BELT USE INCENTIVE GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Total grant   Allocation
                                           (estimated   to highway   Allocation
                  State                     federal       safety     to federal   How state is using grant funds
                                             budget      programs   aid highway
                                            savings)      (402)       programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska..................................       $9,000       $9,000           $0  $8K Occupant Protection public
                                                                                  information & training, $1K
                                                                                  Police Traffic Services.
 Arkansas...............................      179,400       44,850      134,550  $45K Occupant Protection,
                                                                                  Federal Aid Hwy Programs,
                                                                                  $135K Railroad Signal.
California..............................   15,705,300   15,705,300            0  $574K Alcohol programs, $1,597K
                                                                                  TR, $92K Emergency Medical
                                                                                  Services, $893K Pedestrian
                                                                                  Safety, $9,810K Police Traffic
                                                                                  Services, $214K Occupant
                                                                                  Protection, $173K Roadway
                                                                                  Safety, $2,352K Planning &
                                                                                  Administration.
Colorado................................      854,500      854,500            0  $373K Alcohol programs, $122K
                                                                                  Traffic Records, $29K
                                                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $160K
                                                                                  Police Traffic Services, $90K
                                                                                  Occupant Protection, $14K Safe
                                                                                  Communities, $16K Roadway
                                                                                  Safety, $50K Paid Advertising.
Connecticut.............................    1,613,400    1,613,400            0  $1,500K Police Traffic
                                                                                  Services, $113K Alcohol
                                                                                  Countermeasures.
Delaware................................        6,900        6,900            0  6.9K Occupant Protection.
DC......................................      417,900      417,900            0  $380K Police Traffic Services,
                                                                                  $38K Traffic Records.
Georgia.................................    3,014,200    2,214,200      800,000  $514K Driver Education, $1,100K
                                                                                  Community Traffic Safety
                                                                                  Project, Traffic Records
                                                                                  $400K, $100K Occupant
                                                                                  Protection, $100K Pedestrian
                                                                                  Safety, Federal-Aid: $800K
                                                                                  Traffic Management System.
Hawaii..................................      375,400      375,400            0  $70K Alcohol programs, $166K
                                                                                  Motorcycle Safety, $89K
                                                                                  Occupant Protection, $50K Safe
                                                                                  Communities.
Idaho...................................      218,300      218,300            0  $200K on enhanced enforcement,
                                                                                  $18K on public information for
                                                                                  occupant protection.
 Illinois...............................    1,007,300    1,007,300            0  $1,007K Occupant Protection.
Indiana.................................    1,755,300    1,755,300            0  $1,755K Occupant Protection.
Iowa....................................      837,800      527,800      310,000  $528K Police Traffic Services,
                                                                                  Federal Aid: $90K Roadway
                                                                                  Safety, $110K Enforcement
                                                                                  Efforts Red Light Running &
                                                                                  Work Zone Safety, $110K School
                                                                                  Zone Strong Yellow & Green
                                                                                  Program.
Kansas..................................      266,900      266,900            0  $267K Police Traffic Services.
Louisiana...............................      284,100      284,100            0  $84K Police Traffic Services,
                                                                                  $200K Occupant Protection.
Maine...................................       11,000       11,000            0  $11K Occupant Protection
Maryland................................    2,950,800    2,950,800            0  $101K Community Traffic Safety
                                                                                  Programs, $50K Emergency
                                                                                  Medical Services, $950K
                                                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $650K
                                                                                  Police Traffic Services, $200K
                                                                                  Paid Advertising--Aggressive
                                                                                  Driving, $1,000K Occupant
                                                                                  Protection.
Michigan................................    1,075,700      718,000      357,700  $718K Occupant Protection,
                                                                                  Federal Aid: $357K for-raised
                                                                                  payment markings at hazard
                                                                                  locations.
Mississippi.............................    1,051,000      800,000      251,000  $300K Traffic Records, $200K
                                                                                  Police Traffic Services, $100K
                                                                                  Occupant Protection, $200K
                                                                                  Safe Communities, Federal Aid
                                                                                  Highway Program: $251K PI&E
                                                                                  Campaign.
Montana.................................      131,600      131,600            0  $131K Occupant Protection.
Nebraska................................       39,600       19,800       19,800  $19.8K Occupant Protection,
                                                                                  Federal Aid: $19.8K Work Zone
                                                                                  Safety PI&E effort.
Nevada..................................      687,000      687,000            0  $568K Community Traffic Safety
                                                                                  Project, $30K Occupant
                                                                                  Protection, $55K Pedestrian
                                                                                  Safety, $34K Police Traffic
                                                                                  Services.
New Jersey..............................      913,100      913,100            0  $913K Speed Control.
New Mexico..............................      900,200      900,200            0  $233K Traffic Records, $176K
                                                                                  Police Traffic Services, $389
                                                                                  Occupant Protection, $92K Safe
                                                                                  Communities, $5K Roadway
                                                                                  Safety, $5K Planning &
                                                                                  Administration.
New York................................    3,920,700    3,520,700      400,000  $3,520K Occupant Protection for
                                                                                  ``Buckle Up NY'', Federal-Aid:
                                                                                  $400K commercial vehicle
                                                                                  oversight efforts.
 North Carolina.........................    3,239,500    3,239,500            0  $606K Alcohol programs, $785K
                                                                                  Traffic Records, $480K
                                                                                  Emergency Medical Services,
                                                                                  $1,368K Occupant Protection.
Oregon..................................    1,538,400    1,463,400       75,000  $491K Drivers Education, $30K
                                                                                  Alcohol Programs, $91K
                                                                                  Pedestrian Safety, $340K
                                                                                  Occupant Protection, $165K
                                                                                  Speed Control, $206K Safe
                                                                                  Communities, $140K Roadway
                                                                                  Safety. Federal Aid Program:
                                                                                  $75K Allocation to the Rail
                                                                                  Safety Program, installation
                                                                                  of Pedestrian safety barriers.
Pennsylvania............................      964,500      964,500            0  $400K local & municipal
                                                                                  occupant protection
                                                                                  enforcement, $200K State
                                                                                  Police--occupant protection
                                                                                  enforcement, $300K paid
                                                                                  advertising--alcohol & belts,
                                                                                  $64.5K evaluation of paid
                                                                                  advertising.
 South Carolina.........................      477,300      337,300      140,000  $267K Alcohol programs, $70K
                                                                                  Occupant Protection, Federal-
                                                                                  aid: $140K Occupant
                                                                                  Protection--
Texas...................................    5,325,700    1,775,234    3,550,466  $1,775K School Bus Safety
                                                                                  (Commercial Vehicle Safety),
                                                                                  Federal Aid Hwy Programs:
                                                                                  $1,775K Railroad Signal,
                                                                                  $1,775K Hazard Elimination.
Utah....................................      221,700      221,700            0  $222K Occupant Protection.
Virginia................................    1,258,200    1,258,200            0  $1,258K Occupant Protection.
Washington..............................    2,433,900      446,000    1,987,900  $446K occupant protection
                                                                                  enforcement and public
                                                                                  information through Safe
                                                                                  Communities Program. Federal
                                                                                  Aid Program: $1,988K allocated
                                                                                  to Corridor Projects for
                                                                                  Washington State DOT.
Wisconsin...............................      549,900      549,900            0  $205K in Occupant Protection,
                                                                                  $200K Grad Licensing, $95K
                                                                                  Safe Communities, $50K Work
                                                                                  Zone Safety.
Puerto Rico.............................      375,200      375,200            0  $295K Enforcement, (vehicles,
                                                                                  overtime, saturation patrols,
                                                                                  training), $80K PI&E (mass
                                                                                  media and print material) and
                                                                                  training (store clerks,
                                                                                  mechanics, loaner programs,
                                                                                  nurses pediatricians, etc.).
                                         ---------------------------------------
      Total.............................   54,610,700   46,584,284    8,026,416
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   FISCAL YEAR 2000 SECTION 2003B CHILD PASSENGER PROTECTION EDUCATION GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Grant
            State               amount                        How state is using grant funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.....................   $135,237  Education and outreach activities to reach rural and African American
                                          populations, establish fitting stations, train new child passenger
                                          safety (CPS) technicians.
Alaska......................     37,500  Multi-cultural and multi-lingual messages to reach Alaskan Natives,
                                          Spanish-, Korean-, and Tagalog-speaking Alaskans, materials for
                                          children with special transportation needs, car seat clinics,
                                          establish at least one fitting station, conduct NHTSA standardized CPS
                                          training course.
Arizona.....................    109,097  Pilot a Judicial Program in Phoenix courts to educate violators about
                                          child passenger safety, certify technicians and instructors, diverse
                                          populations to be targeted are African American, Hispanic and Native
                                          Americans.
Arkansas....................     97,748  Use pediatric health care professionals and child-care professionals to
                                          deliver CPS information to low socioeconomic and Hispanic speaking
                                          populations, conduct CPS training sessions, distribute new TV public
                                          service announcements (PSA's).
California..................    746,132  Develop educational programs which are culturally sensitive, diverse
                                          populations to be targeted are African American, Hispanic, Native
                                          American, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Hmong, Korean, Arabic, and
                                          East Indian (India), train instructors, technicians and specialist.
Colorado....................    114,260  Brief CPS educators, professionals and law enforcement on new tether
                                          requirement and increased use of booster seats, targeted families and
                                          care givers in low income and rural communities, conduct CPS courses
                                          using NHTSA curricula.
Connecticut.................     83,547  Educate low usage populations and non-English speaking communities,
                                          train social workers, special needs providers, workshop on
                                          transporting children with special needs, CPS technician training,
                                          child safety inspection clinics, statewide central clearing house.
Delaware....................     37,500  Public information campaign to increase booster seat use, CPS training,
                                          child safety seat check up events, loaner program.
DC..........................     37,500  Increase the number of fitting stations, conduct NHTSA Standardized CPS
                                          courses, workshops and training on installation of special needs
                                          seats.
Florida.....................    344,855  Focus education and outreach efforts in African American, Hispanic and
                                          other diverse populations, establish state diversity coalition and
                                          statewide occupant protection resource center, increase booster seat
                                          use, training workshops for Head Start employees, establish fitting
                                          stations, conduct child safety seat clinics.
Georgia.....................    199,066  Mini-grants to community organizations to promote child safety seat use
                                          among low income, rural and minority populations (African American and
                                          Hispanic), promote booster seat use, child safety seat/booster seat
                                          clinics, recruit African American and Hispanics as certified CPS
                                          technicians and instructors.
Hawaii......................     37,500  CPS clinics and fitting stations, conduct CPS training classes, diverse
                                          populations to be targeted for education and outreach are Pacific
                                          Islanders, Philippine, Chinese and Japanese.
Idaho.......................     45,735  Conduct NHTSA Standardized CPS courses, child safety seat clinics, work
                                          with EMS to establish permanent rural child safety seat fitting
                                          stations.
Illinois....................    321,705  Conduct CPS training courses, purchase three checkpoint trailers,
                                          establish two child passenger resource centers/fitting stations (one
                                          rural, one urban), establish a toll-free number for CPS information,
                                          statewide booster seat campaign, target education and outreach to
                                          African American, Hispanic, Asian and low-income populations.
Indiana.....................    168,549  Continue statewide CPS training, purchase convertible seats for
                                          minority and low-income families, expand fitting station project.
Iowa........................    115,678  Develop PSA's on misuse of child safety seats and booster seats,
                                          establish fitting stations, conduct checkup events, CPS training.
Kansas......................    118,918  Conduct NHTSA Standardized CPS course, develop statewide newsletter,
                                          Bilingual (English and Spanish) brochure, billboards, television and
                                          radio PSA's, develop CPS Checkup Event ``How TO'' packages, hold check-
                                          up events.
Kentucky....................    117,521  Employ a full time CPS specialist, establish statewide CPS committee,
                                          conduct child safety seat clinics, CPS training.
Louisiana...................    123,414  Train CPS advocates using the NHTSA Standardized CPS course, serve
                                          ethnic and low socioeconomic groups, develop printed materials,
                                          conduct CPS clinics.
Maine                            38,260  Target misuse and lack of child restraint use in rural and low-income
                                          areas, fund state CPS coordinator, CPS training, fitting stations,
                                          establish state clearinghouse for CPS public information.
Maryland....................    121,547  Fitting stations, including mobile fitting stations, conference on
                                          transporting children with special needs, CPS training.
Massachusetts...............    151,645  Targeting high risk populations with materials, PSA's and educational
                                          program, increase community checkpoints and fitting stations, conduct
                                          CPS training.
Michigan....................    266,013  NHTSA Standardized CPS course, convert loaner programs into permanent
                                          fitting stations, hire state coordinator. Target education and
                                          outreach to African American, Latino/Hispanic, and Arab/Chadian
                                          populations.
Minnesota...................    160,236  Purchase six trailers for CPS training and as mobile fitting stations
                                          supplied with child safety seats, printed materials and training
                                          equipment, develop public information materials in Hispanic and among
                                          and for lower reading levels, provide mini-grants for community
                                          training, clinics, and fitting stations, purchase child safety seats.
Mississippi.................     92,414  CPS messages to low-income and African Americans families, PSA's for
                                          radio, television and print, billboards, conduct child safety seat
                                          checkpoints, establish fitting stations, conduct CPS training.
Missouri....................    172,933  Develop statewide public education program, including Child Restraint
                                          Resource Guides, establish fitting stations targeting minority and low-
                                          income families, conduct CPS training classes.
Montana.....................     51,004  Recruit fire departments to serve as fitting stations, CPS training for
                                          health professionals, law enforcement and child care providers,
                                          training, education and outreach targeted to Native American
                                          populations.
Nebraska....................     79,302  Conduct CPS training, conduct child safety seat checkpoints and seat
                                          distributions, activities targeted to African American, Hispanic and
                                          Native American populations.
Nevada......................     48,634  CPS brochures to medical providers, develop CPS educational videos,
                                          train CPS technicians and instructors, conduct checkpoints, education
                                          and outreach targeted to African American, Hispanic and Native
                                          American.
New Hampshire...............     37,500  Update child restraint law poster, brochure on correct child seat usage
                                          and the new child restraint law, pilot CPS program/seat distribution
                                          in low-income housing centers, conduct CPS training, increase number
                                          of checkpoints.
New Mexico..................     62,343  Target CPS messages to older children (between the ages of 11 and 16),
                                          use peer education model with students, targeting low income and/or
                                          minority schools districts (Hispanic, Native American).
New York....................    456,826  Create information booklets and cards, posters and billboards targeting
                                          low-income and minority populations, conduct CPS clinics and
                                          checkpoints, establish fitting stations, conduct CPS training.
North Carolina..............    195,356  Target outreach to rural mountain communities, Hispanic and low-income
                                          communities, conduct child safety seat clinics and checkpoints,
                                          distribute child safety seats and seats for special-needs children,
                                          translate CPS brochures into Spanish, conduct CPS training, launch
                                          pilot fitting station program with fire departments.
North Dakota................     55,319  CPS education, outreach and child safety seat distribution program for
                                          Native American tribes, develop billboards, pamphlets and posters,
                                          conduct CPS training for new technicians, instructors, and for care
                                          givers.
Ohio........................    298,333  Expand the NHTSA Standardized CPS course, expand number of fitting
                                          stations, emphasize booster seats, purchase child safety seats and
                                          booster seats for distribution to low-income and minority (African
                                          American and Hispanic) communities, establish toll-free number for CPS
                                          information.
Oklahoma....................    123,821  Child safety seats and booster seats distribution program, establish
                                          fitting stations at ambulance facilities across the state, provide
                                          seats to low-income families, conduct CPS training.
Oregon......................    103,952  Establish state child safety seat resource center, target education and
                                          outreach to rural, low-income areas, establish toll-free number for
                                          CPS information, train CPS technicians and instructors.
Pennsylvania................    322,988  Establish fitting stations, target education and outreach to minority
                                          populations, expand child safety seat loaner programs in minority
                                          communities, conduct CPS training.
Rhode Island................     37,500  Conduct bilingual (English and Spanish) CPS campaign including new
                                          brochures, billboard designs, and PSA's, conduct enforcement
                                          checkpoints, child safety seat clinics, and community safety day
                                          events in low-income or minority communities, conduct CPS training
                                          courses, recruit bilingual CPS professionals.
South Carolina..............    108,930  Improve child restraint use among children living in foster care,
                                          conduct CPS training for foster parents and foster care association
                                          employees/volunteers, distribute child safety seats and booster seats,
                                          conduct enforcement checkpoints.
Tennessee...................    150,397  Target African American families and counties with low use rates,
                                          conduct child safety seat clinics, seat distribution program
                                          (including seats for special needs children), establish mobile fitting
                                          stations, conduct CPS training.
Texas.......................    521,422  Produce new Spanish and English language materials, purchase additional
                                          child safety seats for loaner programs and safety seat inspections,
                                          conduct CPS training, develop Spanish language CPS course, conduct CPS
                                          clinics, distribute CPS materials through Safe Communities.
Utah........................     58,215  Target education, training and outreach to Native Americans
                                          populations, especially the Navajo Nation, train law enforcement
                                          officers from the reservations, provide training on seat installation
                                          for children with special needs, conduct CPS training for new
                                          technicians and instructors, provide tether update training, conduct
                                          enforcement checkpoints.
Vermont.....................     37,500  Distribute child safety seats to low income families, establish fitting
                                          stations, train CPS instructors and technician.
Virginia....................    171,890  Establish mobile fitting stations in minority populations and
                                          documented low usage areas, train CPS professionals.
Washington..................    147,143  Conduct child safety seat clinics targeting low-income, rural and part-
                                          time restraint users, and Native American and Hispanic families,
                                          establish local CPS teams. Train CPS technicians and instructors.
West Virginia...............     57,190  Target education and outreach activities to low-come communities,
                                          provide child safety seats to current loaner programs, conduct NHTSA
                                          Standardized CPS courses.
Wisconsin...................    162,721  Target education and outreach activities to minority populations
                                          (Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanics, and Hmong), conduct
                                          statewide CPS conference, establish fitting stations, purchase CPS
                                          trailer for training, checkpoints and to use as a mobile fitting
                                          station.
Am. Samoa...................     18,750  Conduct fitting stations and child safety seat clinics, design roadside
                                          messages to remind parents and care-givers to buckle up their
                                          children, conduct CPS training.
Guam........................     18,750  Develop and distribute CPS videos for nurseries and day care centers,
                                          train CPS technicians, conduct checkpoints.
N. Marianas.................     18,750  Expand education and outreach activities, conduct NHTSA Standardized
                                          CPS Course for technicians and instructors.
Puerto Rico.................     85,954  Develop messages to address child safety seat misuse, conduct CPS
                                          clinics and fitting stations, conduct CPS training.
Virgin Islands..............     18,750  Develop new CPS booklets, brochures and PSA's, conduct child safety
                                          seat clinics and enforcement checkpoints, conduct NHTSA Standardized
                                          CPS training for technicians.
B.I.A.......................     56,250  Conduct train-the-trainer courses for NHTSA Standardized CPS course,
                                          conduct CPS clinics, workshops, demonstrations and presentations,
                                          develop CPS literature and correct use video, establish CPS fitting
                                          stations.
                             -----------
      Total.................  7,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    FISCAL YEAR 2000 SECTION 411 STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY DATA IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Grant
             State                amount                       How state is using grant funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................   $173,600  Complete a Traffic Records Assessment, update strategic plan,
                                            implement statewide electronic submission of traffic citations.
Alaska........................    173,600  Implement a strategic traffic records plan develop an upgraded crash
                                            report, develop health system and crash data linkages and improve
                                            traffic records database interface.
Arizona.......................    173,600  Develop a simplified and timely system for data users to retrieve
                                            crash data from traffic data systems and improve the compatibility
                                            between the two systems, research the development of a statewide
                                            citation tracking system, and support and/or provide access to
                                            technology to local police agencies that will improve electronic
                                            transfer of traffic data and increase on site data gathering.
Arkansas......................    173,600  Improve timeliness and efficiency of the data entry process for crash
                                            reports.
California....................    173,600  Implemented Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Automation of Rural
                                            Courts Project that provided automation hardware and software
                                            technology to input, send and retrieve traffic conviction and other
                                            data electronically, develop a aptop computer system for completing
                                            crash reports at crash sites to facilitate the direct entry of data
                                            into the crash file, and equip and train Highway Patrol with
                                            evidential quality pre-arrest breath testing devices to improve upon
                                            the alcohol detection at crash sites and in traffic stops.
Colorado......................    173,600  Complete a software upgrades for remote data entry of crash report
                                            data, and initiate development of probability matching of crash data
                                            and hospital data.
Connecticut...................    173,600  Complete a Traffic Records Assessment, update the Traffic Records
                                            Strategic Plan, complete an automated crash report form and report
                                            analysis package for use by state and local police departments,
                                            purchase new software to store the state crash file, develop an
                                            electronic ticketing system, complete development of GIS mapping
                                            capability, continue development of a data warehouse, and to improve
                                            user accessibility to Crash Outcome Date Evaluation System (CODES).
Delaware......................    173,600  Create an Emergency Medical System (EMS) data network, develop an
                                            automated Crash Reporting System, and create a GIS Crash Database.
Florida.......................    173,600  Implement regional data centers, revise crash report instruction
                                            manual, crash report training.
Georgia.......................    173,600  Automate crash reporting system, survey & software.
Hawaii........................    173,600  Develop file linkage, training for local police departments in crash
                                            reporting and alcohol screening devices, and develop electronic data
                                            transfer system.
Idaho.........................     96,480  Develop a strategic traffic records plan.
Illinois......................     96,480  Develop a traffic records strategic improvement plan.
Indiana.......................    173,600  Hire committee coordinator, improve crash data access, pilot test new
                                            crash location system.
Iowa..........................    173,600  Capture of crash reports electronically, review crash report data,
                                            technology transfer, emergency response information and mapping.
Kentucky......................    173,600  Develop Crash Project Phase IV--Purchase Scanners.
Louisiana.....................    173,600  Implement data entry, electronic data transfer, networking, and
                                            document imaging for crash reports and traffic records in State,
                                            parish, and local communities.
Maine                             173,600  Pilot test an automated crash report form, provide training to state
                                            and local police, develop a new crash reporting data base with GIS
                                            capabilities capable of receiving crash reports electronically,
                                            coordinate Strategic Planning among state agencies, and design a
                                            statewide system architecture for integrated traffic records files.
Maryland......................    173,600  Support a Data Analysis Evaluation Coordinator, improve state crash
                                            form, expand scope and use of GIS, and implement statewide training.
Massachusetts.................    173,600  Update the traffic records assessment and the traffic records
                                            strategic plan. Activity continues to improve the quality of CODES
                                            data files and to update the state crash report form to comply with
                                            MMUCC (Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria).
Michigan......................    173,600  Develop an internet access query system.
Minnesota.....................    173,600  Link two commercial vehicle crash systems, revise crash report form,
                                            improve data collection.
Mississippi...................    173,600  Purchase Software/Hardware for crash & citation data collection, data
                                            linkage for state CODES study, revision of crash report.
Missouri......................    173,600  Develop STARS (Statewide Traffic Accident Reporting System) Data
                                            Base, conduct annual conference & workshop, Data Base Evaluation and
                                            Consultation.
Nebraska......................    173,600  Develop Crash file linkage, revise report for electronic transfer,
                                            update existing traffic records files.
Nevada........................    173,600  Form an interagency subcommittee of the Traffic Records Committee to
                                            develop a 2001 legislative proposal to gain support and funding to
                                            implement an updated traffic records system, implement Traffic
                                            Accident System Planning and Design Project, and to promote a
                                            statewide traffic records conference.
New Hampshire.................    173,600  Purchase notebook PCs to complete crash reports in the field, revise
                                            crash report form to be in compliance with MMUCC, and to develop
                                            crash reporting software which can electronically capture driver
                                            license/vehicle registration data and Global Positioning System
                                            (GPS) location data.
New York......................    173,600  Upgrade accident information system. This project would allow direct
                                            electronic transfer of crash information from investigation agency
                                            to the state DMV file. Another project is scheduled to upgrade the
                                            ticket file. This upgrade would establish a ticket file
                                            electronically on a client server data base and would allow the
                                            courts to data-enter ticket disposition information electronically
                                            to a data base.
North Carolina................    173,600  Develop of a new crash reporting form, pilot test for electronic
                                            citation in one State Patrol District, and develop a system to
                                            retrieve data via Internet.
North Dakota..................     96,480  Develop traffic records strategic plan.
Ohio..........................    173,600  Complete interactive Internet web site, capture and image a redesign
                                            crash report form.
Oklahoma......................    173,600  Update traffic records strategic plan, address customer/client access
                                            to data bases.
Oregon........................    173,600  Link health and crash data, DOT crash data retrieval and analysis,
                                            crash location upgrade and a Division of Motor Vehicles driver and
                                            vehicle files upgrade.
Pennsylvania..................    173,600  Conduct a series of regional traffic records symposiums to help
                                            determine and refine the information needs of the users/customers.
Rhode Island..................    173,600  Complete successful electronic transfer of crash reports from state
                                            and local police agencies to a central repository at DOT. All 39
                                            cities and towns will be on line by September, 2000. State crash
                                            file will have capability to reference intersection locations and
                                            GIS mapping. Mobile data capture and transfer capability from police
                                            cruiser laptops will also exist. ``Canned'' and ad hoc report
                                            capability will be available from state crash file. RI will be the
                                            first state in the nation with 100 percent of all police agencies
                                            participating in electronic transfer of crash data to a central
                                            repository.
South Carolina................    173,600  Design/implement an upgraded statewide traffic records system with
                                            linked citation and crash data.
Tennessee.....................    173,600  Improve state crash reporting equipment, establish data collection in
                                            local law enforcement.
Vermont.......................    173,600  Redesign the uniform crash report to be in compliance with MMUCC,
                                            develop software for a new crash data storage system which can
                                            interface with law enforcement telecommunications systems, pilot
                                            test electronic capture of EMS run data, develop software for
                                            electronic transfer of data to a central repository at the
                                            Department of Transportation, and to provide for Traffic Records
                                            System program management capabilities.
Virginia......................    173,600  Support statewide coordination, perform equipment and inventory
                                            assessments, develop communication standards, and develop a training
                                            package.
Washington....................    173,600  Upgrade emergency Medical Services trauma registry, develop a
                                            collision reporting system with Wisconsin DOT, conduct a traffic
                                            records awareness campaign and a collision analysis reporting system
                                            with the Washington State Patrol.
West Virginia.................     96,480  Support statewide coordination and strategic planning development.
Wisconsin.....................     96,480  Develop a traffic records strategic improvement plan.
Puerto Rico...................    173,600  Contract data processing of Police Accident Report form, pilot test
                                            pen based system to improve data collection and the use of Global
                                            Positioning System to improve data related to location of crashes.
American Samoa................    173,600  Develop a 24/7 network link, obtain computer workstation for police
                                            dispatch and e substations, and develop pen based citation system
                                            and citation form.
Guam..........................    173,600  Obtain manpower to input crash data, develop pilot project for a pen
                                            based citation entry system, and purchase computer system for
                                            Traffic Engineering Section.
Northern Marianas.............    173,600  Improve driver file system by eliminating double typing of license
                                            data and exploring adding a bar code/magnetic strip to driver
                                            licenses, provide computers and software for EMS database and
                                            connect the driver and EMS files to their main crash reporting
                                            system.
                               -----------
      Total...................  7,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 ______
                                 

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

            Prepared Statement of Linda J. Morgan, Chairman

    Chairman Shelby and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Linda J. 
Morgan, Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board (Board). It is my 
pleasure to submit the budget request for the Board for fiscal year 
2001.

                        BACKGROUND ON THE BOARD

    As you know, on January 1, 1996, the Board was established pursuant 
to Public Law 104-88, the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA). 
Consistent with the trend toward less economic regulation of the 
surface transportation industry, the ICCTA eliminated the ICC and, with 
it, several regulatory functions that it had administered. The ICCTA 
transferred to the Board core rail functions and certain non-rail 
adjudicative functions previously performed by the ICC. Motor carrier 
licensing and certain other motor functions were transferred to the 
Federal Highway Administration within the Department of Transportation 
(DOT).
    The Board is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent, 
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT. The rail 
oversight of the Board encompasses maximum rate reasonableness, car 
service and interchange, mergers and line acquisitions, and line 
constructions and abandonments. The important rail reforms of the 
Staggers Rail Act of 1980 are continued under the ICCTA. The 
jurisdiction of the Board also includes certain oversight of the 
intercity bus industry and pipeline carriers; rate regulation involving 
non-contiguous domestic water transportation, household goods carriers, 
and collectively determined motor rates; and the disposition of motor 
carrier undercharge claims. The ICCTA empowers the Board, through its 
exemption authority, to promote deregulation administratively.

              THE BOARD'S FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

    The Board's fiscal year 2001 budget request totals $17.954 million 
and 143 FTEs, essentially adjusting the fiscal year 2000 level for 
inflation and pay raises.\1\ This request reflects the relatively 
constant workload that is expected and the statutory and regulatory 
deadlines associated with the resolution of the cases filed. The 
workload of the Board at any given time, other than motor carrier 
undercharge cases, remains relatively constant because, even as cases 
are resolved, new cases are filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Attached (Attachment #1) is a table that presents in more 
detail the specifics of the Board's fiscal year 2001 budget request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Board is confronted with three concerns involving the resources 
necessary to adjudicate its constant workload and meet statutory and 
regulatory deadlines. First, the Board must have a way of ensuring that 
it can hire new employees in sufficient time to be prepared to replace 
the 45 percent of experienced employees who will be eligible to retire 
in the next 3 years. While some of these employees may wish to continue 
to work after their retirement eligibility date, many will not. Second, 
the Board must have the necessary resources to accommodate any 
legislative changes that Congress might approve. And lastly, the 
funding source for the Board must remain stable to carry out its 
mandate. In this regard, a debate continues over whether the Board 
ought to be fully funded through user fees, and the Administration has 
included such a proposal in its fiscal year 2001 budget. Such an 
approach would require additional legislative authority and until 
Congress provides new direction, the financing mechanism of 
appropriations and offsetting collections is the appropriate way to 
proceed.

                       OVERALL GOALS OF THE BOARD

    In the performance of its functions, the objective of the Board is 
to ensure that, where regulatory oversight is necessary, it is 
exercised efficiently and effectively, integrating market forces, where 
possible, into the overall regulatory model. In particular, the Board 
seeks to resolve matters brought before it fairly and expeditiously. 
Through use of its regulatory exemption authority, streamlining of its 
decisional process and the regulations applicable thereto, and 
consistent application of legal and equitable principles, the Board 
seeks to facilitate commerce by providing an effective forum for 
efficient dispute resolution and facilitation of appropriate business 
transactions. The Board continues to strive to develop, through 
rulemakings and case disposition, new and better ways to analyze unique 
and complex problems, to reach fully justified decisions more quickly, 
and to reduce the costs associated with regulatory oversight.
    To be more responsive to the surface transportation community by 
fostering governmental efficiency, innovation in dispute resolution, 
private-sector solutions to problems, and competition in the provision 
of transportation services, the Board will:
  --Continue to strive for a more streamlined process for the 
        expeditious handling of rail rate reasonableness and other 
        complaint cases, in an effort to provide additional regulatory 
        predictability to shippers and carriers;
  --Continue to reduce processing time for all cases before the Board, 
        in particular to ensure that appropriate market-based 
        transactions in the public interest are facilitated; and
  --Continue to develop new opportunities for the various sectors of 
        the transportation community to work cooperatively with the 
        Board and with one another to find creative solutions to 
        persistent industry and/or regulatory problems involving 
        carriers, shippers, employees, and local communities.

             FISCAL YEAR 1999 ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE BOARD

    During fiscal year 1999, the Board's workload included 926 Board 
decisions and court-related work, involving adjudications and 
rulemakings, dealing with rail and non-rail transportation issues. 
These decisions pertained to rail carrier consolidations; review of 
rail labor arbitral decisions; rail rates and service; line sales; line 
constructions; set terms and conditions for continued rail service; and 
abandonments. They also related to truck rate undercharge cases, 
intercity bus merger and pooling matters, motor carrier collective 
ratemaking oversight, and other non-rail matters such as pipeline rate 
cases.
    With respect to rulemaking activity, the Board issued decisions 
exempting commodities, services, and other classes of transactions from 
regulation where regulation is not necessary. The Board also issued a 
decision in STB Ex Parte No. 385 (Sub-No. 4), Modification of the 
Carload Waybill Sample and Public Use File Regulations, putting forth a 
proposal to more accurately collect data on rail freight traffic as it 
pertains to rail contract movements. Stemming from its review of rail 
access and competition issues, the Board issued new rules in STB Ex 
Parte No. 628, Expedited Relief for Service Inadequacies, permitting 
shippers and connecting railroads who are receiving poor service from 
an incumbent carrier to seek temporary service from an alternative rail 
carrier. Also stemming from its rail access and competition review, in 
STB Ex Parte No. 627, Market Dominance Determinations--Product and 
Geographic Competition, the Board eliminated product and geographic 
competition as considerations in determining market dominance in rail 
rate cases, and denied a petition for reconsideration in this matter. 
The Board concluded that removing the product and geographic 
competition evidentiary standards would expedite rail rate cases in 
accordance with Congressional intent, and would further level the 
playing field between railroads and shippers regarding rate disputes. 
In Ex Parte No. 574, Safe Implementation of Board-Approved 
Transactions, the Board and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 
have proposed that joint rules be established setting forth procedures 
for developing and implementing safety integration plans concerning 
financial transactions presented for consideration to the Board. In STB 
Ex Parte No. 527 (Sub-No. 2), Expedited Procedures for Processing Rail 
Rate Reasonableness Exemption and Revocation Proceedings, the Board 
finalized a rulemaking seeking to clarify the exemption and revocation 
procedures as to when additional information would be sought in 
response to a petition.
    With regard to specific cases, the Board made progress toward 
resolving pending rail and pipeline rate complaints, including STB 
Docket No. 42022, FMC Wyoming Corporation and FMC Corporation v. Union 
Pacific Railroad Company; STB Docket No. 42038, Minnesota Power, Inc. 
v. Duluth, Missabe, and Iron Range Railway Company; STB Docket No. 
42027, Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Consolidated Railroad 
Corporation; STB Docket No. 41687, Grain Land Coop. v. Canadian Pacific 
Limited and Soo Railroad Company d/b/a CP Rail System; and STB Docket 
No. 41685, CF Industries, Inc. v. Koch Pipeline Company, L.P.. In 
addition, STB Docket No. 41295, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company v. 
Consolidated Rail Corporation, CSX Transportation Inc. and Norfolk 
Southern Railway Company, and STB Docket No. 42034, PSI Energy, Inc. v. 
CSX Transportation, Inc. and Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian 
Pacific Railway, were resolved voluntarily by the parties--it is 
important to note, however, that the Board had done significant work on 
these cases by the time they were settled. Finally, the Board defended 
court challenges to its decisions in the Bottleneck, McCarty Farms, and 
Huron Valley rail rate proceedings.
    With respect to rail restructuring, the Board continued its 
oversight of the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific (UP/SP) merger and the 
Conrail acquisition. Furthermore, the Board issued a decision approving 
the acquisition of the Illinois Central (IC) by the Canadian National 
(CN). The Board also issued various decisions relating to the 
conditions imposed in the UP/SP merger and the Conrail acquisition 
proceedings.
    The Board issued decisions and participated in court proceedings on 
various other rail matters, including 378 rail abandonment decisions, 
25 rail line construction decisions, and 190 short-line and non-carrier 
acquisition decisions. In particular, the Board has done significant 
work on the transportation and environmental issues associated with the 
construction and operation of a 281-mile segment of the Dakota, 
Minnesota & Eastern Railroad (DM&E) in Wyoming (STB Finance Docket No. 
33407, Dakota, Minnesota, & Eastern Railroad Corporation Construction 
into the Powder River Basin). This project would allow DM&E to extend 
its existing system westward to access coal mines in the Powder River 
Basin.
    Regarding other rail matters, the Board issued a decision setting 
the terms and conditions under which Amtrak could reintroduce rail 
passenger service between Boston, MA and Portland, ME (STB Finance 
Docket No. 33381, Application of the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation Under 49 U.S.C. 24308(a)--Springfield Terminal Railway 
Company, Boston and Maine Corporation, and Portland Terminal Company). 
The Board also continued its work on the joint task force with the 
Department of Agriculture to address shipper and railroad information 
needs related to recurring seasonal problems affecting grain 
transportation.
    Non-rail decisions included 28 motor carrier undercharge decisions 
and 22 decisions dealing with intercity bus merger cases and pooling 
agreements, as well as action related to motor carrier rate bureaus.\2\ 
The Board also has worked on STB Docket No. WCC-101, Government of the 
Territory of Guam v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., American President Lines, 
Ltd., and Matson Navigation Company, Inc., and STB Docket No. WCC-102, 
Ocean Logistics Management, Inc. v. NPR, Inc. and Holt Cargo Systems, 
Inc., involving rates in the non-contiguous domestic water trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ These numbers are subsets of the decisions included in the 
workload summary table that follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND 2001 ACTIVITIES OF THE BOARD

    Attached is a table (Attachment #2) that shows workload trends and 
accomplishments, which form the basis for the Board's request to 
essentially maintain the current level of funding in fiscal year 2001. 
As the table indicates, the Board believes that the number of decisions 
issued and court-related work are the best measures of workload and 
performance. In accordance with the Board's continued commitment to 
resolving matters before it expeditiously, it anticipates a relatively 
constant workload and output through fiscal year 2001.
    During fiscal year 2000 and 2001, the Board will continue to look 
for ways to streamline or otherwise improve applicable regulations and 
the regulatory process and will resolve as expeditiously as possible 
petitions for rulemaking filed by parties. In addition, the Board will 
continue to monitor the implementation of rulemaking decisions and 
private-sector initiatives and agreements reflecting the Board's 
directives stemming from its rail access and competition proceedings 
conducted in fiscal year 1998 and 1999.
    Regarding major restructuring activity among larger railroads in 
general, the Board held public hearings on March 7-10, 2000, on major 
rail consolidations and the present and future structure of the North 
American rail industry. This hearing addressed the industry's 
restructuring that has occurred to date and the prospect for future 
restructuring. The Board also, among other issues, addressed the 
effects of railroad consolidations on the financial condition of the 
railroad industry and the industry's ability to provide responsive 
service at reasonable prices. As a result of the testimony presented, 
the Board issued a decision on March 17, 2000, directing large 
railroads not to pursue for 15 months further merger activities before 
the Board until it has adopted new rules governing merger proceedings.
    With respect to rail carrier consolidations, workload is expected 
to increase in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. The Board will 
continue to monitor the UP/SP merger, the Conrail acquisition, and the 
CN/IC merger pursuant to the five-year oversight conditions that the 
Board imposed as part of its approval of those transactions, and will 
continue to handle any proceedings dealing with the interpretation of 
other conditions imposed as part of the Board's approvals. In addition, 
the Board will be defending its March 17 decision to suspend major rail 
mergers until merger regulations are revised, and will be working on 
rail merger rule changes called for in that decision, which are to be 
finalized by mid-June 2001.
    Regarding rail rates and services, the workload is expected to 
increase in fiscal year 2000 and again in fiscal year 2001, in 
particular due to the continuing expiration of long term coal 
transportation contracts, the potential filing of complaints under the 
Board's non-coal rate guidelines, and the application of the Board's 
bottleneck decision. These new cases will be complex and require 
significant staff attention as new standards are tested and shortened 
timeframes for completion of rate proceedings are met. Also, the Board 
has a number of complaint cases involving grain car allocation 
procedures and unreasonable practices involving alleged breaches of 
common carrier obligation to provide reasonable car service on request, 
which it will be processing. In addition, the Board will proceed with 
its 3-year study (Buffalo Rate Study) examining linehaul and switching 
rates for rail movement into and out of the State of New York's Buffalo 
area following the Conrail acquisition. The Board also will continue to 
work on the various pending rate matters previously referenced.
    In connection with other rail matters, rail abandonment decisions 
are expected to increase slightly in fiscal year 2000 and then remain 
stable through fiscal year 2001, reflecting the increased complexity of 
abandonment filings requiring more than one decision. The Board will 
continue to handle several rail line construction projects, which 
involve significant environmental review issues, and we project that 
line construction proceedings will increase in fiscal year 2000 and 
remain constant through fiscal year 2001. For example, the Board 
continues work on an application filed by Tongue River Railroad for the 
proposed construction of an alternative route for a line already 
approved for construction (STB Finance Docket No. 30186 (Sub-No. 3), 
Tongue River Railroad Company--Construction and Operation--Western 
Alignment). In addition, the Board continues to make progress toward 
resolving the environmental issues associated with the DM&E case 
referenced earlier. In Finance Docket No. 33824, Great Salt Lake and 
Southern Railroad, LLC--Construction and Operation--in Tooele County, 
UT, the applicant has recently filed for permission to construct and 
operate a 32 mile rail line connected with the interim storage of spent 
nuclear fuel. Other line transaction activity is expected to remain 
somewhat constant in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 as carriers 
continue to buy and sell unprofitable or marginally profitable lines as 
alternatives to service abandonment.
    Other rail activities, such as case activity involving passenger 
rail issues and review of labor arbitral decisions, are expected to 
increase in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. During fiscal year 
1999, the Boards saw an increase in cases involving interpretations of 
labor conditions and arbitration appeals resulting from rail 
consolidations and other rail transactions. In fiscal year 2000 and 
2001, the Board projects that this trend will continue due to recently 
decided rail mergers. Another area of possible workload increase 
involves passenger rail and, in particular, disputes related to the use 
by Amtrak of tracks of the freight railroads.
    Regarding non-rail matters, the truck rate undercharge workload has 
decreased significantly from pre-fiscal year 1998 levels and will 
remain relatively constant through fiscal year 2001 as the Board works 
to close out its undercharge docket. The reduction in undercharge 
decisions reflects the Board's continuing commitment to resolve its 
undercharge docket. Other non-rail activities, including intercity bus 
merger and pooling proceedings and non-contiguous domestic water trade 
and pipeline rate cases, are expected to increase in fiscal year 2000 
and fiscal year 2001. For example, although the WCC-102 proceeding 
referenced earlier has just been settled by the parties, the Board will 
be working on two other recently filed water carrier cases, STB Docket 
No. WCC-104, Trailer Bridge, Inc. v. Sea Star Lines, LLC, and STB 
Docket No. WCC-105, DHX, Inc. v. Matson Navigation Company, et al. And 
in accordance with a Board decision issued in early fiscal year 1999, 
during fiscal year 2000 and 2001, the Board expects to finally resolve 
the circumstances under which motor carrier rate bureau agreements 
should be continued.

                                SUMMARY

    The Board's budget request would ensure the resources needed for 
the Board to continue to implement its responsibilities expeditiously 
and effectively as Congress intends. I would be happy to answer any 
other questions that the Committee may have about the Board's fiscal 
year 2001 budget request.

                                      ATTACHMENT 1.--SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year
                                                             ---------------------------------------  Difference
                                                                               2000         2001         from
                                                              1999 actual    enacted      request      Enacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent Positions.........................................          131          140      \3\ 143            3
Full-time Equivalents.......................................          131          140          143            3
Personnel Compensation and Benefits.........................      $12,420      $13,391      $14,122         $731
Former Personnel............................................           14            5           10            5
Travel......................................................           32           49           49  ...........
Other Costs.................................................        3,481        3,495        3,773          278
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total Budget Resources................................       15,947       16,940       17,954        1,014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The requested increase in FTEs will allow the Board to hire entry level staff to replace the tenured,
  retirement-eligible staff prior to their retirement dates. This would ensure the required transition for
  current staff to new staff, who can gain working knowledge and expertise necessary to process the Board's
  workload.


                          CHANGES IN RESOURCES

    For personnel compensation and benefits, $14,122,000 is requested 
to support the Board's permanent positions. This is an increase of 
$731,000 over fiscal year 2000, of which $152,000 is required to fund 
the annual cost of the January 2000 pay raise and $387,000 is required 
for the January 2001 pay raise estimated at 3.7 percent. The request 
also includes $50,000 for lump-sum leave payments to retiring 
employees.
    Funding for costs for former personnel unemployment payments is 
requested at $10,000, which is an increase of $5,000 from fiscal year 
2000. This request is for unemployment compensation payments to former 
employees who were separated from Federal service.
    A travel budget of $49,000 is requested primarily for on-site 
visits to railroads to finalize audits and review public accountants' 
workpapers, for physical inspection of proposed rail abandonment and 
construction sites and verification of environmental data provided by 
parties to proceedings, for defense of the Board's decisions in courts 
across the country, and for the general presentation upon request of 
issues within the Board's jurisdiction.
    Funding to cover other costs is requested at $3,773,000, a $278,000 
increase over fiscal year 2000. Included in this number is a rental 
payment increase directed by the General Services Administration (GSA) 
and regular cost increases in telephone service, copier rental, office 
supplies, and reimbursable services acquired from other Federal 
agencies.

                  ATTACHMENT 2.--FISCAL YEAR 2001 OMB BUDGET JUSTIFICATION WORKLOAD SUMMARY \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Actual fiscal   Estimated \5\   Estimated \4\
                                                                     year 1999      fiscal year     fiscal year
                                                                       board        2000 board      2001 board
                        Workload Category                          decisions and   decisions and   decisions and
                                                                   court-related   court-related   court-related
                                                                       work            work            work
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail Carrier Consolidations.....................................             117             199             197
Rail Rates and Service..........................................              60              95             104
Rail Abandonments and Constructions.............................             403             442             442
Other Line Transactions.........................................             190             185             185
Other Rail Activities...........................................              67             102             101
Motor Carrier Undercharges......................................          \5\ 28              38              26
Non-Rail Activities.............................................              61             109             113
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total Decisions...........................................         \6\ 926           1,170           1,168
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ At this time, the Board believes that the number of Board decisions and court-related work are the best
  measures of workload at the Board. Certain activities performed at the Board that provide direct and indirect
  support to rulemakings and decisions in specific cases are not reflected in these workload numbers. Such
  activities not reflected include: enforcement action; rail audits and rail carrier reporting oversight;
  administration of the rail waybill sample and development of the Uniform Rail Costing System; and case-related
  correspondence and informal public assistance.
\5\ Estimated workloads for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 are based on historical information regarding actual
  filings and best estimates of probable future filings by parties. Because the Board is principally an
  adjudicatory body, it does not directly control the level or timing of actual case filings.
\6\ The motor carrier undercharge decisions projected for fiscal year 1999 have decreased from previous
  estimates. This decrease reflects the Board's consolidation of several undercharge case dockets into a single
  decision.

                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                   BOARD MEMBERS' TERMS AND STAFFING

    Question. When do the terms of the current Board members expire? 
When was Ms. Morgan renominated and confirmed for another term?
    Answer. The ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) provided that the 
term for each Member of the Board shall be 5 years and shall begin when 
the term of the predecessor of that Member ends. Also under the ICCTA, 
a Board Member can only be reappointed for one additional term and, if 
not reappointed, cannot serve more than one year past the expiration of 
his or her term.
    Board Members and Expiration of Terms.--William Clyburn Jr., 
December 31, 2000; Wayne O. Burkes, December 31, 2002; Linda J. Morgan, 
December 31, 2003.
    Chairman Morgan was renominated for a second term by President 
Clinton on August 6, 1999, confirmed by the United States Senate on 
November 10, 1999, and sworn in on December 1, 1999.
    Question. How many staff are in each Board Member's office? What 
are the job titles, GS level, and salary for each of these positions? 
Are there currently any vacancies in the Members' personal staff?
    Answer. Each Board Member has a staffing allocation of 3 FTEs, and 
the Chairman has a staffing allocation of 3.5 FTEs. The allocations 
include slots for the Board Member, an administrative assistant, and 
professional staff. The following table reflects the current staffing 
of each Board Member's office.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Job title                    GS level         Salary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Morgan:
    Chief of Staff......................       GS-905-15        $110,028
    Special Assistant...................       GS-301-13          66,979
    Attorney-Advisor \1\................       GS-905-15         110,028
Vice-Chairman Burkes:
    Expert..............................      GS-2110-00         101,140
    Executive Assistant.................       GS-301-11          44,148
    Attorney-Advisor \2\................       GS-905-15         110,028
Commissioner Clyburn:
    Staff Advisor.......................       GS-301-12          59,738
    Attorney-Advisor \2\................       GS-905-15         107,207
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Employee has been shared with Office of the General Counsel and will
  be returning full-time to the General Counsel's office shortly.
\2\ On full-time detail from the Office of Proceedings.

    Based on the allocations, there is technically a staffing vacancy 
in the Office of Commissioner Clyburn because his professional staff 
person is on detail from another office.

                            HIRING PROCESSES

    Question. Please describe the hiring practices of Surface 
Transportation Board staff, either for the Member's personal staffing 
or in the program offices. What is the average time for hiring a new 
STB staff person (both in-house hires and promotions and new hires from 
outside the agency)? Is there any input from the Department of 
Transportation in this decisionmaking? If so, why?
    Answer. There are 3 types of hiring methods at the Board. The 
length of time to recruit depends on the type of hiring process and 
whether the Board is hiring experienced candidates or entry-level 
candidates. In-house hiring or merit promotions, which are limited to 
Board candidates, can be completed within 2-3 weeks after the process 
is begun. Outside recruiting of status candidates (current Federal 
employees) can take 6-8 weeks for a Government-wide dissemination of 
the job announcement and recruitment for qualified candidates. Outside, 
open-market recruiting can take 7-12 weeks after the request is made by 
a program manager. The Board uses the services of the Office of 
Personnel Management, on a reimbursable basis, to provide the required 
nationwide staffing, recruiting activities, and evaluation of 
applicants for the vacancies. Under each method, after a listing of 
qualified candidates is provided to the program manager, the 
interviewing process is completed, and a selection is made, a candidate 
could be expected to begin employment at the Board within 4-6 weeks 
after selection. The Department of Transportation (DOT) has no input in 
the recruiting or final selection of the Board's candidates.

             RELATIONSHIP WITH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    Question. The Surface Transportation Board is an independent 
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within the Department of 
Transportation (DOT). Please describe the Board's relationship with 
DOT, and describe in detail what being ``organizationally housed within 
DOT'' entails, particularly as it affects support services, 
administration, staff decisions, or other non-adjudicatory functions of 
the Board?
    Answer. The Board and DOT have worked together cooperatively to 
ease any logistical challenges associated with a decisionally 
independent body organizationally housed within DOT. The Board's 
decisional independence is explicitly expressed in the ICCTA. However, 
the Office of the Secretary is apprised of rulemakings and 
adjudications as they are served or published. DOT may appear before 
the Board as a party in the Board's proceedings, just as DOT appeared 
before the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) as a party. Any role or 
input that DOT might wish to have in a Board proceeding, as with any 
other party, is through a filing of public record.
    Organizationally, the Board is housed in DOT for a variety of 
administrative and financial reporting provisions. The Board's annual 
budget request and reporting of obligations incurred are included with 
DOT's submissions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the 
Department of the Treasury; however, the Board is required by Public 
Law 104-88 to transmit copies of its budget requests to Congress at the 
same time they are sent to the Secretary of Transportation and DOT is 
required to provide an assessment of the budgetary needs of the Board 
in the President's Budget. The Board's personnel statistical data are 
included with DOT's for reporting purposes to the Office of Personnel 
Management. However, as the law provides, in the performance of Board 
functions, the personnel of the Board shall not be responsible to or 
subject to the supervision or direction of any officer of any other 
part of DOT. The law also provides that the Board shall perform all 
functions that, immediately before the effective date of ICCTA, were 
functions of the ICC or were performed by any employee of the ICC in 
the capacity as such officer or employee. In order to maintain its 
adjudicatory independence, the Board performs a few administrative and 
financial functions in-house. The Board obtains, on a reimbursable 
basis, those administrative functions that are more cost efficient to 
be performed outside the Board from other sources.

                            FUNDING HISTORY

    Question. Please update the table found on page 607 of Senate 
hearing record 106-221, displaying the Board's funding request, the 
Administration's request, the enacted funding level, and the end of 
year staffing level for each fiscal year from fiscal year 1996 to that 
requested for fiscal year 2001. 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 
1996 through 2001.

                                                        BUDGET REQUESTS & ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       STB
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          ICC Fiscal                                               Fiscal year
                                         year 1996 \7\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           19966 \7\         1997            1998            1999            2000             2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board:
    Appropriation.....................     $32,892,000  ..............     $12,344,000     $12,753,000     $14,190,000     $15,821,000       $17,054,000
    Offsetting Collections............       8,300,000  ..............       3,000,000       3,100,000       2,000,000       1,200,000           900,000
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Budget Request..................      41,192,000  ..............      15,344,000      15,853,000      16,190,000      17,021,000    \8\ 17,954,000
                                       =================================================================================================================
President:
    Appropriation.....................      33,202,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ................
    Offsetting Collections............       8,300,000  ..............      15,344,000      14,300,000      16,000,000      17,000,000        17,954,000
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Budget Request..................      41,502,000  ..............      15,344,000      14,300,000      16,000,000      17,000,000        17,954,000
                                       =================================================================================================================
Enacted:
    Appropriation \9\.................      13,379,000      $8,414,000      12,244,000      13,850,000      15,990,000      16,930,000  ................
    Offsetting Collections \10\.......       3,200,000         652,000       3,000,000       2,000,000       2,600,000  \11\ 1,600,000  ................
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Budget Request..................      16,579,000       9,066,000      15,244,000      15,850,000      15,990,000      16,930,000  ................
                                       =================================================================================================================
End of Year:
    Staffing Level....................        \12\ 317             132             127             130             137             140               143
    FTE Level.........................         \12\ 86             106             131             129             131             140              143
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ During fiscal year 1996, the ICCTA was passed, the ICC was eliminated effective December 31, 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.
\8\ The Board's fiscal year 2001 budget request essentially represents the Board's current funding level (for fiscal year 2000) plus inflationary and
  personnel salary increases.
\9\ Enacted appropriations less enacted rescissions.
\10\ Actual offsetting collections. In fiscal year 1997, there was a carryover of $625,031 over the obligational limitation. In fiscal year 1998 , there
  was a carryover of $315,586 over the obligational limitation.
\11\ The fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 enacted appropriations provided that fees not to exceed $2,600,000 and $1,600,000, respectively, shall be
  credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and that the sum appropriated shall be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis as such
  offsetting collections are received.
\12\ As of December 31, 1995.

                  USER FEES AND OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS

    Question. Please update the table on page 608 of Senate Hearing 
record 106-221, displaying in tabular form the level of anticipated 
user fee income in the Board's fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 
budget requests. Please also include columns displaying the President's 
budget assumptions for user fee income in each of these four fiscal 
years. In addition, please display the level of user fee offsets 
included in the appropriations legislation for the Board in fiscal 
years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Finally, please include columns displaying 
the actual amount of offsetting user fees collected in fiscal years 
1998 and 1999, and projected through the end of fiscal year 2000.
    Answer. The following table displays the offsetting collection of 
user fees for fiscal year 1998 through 2001.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                STB
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Fiscal year
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       1997            1998            1999            2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 User Fee Anticipated Income in Budget Request..      $3,100,000      $2,000,000      $1,200,000        $900,000
 President's Budget Assumptions.................      14,300,000      16,000,000      17,000,000      17,954,000
User Fee Offsets in Appropriations Language.....       2,000,000  \13\ 2,600,000       1,600,000  ..............
 Offsetting Collections Actual..................  \14\ \15\ 2,31         802,883    \16\ 462,731  ..............
                                                           5,586
 Projected end of fiscal year...................  ..............  ..............         765,000  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 enacted appropriation provided that fees not to exceed $2,600,000
  and $1,600,000, respectively, shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and that the
  sum appropriated shall be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis as such offsetting collections are received.
\14\ These figures include $67,050 in fiscal year 1998 in user fees associated with the Conrail acquisition.
\15\ This figure includes $966,700 in user fees associated with the Canadian National Railway/Illinois Central
  merger.
\16\ User Fees collected 10/1/99-03/31/00.

    Question. The Office of Management and Budget has proposed that the 
Appropriations Committees strike the fiscal year 2000 language 
providing that any fees collected by the Board be credited to this 
appropriation as offsetting collections. This provision holds the Board 
harmless from any shortfall in collection of user fees. Why is the 
fiscal year 2000 enacted provision necessary?
    Answer. The Board prefers the bill language as provided in the 
fiscal year 2000 appropriations law that allows the user fees to be 
credited to the appropriation as offsetting collections and to reduce 
the general fund appropriation on a dollar for dollar basis as the fees 
are received and credited. Administratively, the tracking of the 
collection of fees has been simplified as a result of this approach. 
Under this provision, the Board receives the operating cash from one 
source and deposits and credits the user fees collected to the general 
fund appropriation, thereby reducing the overall general fund 
appropriation required for operating expenses of the Board. Prior to 
this provision, the Board was required to spend considerable staff 
hours tracking the user fees collected by category and forecasting the 
user fee categories monthly to derive an end-of-year projection to 
ensure that there were sufficient resources to supplement the 
appropriation. Also, the financial forecasting relating to day-to-day 
operations constrained fiscal year planning due to the uncertainty of 
the total resources available for the Board's operation.
    Question. Why is the requested and anticipated level of user fee 
collection in fiscal year 2001 ($900,000) so much lower than that 
expected for fiscal year 2000 ($1,600,000) or fiscal year 1999 
($2,600,000)?
    Answer. Based on the fiscal year 1999 actual user fee collections 
of $802,883, the Board projected that $900,000 would be collected in 
fiscal year 2001. The basis for this projection presumed the same level 
of collection activity as in fiscal year 1999 and added the 
governmental pay raise and inflationary adjustment effects of the 2000 
Update and 2001 Update on the fee items. We do not have any updated 
data to indicate that this estimate for fiscal year 2001 would change 
significantly.

      COMPARISON OF FISCAL YEAR 1999 AND 2000 USER FEE COLLECTIONS

    Question. What level of assessed user fees was collected in fiscal 
year 1999? Please discuss the reasons for any delta above or below the 
fiscal year 1999 enacted level of $2,600,000 in offsetting collections. 
What is anticipated to be assessed in fiscal year 2000? What has been 
the actual user fee collection level thus far in fiscal year 2000? 
Please discuss the reasons for any anticipated delta above or below the 
fiscal year 2000 enacted level of $1,600,000 in offsetting collections.
    Answer. The Board collected $802,883 in user fees in fiscal year 
1999. The Subcommittee had set the fiscal year 1999 collection level of 
$2,600,000 anticipating a major rail merger filing with the associated 
ancillary filings such as abandonments, trackage rights, and line sales 
that normally accompany a major rail merger. However, this filing 
activity did not materialize during fiscal year 1999. Also, user fee 
collections were averaging $100,000 per month during fiscal year 1998, 
which contributed to the base projection for the fiscal year 1999 
enacted level.
    The Board projects that it should collect an estimated $765,000 by 
September 30, 2000. The Subcommittee had set the fiscal year 2000 
collection level of $1,600,000 anticipating that more high-dollar user 
fees would be collected. However, as shown in the table below, the 
Board has collected $462,730 in user fees from October 1, 1999, to 
March 31, 2000. That collection includes three rail construction 
applications at $48,800 each and one rate complaint under the coal rate 
guidelines at $54,500. Excluding these four one-time large fees, the 
monthly average for the six-month period is $44,000 per month. The 
Board collected $401,142 for that same period of time last year. The 
breakdown is as follows:

                MONTHLY USER FEE COMPARISON: YEAR TO DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year
                 Months                  -------------------------------
                                               1999            2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October.................................         $63,199        $117,355
November................................          45,178          58,658
December................................          78,255          56,351
January.................................         103,581         154,320
February................................          69,902          46,962
March                                             41,027          29,084
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................         401,142         462,730
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What was the amount of carryover user fees from fiscal 
year 1999 which was available for obligation after October 1, 1999?
    Answer. The Board still has the $940,617 remaining that was carried 
over from the two fiscal years in which there were Class I rail mergers 
that resulted in user fee collections exceeding the Congressional 
limits for those fiscal years. The Board has been able to fiscally 
manage its workload within the fiscal year appropriation limits 
provided by Congress. Should the Board require additional funding 
resources for unanticipated caseload and additional cases requiring 
processing within tight statutory timeframes, the Board would seek to 
use the carryover funds.

             COMPARISON OF RECENT USER FEE SCHEDULE UPDATES

    Question. Has the Surface Transportation Board updated its user fee 
schedule for 2000? If so, please detail in tabular form the 2000 user 
fee update schedule, including all fee items or sub-fee items, 
including both the 1999 and 2000 fee amounts, with a column showing the 
amount of increase, if any (similar to the table found on pages 611-617 
of Senate hearing record 106-221).
    Answer. The following table lists the Board's user fee schedule as 
experienced in Ex Parte No. 542, Regulations Governing Fees For 
Services Performed In Connection With Licensing And Related Services, 
for fiscal year 1997, 1998, and 1999. The fee increase column reflects 
the net change between the fiscal year 1997 and 1999 fees. The fiscal 
year 1999 fee schedule is currently in effect. The fiscal year 2000 fee 
schedule has not yet been adopted by the Board. When the fiscal year 
2000 user fee schedule is adopted, we will provide the Subcommittee 
with a revised table that includes fee data for fiscal year 1998, 1999, 
and 2000.

   COMPARISON OF STB EX PARTE NO. 542 (SUB-NO. 1 FEE SCHEDULE TO STB EX PARTE NO. 542 (SUB-NO. 3) FEE SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               STB EP 542  (Sub-    STB EP 542  (Sub-    STB EP 542  (Sub-
                                     No. 1)               No. 2)               No. 3)
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------             Percent
       FEE DESCRIPTION            Current fee            New Fee              New Fee          Diff.     change
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                Item      Amount     Item      Amount     Item      Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLIC. POOLING OR DIV.            1.0     $2,600       1.0     $2,800       1.0     $2,900       $300     11.54
 TRAFFIC NON-RAIL...........
APPLIC. PURCHASE, LEASE--MC        2.0      1,200       2.0      1,300       2.0      1,300        100      8.33
 PASSANGERS.................
APPLIC. APPROVAL NON-RAIL          3.0     16,500       3.0     17,900       3.0     18,100      1,600      9.70
 RATE ASSOC. AGREEMENT......
APPLIC. AMEND NON RAIL-RATE        4.1      2,700       4.1      3,000       4.1      3,000        300     11.11
 ASSOC.--SINGF..............
AMEND NON-RAIL RATE ASSOC.         4.2         60       4.2         60       4.2         60  .........  ........
 AGREE--MINOR...............
APPL. FOR TEMPORARY                5.0        300       5.0        300       5.0        300  .........  ........
 AUTHORITY MC PASSENG.......
APPL. EXTENSION OR ACQUIS.        11.1      4,300      11.1      4,700      11.1      4,700        400      9.30
 OR OPERATION...............
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION 1150.31-      11.2      1,100      11.2      1,200      11.2      1,200        100      9.09
 1150.35....................
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION            11.3      7,500      11.3      8,100      11.3      8,200        700      9.33
 (EXCEPT CONSTRUCTION)......
APPL. INVOLVING THE               12.1     44,500      12.1     48,300      12.1     48,800      4,300      9.66
 CONSTRUCTION OF A LINE.....
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION 1150.36       12.2      1,100      12.2      1,200      12.2      1,200        100      9.09
 CONSTRUCTION...............
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION            12.3     44,500      12.3     48,300      12.3     48,800      4,300      9.66
 CONSTRUCTION OF LINE.......
FEEDER LINE DEVELOPMENT           13.0      2,600      13.0      2,600      13.0      2,600  .........  ........
 PROGRAM APPLICATION........
APPL. CLASS II-III ACQUIRE        14.1      3,700      14.1      4,000      14.1      4,100        400     10.81
 OR EXTE LINE...............
NOTICE OF EXEMPT. ACQUIRE OR      14.2      1,100      14.2      1,200      14.2      1,200        100      9.09
 EXTEND LINE................
PETITION FOR EXEMPT ACQUIRE       14.3      3,900      14.3      4,300      14.3      4,300        400     10.26
 OR EXTEND LINE.............
NOTICE OF MODIFIED                15.0      1,000      15.0      1,100      15.0      1,100        100     10.00
 CETIFICATE PC&N............
APPLIC. TO ABANDON OR             21.1     13,200      21.1     14,300      21.1     14,500      1,300      9.85
 DISCONTINUE SERVICE........
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION ABANDON       21.2      2,200      21.2      2,400      21.2      2,500        300     13.64
 OR DISCONTINUE.............
PETITION FOR EXEMPT. ABANDON      21.3      3,800      21.3      4,100      21.3      4,100        300      7.89
 OR DISCONTINUE.............
APPLIC. TO ABANDON CRC-NE         22.0        250      22.0        300      22.0        300         50     20.00
 RAIL SERVICE...............
ABANDONMENT FILED BY              23.0      1,100      23.0      1,200      23.0      1,200        100      9.09
 BANKRUPT RAILROAD..........
WAIVER REQUEST FOR FILING         24.0      1,000      24.0      1,100      24.0      1,100        100     10.00
 REQUIRE--ABANDONMENT.......
OFFER OF FINANCIAL                25.0        900      25.0      1,000      25.0      1,000        100     11.11
 ASSISTANCE (OFA)...........
OFA--SET TERMS AND                26.0     13,500      26.0     14,600      26.0     14,800      1,300      9.63
 CONDITIONS.................
REQUEST FOR A TRAILS USE          27.0        150      27.0        150      27.0        150  .........  ........
 CONDITION..................
APPLIC. FOR USE OF TERMINAL       36.0     11,300      36.0    12,3,00      36.0     12,400      1,100      9.73
 FACILITIES.................
AAPLIC. POOLING OR DIV.           37.0      6,100      37.0      6,600      37.0      6,700        600      9.84
 TRAFFIC (RAIL).............
APPLIC. TO MERGE OR               38.1    889,500      38.1    966,700      38.1    976,500     87,000      9.78
 CONSOLIDATE--MAJOR.........
APPLIC. TO MERGE OR               38.2    177,900      38.2    193,300      38.2    195,300     17,400      9.78
 CONSOLIDATE--SIGNIFICANT...
APPLIC. TO MERGE OR               38.3      4,700      38.3      5,000      38.3      5,200        500     10.64
 CONSOLIDATE--MINOR.........
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION MERGE OR      38.4      1,000      38.4      1,100      38.4      1,100        100     10.00
 CONSOLIDATE................
RESPONSIVE APPLICATION MERGE      38.5      4,700      38.5      5,000      38.5      5,200        500     10.64
 OR CONSOLIDATE.............
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION MERGE      38.6      5,600      38.6      6,100      38.6      6,100        500      8.93
 OR CONSOLIDATE.............
APPLIC. NON-CARRIER TO            39.1    889,500      39.1    966,700      39.1    976,500     87,000      9.78
 CONTROL--MAJOR.............
APPLIC. NON-CARRIER TO            39.2    177,900      39.2    193,300      39.2    195,300     17,400      9.78
 CONTROL--SIGNIFICANT.......
APPLIC. NON-CARRIER TO            39.3      4,700      39.3      5,000      39.3      5,200        500     10.64
 CONTROL--MINOR.............
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION NON-          39.4        850      39.4        900      39.4        900         50      5.88
 CARRIER CONTROL............
RESPONSIVE APPLICATION NON-       39.5      4,700      39.5      5,000      39.5      5,200        500     10.64
 CARRIER CONTROL............
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION NON-       39.6      5,600      39.6      6,100      39.6      6,100        500      8.93
 CARRIER CONTROL............
APPLICATION TO ACQUIRE TRACK      40.1    889,500      40.1    966,700      40.1    976,500     87,000      9.78
 RIGHTS--MAJOR..............
APPLICATION TO ACQUIRE TRACK      40.2    177,900      40.2    193,300      40.2    195,300     17,400      9.78
 RIGHTS--SIGNIFICANT........
APPLICATION TO ACQUIRE TRACK      40.3      4,700      40.3      5,000      40.3      5,200        500     10.64
 RIGHTS--MINOR..............
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION ACQUIRE       40.4        750      40.4        800      40.4        800         50      6.67
 TRACK RIGHTS...............
RESPONSIVE APPLICATION            40.5      4,700      40.5      5,000      40.5      5,200        500     10.64
 ACQUIRE TRACK RIGHTS.......
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION            40.6      5,600      40.6      6,100      40.6      6,100        500      8.93
 ACQUIRE TRACK RIGHTS.......
APPL. OF CARRIER TO PURCHASE      41.1    889,500      41.1    966,700      41.1    976,500     87,000      9.78
 PROP--MAJOR................
APPL. OF CARRIER TO PURCHASE      41.2    177,900      41.2    193,300      41.2    195,300     17,400      9.78
 PROP--SIGNIFICANT..........
APPL. OF CARRIER TO PURCHASE      41.3      4,700      41.3      5,000      41.3      5,200        500     10.64
 PROP--MINOR................
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION CARRIER       41.4        850      41.4        950      41.4        950        100     11.76
 PURCH PROPERTY.............
RESPONSIVE APPLICATION            41.5      4,700        41      5,000      41.5      5,200        500     10.64
 CARRIER PURCH PROPERTY.....
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION            41.6      3,900      41.6      4,300      41.6      4,300        400     10.26
 CARRIER PURCH PROPERTY.....
NOTICE OF A JOINT PROJECT         42.0      1,500      42.0      1,600      42.0      1,600        100      6.67
 INVOLVE RELOCATION.........
APPLIC. RAIL RATE                 43.0     41,600      43.0     45,200      43.0     45,700      4,100      9.86
 ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT......
AMENDMENT RAIL RATE               44.1      7,700      44.1      8,400      44.1      8,500        800     10.39
 AGREEMENT--SIGNIFICANT.....
AMENDMENT RAIL RATE               44.2         60      44.2         60      44.2         60  .........  ........
 AGREEMENT--MINOR...........
AUTHORITY TO HOLD POSITION--      45.0        450      45.0        500      45.0        500         50     11.11
 OFFICER/DIRECTOR...........
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION BY         46.0      4,800      46.0      5,200      46.0      5,200        400      8.33
 RAIL NOT OTHER COVERED.....
AMTRAK CONVEYANCE PROCEED.        47.0     150.00      47.0     150.00      47.0     150.00        .00       .00
 45 USC 562.................
AMTRAK COMPENSATION PROCEED.      48.0        150      48.0        150      48.0        150  .........  ........
 SEC. 402(a)................
COMPLAINT FILED UNDER COAL        56.1     23,300      56.1     27,000      56.1     54,500     31,200    133.91
 RATE GUIDELINES............
FOR COMPLAINT--RAIL MAXIMUM       56.2      1,000      56.2      1,000   ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )  .........  ........
 RATES--SMALL SHIPP.........
COMPLAINT--ALL OTHER EXCEPT       56.3      2,300      56.3      2,600      56.2      5,400      3,100    134.78
 COMPETITIVE ACCESS.........
COMPETITIVE ACCESS COMPLAINT      56.4        150      56.4        150      56.3        150  .........  ........
COMPLAINT OR PETITION             57.0      5,200      57.0      5,700      57.0      5,800        600     11.54
 REQUESTING INVESTIGATION...
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY          58.1      1,000      58.1      1,000      58.1      1,000  .........  ........
 ORDER--EXISTING RATE.......
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY          58.2      1,400      58.2      1,400      58.2      1,400  .........  ........
 ORDER--ALL OTHERS..........
APPLIC. FOR SHIPPER               59.0      4,200      59.0      4,500      59.0      4,600        400      9.52
 ANTITRUST IMMUNITY.........
LABOR ARBITRATION APPEAL          60.0        150      60.0        150      60.0        150  .........  ........
 REVIEWS....................
APPEALS TO STB DECISION OR        61.0        150      61.0        150      61.0        150  .........  ........
 PETITION REVOKE EXEMPTION..
MOTOR CARRIER UNDERCHARGE         62.0        150      62.0        150      62.0        150  .........  ........
 PROCEEDING.................
APPLIC.--AUTHORITY RELEASED       76.0        700      76.0        800      76.0        800        100     14.29
 VALUE RATES................
APPL. SPECIAL PERMITS SHORT       77.0         70      77.0         80      77.0         80         10     14.29
 NOTICE OR WAIVER...........
TARIFFS, INCL. SUPPLEMENTS        78.1         14      78.1         16      78.1         16          2     14.29
 AND CONTRACT SUMMARY.......
TARIFFS SUBMITTED BY FAX....      78.2          1      78.2          1      78.2          1  .........  ........
SPECIAL DOCKET APPL. INVOL.       79.1         45      79.1         50      79.1         50          5     11.11
 $25,000 OR LESS............
SPECIAL DOCKET APPL. INVOL.       79.2         90      79.2        100      79.2        100         10     11.11
 OVER $25,000...............
INFORMAL COMPLAINTS ABOUT         80.0        350      80.0        350      80.0        400         50     14.29
 RAIL APPLICATION...........
TARIFF RECONCILIATION PET.        81.1         45      81.1         50      81.1         50          5     11.11
 MC $25,000 OR LESS.........
TARIFF RECONCILIATION PET.        81.2         90      81.2        100      81.2        100         10     11.11
 MC OVER $25,000............
REQUEST AVAILABILITY OR           82.0        100        82        150      82.0        150         50        50
 REASONABLE MC RATES........
FILING OF DOCUMENTS FOR           83.0         24      83.0         26      83.0         26          2      8.33
 RECORDATION................
INFORMAL OPINIONS RATE            84.0        150      84.0        150        84        150  .........  ........
 APPL.--ALL MODES...........
RAILROAD ACCOUNTING               85.0        650      85.0        700      85.0        700         50      7.69
 INTERPRETATION.............
AN OPERATIONAL                    86.0        850      86.0        950      86.0        950        100     11.76
 INTERPRETATION.............
ARBITRATION COMPLAINT.......   ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )      87.1         75      87.1         75  .........  ........
ARBITRATION COMPLAINT ANSWER   ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )      87.2         75      87.2         75  .........  ........
ARBITRATION 3RD PARTY          ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )      87.3         75      87.3         75  .........  ........
 COMPLAINT..................
ARBITRATION 3RD PARTY COMPL.   ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )      87.4         75      87.4         75  .........  ........
 ANSWER.....................
ARBITRATION APPEAL..........   ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )      87.5        150      87.5        150  .........  ........
MESSENGER DELIVERY OF             96.0         19      96.0         20      96.0         21          2     10.53
 DECISION--RR AGENT.........
REQUEST FOR SERVICE FR            97.0         14      97.0         15      97.0         16          2     14.29
 NOTICE REQUIRED............
REQUEST CARLOAD WAYBILL NO        98.1        150      98.1        200      98.1        200         50     33.33
 FR NOTICE REQUIREMENT......
REQUEST FOR SERVICE FR            98.2        400      98.2        400      98.2        400  .........  ........
 NOTICE REQUIRED............
APPLICATION FOR THE STB           99.1        100      99.1        100      99.1        100  .........  ........
 PRACTIONER'S EXAM..........
PRACTIONER'S EXAM                 99.2         25      99.2         25      99.2         25  .........  ........
 INFORMATION PACKAGE........
URCS--INITIAL PC VERSION PH      100.1         50     100.1         50     100.1         50  .........  ........
 III SOFT PROGRAM...........
UPDATED PC VERSION CST FILE,     100.2         10     100.2         10     100.2         10  .........  ........
 DISK BY REQUEST............
UPDATED PC VERSION COST          100.3         20     100.3         20     100.3         20  .........  ........
 FILE, DISK BY STB..........
PUBLIC REQUEST FOR SOURCE        100.4        500     100.4        500     100.4        500  .........  ........
 CODES--PH III..............
PC VERSION OR MAINFRAME VERS     100.5        400     100.5        400     100.5        400  .........  ........
 URCS PH II.................
PC VERSION OR MAINFRAME VERS     100.6         50     100.6         50     100.6         50  .........  ........
 URCS PH II.................
PUBLIC REQUEST FOR SOURCE        100.7      1,500     100.7      1,500     100.7      1,500  .........  ........
 CODES--PH II...............
REQUESTS FOR PUBLICE USE         101.1        450     101.1        450     101.1        450  .........  ........
 FILE R-CD FIRST YEAR.......
REQUESTS FOR PUBLICE USE         101.2        150     101.2        150     101.2        150  .........  ........
 FILE R-CD ADDITIONAL YEAR..
WAYBILL--STB OR STATE            101.3        650     101.3        650     101.3        650  .........  ........
 PROCEEDING ON R-CD FIRST...
WAYBILL--STB OR STATE            101.4        450     101.4        450     101.4        450  .........  ........
 PROCEEDING ON R-CD DIFF....
WAYBILL--STB OR STATE            101.5        500     101.5        500     101.5        500  .........  ........
 PROCEEDING ON R-CD SAME....
USER GUIDE LATEST AVAILABLE      101.6         50     101.6         50     101.6         50  .........  ........
 CARLOAD WAYBILL............
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY     102.0         10     102.0         11     102.0         11          1     10.00
EXAMINATION OF TARIFFS OR        103.0         25     103.0         25     103.0         26          1      4.00
 SCHEDULES--CERTIFICATION...
CHECKING RECORDS TO CERTIFY      104.0         17     104.0         17     104.0         18          1      5.88
 AUTHENTICITY...............
ELECTROSTATIC COPIES             105.0          5     105.0          5     105.0          5  .........  ........
 TARIFFS, REPORTS, ETC......
SEARCH AND COPY SERVICES ADP     106.0         44     106.0         45     106.0         46          2      4.55
 PROCESS....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable in that year.

                        STAFFING AND RETIREMENTS

    Question. The STB has requested an increase of 3 FTEs for fiscal 
year 2001, from 140 to 143. Do you plan to bring on 6 new position for 
one-half year each, or to hire 3 new people at the beginning of the 
fiscal year? What workload increases are anticipated that would 
necessitate increases in the Office of Compliance and Enforcement? 
Please list the job title, salary, and general responsibilities of each 
proposed new position.
    Answer. The Board is currently recruiting for 7 new entry-, mid-, 
and senior-level professional staff essentially to replace scheduled 
employee retirements within the next few years. Two of the recruiting 
actions are for Attorneys, with target grades of GS-15 (entry salary 
$84,638), who would be involved in trial litigation in defense of the 
Board's decisions in the courts and in analyzing rail filings involving 
rail operations and compliance actions. Three of the recruiting actions 
are for Transportation Industry Analysts, with target grades of GS 13-
14 (entry salary $42,724-$71,954), who would be involved in monitoring 
rail operations, preparing rail analyses, and reporting on rail 
operations and changes in carriers' practices. The Environmental 
Protection Specialist position being recruited for, with a target grade 
of GS-13 (entry salary $60,890), would analyze and report on the 
various environmental issues related to rail abandonment, rails-to-
trail, and construction filings; carrier consolidations; and other 
filings involving rail operations impacting the environment. The 
clerical recruitment of a Welfare-to-Work employee, with a target grade 
of GS 4-5 (entry salary $20,829-$23,304), would provide clerical 
support in the rail operations and compliance area.
    Question. The STB has stated that a large number of current Board 
employees are already eligible to retire under current regulations and 
that an even larger number of employees will become retirement eligible 
within the next two to three years. How many STB employees retired in 
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and have retired or are planning to retire 
in fiscal year 2000? How many employees will be retirement eligible in 
fiscal year 2001? Please express the actual and potential attrition 
rates for each of the years listed as a percentage of on-board staff.
    Answer. Between April 1, 2000 and September 30, 2002, 34.3 percent 
of the Board's employees are eligible for voluntary retirement. There 
were 2 retirements during fiscal year 1998, 2 retirements during fiscal 
year 1999, and 7 actual and planned retirements during fiscal year 
2000. The following table reflects the retirement eligibility of Board 
employees.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Percentage of
                                             Number of    staff eligible
   Retirement eligible by fiscal year        employees       to total
                                             eligible        staffing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
09/30/2000..............................              27            19.7
09/30/2001..............................              33            24.1
09/30/2002..............................              47            34.3
09/30/2003..............................              61            44.5
09/30/2004..............................              73            53.3
09/30/2005..............................              84            61.3
09/30/2006..............................              88            64.2
09/30/2007..............................              97            70.8
09/30/2008..............................             101            73.7
09/30/2009..............................             108            78.8
09/30/2010..............................             109            79.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

    Question. The Board's fiscal year 2001 request is for $17,954,000, 
$954,000 more than the enacted fiscal year 2000 level of $17,000,000. 
Please detail how much of the personnel-related increases are 
associated with: the increased fiscal year 2000 pay raise, inflation 
and the 3.7 percent fiscal year 2001 civilian pay raise, and personnel 
costs for the 3 new FTEs that the Board plans to hire?
    Answer. The following table provides a crosswalk from the enacted 
fiscal year 2000 level of $17,000,000 to the fiscal year 2001 request 
of $17,954,000.

Fiscal Year 2000 Enacted Appropriation..................     $17,000,000
Annualization of Fiscal Year 2000 Pay Raise.............         132,000
Fiscal Year 2001 3.7 percent Pay Raise..................         390,000
Mandatory Fiscal Year 2001 Within Grade Increases.......          33,000
New Compliance/Operations Staffing--3 FTEs..............         140,000
Non-Pay Inflation and GSA Rent Increase.................         115,000
Records Storage (Federal Records Center)................          80,000
Technical Systems Support...............................          55,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request.........................      17,954,000

    Question. Please describe the Board's use of reimbursable 
personnel. What positions are currently being held by reimbursable 
personnel? What are the advantages to using reimbursable personnel? How 
do the salaries and benefits costs for reimbursables compare to on-
board FTE costs?
    Answer. Federal agencies must account to OMB for all FTEs funded by 
direct appropriation (direct FTEs) and by reimbursable funds from other 
agencies or offsetting collections (reimbursable FTEs). The Board has 
permanent on-board employees funded by both direct appropriation and 
reimbursable or offsetting collections. The number of on-board 
reimbursable FTEs in a fiscal year is directly determined by the amount 
of offsetting collections received by the Board in any given fiscal 
year. The Board also has one employee who provides some services to 
another branch of DOT and for which the Board is reimbursed.
    In addition, the Board pays for certain administrative services 
provided by other agencies. For example, the Board pays the 
Environmental Protection Agency to provide payroll services, and the 
Federal Transit Administration to provide accounting services. The 
costs of performing these services in-house or reimbursing another 
entity are comparable.

                 MONITORING OF DECISION IMPLEMENTATION

    Question. Please describe how the Board monitors the implementation 
of rulemaking decisions and private sector initiatives and agreements 
that reflect Board directives.
    Answer. The Board monitors its decisions and directives in various 
ways. In major mergers or consolidations of rail carriers, the Board 
normally provides for an oversight period, which generally extends for 
5-years. The agency retains jurisdiction during that time to impose new 
conditions on the merger or to take other actions that might be needed 
to protect the public. With regard to rulemakings, after the Board 
issues a decision in a rulemaking proceeding, questions about 
implementation of the Board's decision are generally raised and 
addressed in the context of a declaratory order or complaint that is 
filed.
    The Board encourages private-sector initiatives. The Board 
particularly encourages parties to attempt to resolve their differences 
by private-sector agreements and can put the force of law behind them. 
When negotiations are successful and the parties reach agreements in 
the context of a rail merger proceeding, for example, the agreements 
themselves are often imposed as conditions to merger approval or the 
agreements form the basis for other conditions imposed by the Board. If 
problems or disagreements arise later, parties may seek to have the 
Board enforce agreements to the extent that they have been imposed by 
the Board as conditions or requirements. Sometimes the Board strongly 
urges that a private-sector deal be reached and then indicates that it 
will monitor its implementation. In this instance, the Board can make 
the agreement a more formalized requirement if the need arises.

              PUBLIC HEARINGS ON MAJOR RAIL CONSOLIDATIONS

    Question. Please summarize the findings of the Board's March 2000 
public hearings on major rail consolidations and the present and future 
structure of the North American rail industry.
    Answer. Given the prospect of significant further consolidation 
within the rail industry, and our concern that the railroad industry 
and the shipping public have not yet recovered from the service 
disruptions associated with the previous round of mergers, the Board 
instituted the STB Ex Parte No. 582 proceeding to obtain public views 
on the subject of major rail consolidations and the present and future 
structure of the North American rail industry. As part of this 
proceeding, the Board took written and oral testimony from all sectors 
associated with the rail industry: large and small rail carriers; large 
and small shippers representing various commodity groups; intermodal 
and third party transportation providers; rail employees; state and 
local interests; financial analysts and economists; and Members of 
Congress and other federal agencies.
    As a result of the hearing in STB Ex Parte No. 582, the Board 
issued a decision served on March 17, 2000, finding that the 
overwhelming weight of the testimony was that, at a minimum, the 
Board's rail merger policy must be reexamined now, before any new major 
mergers are processed. Through that decision, the Board announced a 
suspension for 15 months of all new rail merger activity before the 
Board and that, over that 15-month period, it would initiate and 
complete a proceeding that will provide new merger rules. In a decision 
served on March 31, 2000 (and published in the Federal Register on 
April 6, 2000) in STB Ex Parte No. 582 (Sub-No. 1), the Board issued an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on various 
proposed changes to the Board's rail merger rules. The Board expects to 
complete the rulemaking process by issuing final revised rail merger 
rules by mid-June 2001. Please see the attached decisions in the STB Ex 
Parte No. 582 lead proceeding and the (Sub-No. 1) rulemaking 
proceeding.

                      RAIL MERGER POLICY DECISION

    Question. Please summarize the Board's rationale for its decision 
to suspend all major merger activity for 15 months (effective March 16, 
2000). Justification.
    Answer. As indicated already, in a decision served on March 17, 
2000, in STB Ex Parte No. 582, the Board found that the overwhelming 
weight of the testimony was that, at a minimum, the Board's rail merger 
policy must be reexamined now before any new major mergers are 
processed. The Board concluded that the rail community is not in a 
position to undertake what will likely be the final round of 
restructuring of the North American railroad industry, and that the 
current rules are simply not appropriate for addressing the broad 
concerns associated with reviewing business deals geared to produce two 
transcontinental railroads. To permit the development of the new rules, 
and to ensure that the industry has had the opportunity to fully 
recover from service problems associated with recent mergers without 
distractions associated with consideration of additional mergers, the 
Board ordered a suspension of all merger activity, categorized as major 
transactions, until after the final merger rules are issued, or a total 
period of 15 months.
    The Board stated that, not only would it be impracticable to try to 
act on a final round of mergers while in the process of developing new 
merger rules, but it would also be disruptive to the rail system and to 
rail service that remains below acceptable levels in many areas. 
Carriers whose management should be focused on fixing their service 
problems would instead be fixated on finding merger partners, defending 
their proposals, and responding in the regulatory arena to other 
carriers' proposals. Investors, who have forsaken the railroad industry 
in favor of businesses that they have come to believe may have more 
favorable future prospects, could devalue the industry further. And 
railroads could find it more difficult to finance the capital 
improvements necessary to provide the better service that is key to 
their financial revitalization. The disruption would go far beyond the 
specific interests of Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Canadian 
National and the carriers that compete with them; it could irreparably 
damage the entire industry, to the detriment of the interests of 
shippers, rail employees, and the national economy and defense.
    The Board believes that the sheer size of the potential new mergers 
poses unique risks and leaves no margin for error: if these mergers 
were to fail, or lead to service problems, the effects could be 
devastating for both the rail industry and the shippers that depend on 
rail service. During the process of reexamining the merger rules and 
making sure that the new merger rules take such risks into account, the 
Board believes it necessary to maintain the status quo by directing 
large railroads to suspend merger activity pending the development of 
the new merger rules.
    Question. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company and 
Canadian National Railway Company have filed an appeal with the D.C. 
Circuit Court of Appeals of the STB's 15-month merger moratorium. What 
is the schedule for a hearing and decision on this appeal?
    Answer. The petitions for review were filed in court on March 17, 
2000, and March 20, 2000. On March 29, 2000, petitioners Burlington 
Northern Santa Fe Corporation and The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe 
Railway Company filed with the court a motion to expedite judicial 
review, under which briefing would be completed approximately one month 
after the court rules on the motion, and under which oral argument 
would be held as soon thereafter as possible. On April 11, 2000, 
Canadian National Railway Company filed a similar motion. The court has 
not yet ruled on the motions, and thus a briefing schedule has not yet 
been set.


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2001

                              ----------                              

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

    [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 2001 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.

                       NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

               Prepared Statement of the ComCARE Alliance

    I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to your 
subcommittee on behalf the ComCARE Alliance for the record. ComCARE is 
a non-profit coalition of more than 50 organizations who are dedicated 
to building an end-to-end system to enhance public safety utilizing 
wireless technologies.
    Over the past decade, we have seen enormous advancements in the 
fields of transportation, public safety, communications and EMS. 
Unfortunately, many of these advancements have occurred on their own 
and have not been integrated with one another. The ComCARE Alliance is 
working across America to link technologies to complete a ``chain of 
survival'' that will save lives, reduce the impact of debilitating 
injuries, conserve resources, and improve the efficiency of our 
nation's highways. Wireless communications is the critical link in this 
chain. Last year, with the help of Commerce Committee Communications 
Subcommittee Chairman Burns, and other leaders like Senators Lott, 
Dorgan, Frist and others, The Wireless Communications & Public Safety 
Act of 1999 was enacted into law, removing several of the barriers to 
deploying these lifesaving technologies.
    My testimony focuses on two central themes that describe how 
connecting wireless to transportation, public safety and EMS functions, 
gives the term ``integration'' a new meaning. The same communications 
technologies that are used to locate emergency calls can be used to 
identify real-time traffic patterns, pinpoint vehicle crashes, and 
identify the positions of emergency response vehicles. Unfortunately, 
no mechanism or process currently exists to bring together each of the 
critical entities together at the federal or state levels to make 
integration of all the building blocks a reality. Our program request 
is modest because we believe there are other sources of funding that 
can be used for integration purposes. Our goal is to leverage 
significantly more public and private investment beyond what we are 
asking from you today.
    The ComCARE Alliance respectfully requests that this subcommittee 
appropriate resources for two specific activities. These initiatives 
will contribute to reducing highway fatalities and injuries, and they 
will have significant benefits for other transportation objectives 
(e.g. quality and efficiency). Our first request to you Mr. Chairman 
and members of the Subcommittee is to advance trauma research, private 
sector initiatives, and public understanding of automatic crash 
notification (ACN). ACN technologies link crash sensors in equipped 
vehicles to a wireless telephone. In the event of a crash, an emergency 
call is automatically generated, opening voice communications and 
sending crash data to help response agencies in deciding what 
assistance needs to be dispatched to the scene. We request that $5-$10 
million be included in the fiscal year 2001 Transportation 
Appropriations bill to support national ACN field testing. Research 
would be conducted by trauma centers in geographically diverse areas 
across the country. Trauma centers will partner with other entities to 
conduct data analysis and crash investigations.
    Second, we respectfully request that Congress accelerate the 
process of deploying integrated emergency communications and 
transportation systems by launching a national and state-level dialogue 
on the importance of integration. This will include both incentive 
grants to states to conduct statewide planning and model deployments, 
and a grant for a national educational effort with key stakeholder 
groups. The National Communications & Public Education Program will 
organize a national ``summit meeting'' to educate leaders of the 
various constituency groups (Intelligent Transportation, Traffic 
Engineers, EMS, 9-1-1, Wireless Carriers) about the value of working 
together at the state and local levels to enhance public safety and 
improve transportation efficiency. We request that Congress appropriate 
$11.5 million for the State Planning Grant Program and the National 
Dialogue in fiscal year 2001. $10 million would be distributed to 
states to pay for an inclusive, coordinated planning and implementation 
process, and for specific deployment costs (any part of the end-to-end 
system). $1.5 million would fund a two year public education program in 
conjunction with state planning activities described above. Since this 
is not a function that the U.S. Department of Transportation currently 
performs, resources to support this ``national dialogue'' program 
should not be diverted from existing program funds. New resources need 
to be directed for this important effort.
    We are presented with an opportunity to work together to upgrade 
our transportation systems, improve public safety and save lives on 
America's roadways. The members of the ComCARE Alliance are dedicated 
to working together with you and your colleagues to build these end-to-
end systems across the country.
    I thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record. 
I am honored to represent the ComCARE Alliance. ComCARE is a non-profit 
coalition of more than 50 organizations including nurses, physicians, 
transportation officials, emergency medical technicians, 9-1-1 
directors, wireless companies, public safety and health officials, law 
enforcement groups, automobile and technology companies, telematics 
suppliers, safety groups, and others who are dedicated to building an 
end-to-end system to enhance public safety utilizing wireless 
technologies.
    Over the past decade, we have seen enormous advancements in the 
fields of transportation, public safety, communications and EMS. 
Unfortunately, many of these advancements have occurred on their own 
and have not been integrated with one another. The ComCARE Alliance is 
working across America to link technologies to complete a ``chain of 
survival'' that will save lives, reduce the impact of debilitating 
injuries, conserve resources, and improve the efficiency of our 
nation's highways. Wireless communications is the critical link in this 
chain.
    Last year, with the help of Senator Burns, and other leaders like 
Senators Lott, Dorgan and Frist, the Wireless Communications and Public 
Safety Act of 1999 was enacted into law. That Act made ``9-1-1'' the 
official number for emergencies across America, reduced barriers to 
installing lifesaving wireless location technologies, and encouraged 
the FCC to help get all the right groups get around the table to plan 
and upgrade 21st century safety systems.
    vision of integrated transportation and emergency communications
    Assume for a moment that there was a serious three-car pile-up on 
I-65, just north of Birmingham, AL, normally a 20-minute ambulance ride 
to the closest emergency care facility under rush-hour conditions. It's 
even farther to the advanced care trauma center. During this crash, 
several of the passengers suffered significant injuries.
    In this integrated illustration, an Automatic Crash Notification 
device located in each of the impacted vehicles would be activated. A 
wireless emergency call would automatically be dialed and the crash 
data, how fast the cars were traveling, the principal direction of 
force, whether the cars rolled over, and the type of cars in the crash 
would be simultaneously sent to the 9-1-1 center and the nearest trauma 
center (the latter because data indicated a very serious crash). The 9-
1-1 dispatchers would know the exact location of the crash since as it 
was instantly plotted on a computerized map in front of them. They 
would also know that Good Samaritans passing by the incident on I-65 
and dialing 9-1-1 on their wireless phones were describing the same 
emergency scene.
    Based on the severity of the crash data, the trauma center and 9-1-
1 operator would know immediately whether only to send a patrol car, 
two ambulances, or a Medi-Vac helicopter to UAB Medical Center. On the 
same map identifying the location of the victims, the emergency 
dispatcher would also be able to tell where the nearest police cars 
were patrolling and where the closest ambulances and fire trucks were 
currently located, using inexpensive AVL technology. To get a better 
view, the nearest ITS-deployed camera, identified by this same location 
data, would automatically be switched on and focused on the crash 
scene. As EMS arrived on the scene and took the victims to the trauma 
center (avoiding other tie-ups due to the dispatcher's access to 
traffic data), the trauma teams would be getting prepared, knowing from 
the crash data the specific kinds of internal and external injuries 
that they should expect to treat.
    Due to the integration of emergency communications with traffic 
management, the same location technology would provide traffic managers 
real-time descriptions of traffic patterns and speeds, and the crash 
would be immediately reported, along with its effect on traffic. This 
would allow diversion of traffic, saving time for other commuters 
heading home to their families and immediate dispatch of equipment to 
clear the highway. Wireless subscribers to traffic data services and 
heading towards the incident would have instant access to the clogged 
traffic situation ahead and be offered alternative routes. The same 
picture would appear graphically via an Internet delivered service to 
subscribers and any government official who was given access.
    Inside the ambulance, devices would be hooked up to the victims, 
communicating vital signs in real-time via wireless to the trauma 
center. Each victim's medical history, blood type, and reactions to 
medication would also be accessed from a secure database to better 
prepare caregivers. And on the way to the trauma center, the ambulances 
would not see a red traffic light, and would be routed along highways 
with the least amount of congestion.
    In addition to saving lives, the trauma center and medical networks 
might be able to reduce their treatment and insurance costs by 
providing assistance to these patients in a much shorter time, before 
they sustained long-term debilitating injuries, and they would be 
looking for internal injuries that were often missed before.
    Unfortunately, no mechanism or process currently exists to bring 
each of the critical entities together at the federal or state levels 
to make this picture a reality. At the end of the day, a stronger focus 
on integration will help get comprehensive systems deployed much, much 
faster, and also ones that are more efficient and valued by end users.

                   THE NEED FOR INTEGRATING FUNCTIONS

  ComCARE's testimony focuses on two central themes, and outlines a 
modest program for your Subcommittee to consider. It would leverage 
significant private and state resources to make these end-to-end 
systems a reality. Last year's 9-1-1 bill focused on removing barriers 
to lifesaving technologies. ComCARE's membership recognizes that 
deployments of these technologies will have enormous transportation 
benefits.
Mobile Integration
    The first theme is that much more integration is possible in a 
mobile society than ever before. The advent of the wireless phone and 
ubiquity of mobile communications networks have brought about a 
significant potential for extending transportation, public safety and 
medical efficiencies to a traveling public.
    More than 85 million wireless phones are used more than 100,000 
times per day to report vehicle crashes, reduce crimes, and lower 
response times to emergencies. According to statistics from the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, since 1988, EMS 
notification times concerning vehicle crashes have dropped nearly 30 
percent in both urban and rural areas, roughly tracking the growth of 
wireless phone use. Yet, long or delayed response times to crashes or 
other life-threatening emergencies are still a major public health 
problem in the United States, especially in rural areas. Our trauma 
surgeons and emergency physicians know that faster action is critical 
during the ``Golden Hour'' following a vehicle crash or other traumatic 
emergency.
    Wireless technologies also have tremendous benefits to the 
transportation community. Wireless networks that are upgraded with 
enhanced 9-1-1 (E9-1-1) \1\ capabilities for all phones have the 
potential to improve transportation systems by providing for the 
provision of real-time traffic information, utilizing aggregate 
wireless phones as ``data probes,'' and providing a low cost platform 
for supporting automatic crash notification (ACN) and automatic vehicle 
location services. They can also be used as an early warning system for 
traffic incidents. Finally, wireless communications also allow for 
better sharing of information between each entity in the end-to-end 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``E9-1-1'' refers to wireless Enhanced 9-1-1; FCC Report and 
Order 94-102 requires wireless carriers to provide a callback number 
and location of emergency callers to Public Safety Answering Points on 
a phased in basis. Federal Communications Commission. Revision of Rules 
to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems. CC 
Docket No. 94-102. RM-8143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
integration of the Building blocks
    The second theme is that ``integration'' is badly needed among the 
building blocks of the end-to-end system: transportation, public safety 
and EMS. There are a multitude of federal and state programs that are 
advancing the effectiveness of each of the individual blocks. However, 
each program is primarily focused only on one block, rather than seeing 
each as links in a whole chain. For example, the Federal Communications 
Commission's Public Safety and Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) is 
focused on spectrum for law enforcement but not focused on 
transportation communications. The Department of Justice is making 
grants for ``3-1-1'' information systems, but not linking 3-1-1 to 9-1-
1. Many states have excellent highway safety and EMS programs, but 
other states don't know about them. There have been outstanding ``pilot 
projects'' in Virginia and across the country demonstrating the 
availability of real-time traffic information on primary highways, but 
that data is not being shared with 9-1-1 centers who could better route 
emergency vehicles. There is not one state which has an official 
structure where all of the key stakeholders involved with 
transportation, public safety, and EMS meet to develop integrated 
policies and systems.
    The term ``integration'' to transportation policymakers means 
connecting one form of transportation to another form or another 
technology. Intelligent transportation integration projects often 
incorporate an advanced technology and ensure that it is compatible 
with a national ``ITS architecture.'' These efforts are productive and 
are improving transportation systems. But more can be done to promote 
true integration in terms of sharing information, getting different 
agencies and sectors working together, identifying synergies, and 
deploying technologies for multiple purposes. If you use 
communications, particularly wireless, to connect transportation, 
public safety and EMS functions, the term ``integration'' takes on new 
meaning. The same communications technologies that are used to locate 
emergency calls can be used to identify traffic patterns, and keep tabs 
on emergency response vehicles or trucking fleets. The opportunity to 
improve transportation efficiency, enhance public safety, and save 
lives stems from the intersection of transportation and emergency 
communications.

                        REQUESTED APPROPRIATIONS

    The ComCARE Alliance respectfully requests that this committee 
appropriate resources for two specific activities. These initiatives 
will contribute to reducing highway fatalities and injuries, and they 
will have significant benefits for other transportation objectives 
(e.g. quality and efficiency).
    Our goal is to leverage significantly more investment beyond what 
we are asking from you today. Our program request is modest because we 
believe there are other sources of funding that can be used for 
integrated purposes. The value of the funds we request today is that 
they will encourage and leverage these other investments. Specifically 
these others include 1) ITS deployment funds; 2) existing federal and 
state transportation programs; and 3) the private sector.
    We respectfully suggest you compliment the U.S. Department of 
Transportation for its efforts to date in the following two areas, and 
encourage it to do more of these activities from existing funds, as 
well as the new funds we request today.

Automatic Crash Notification Research
    Our first request to you Mr. Chairman and members of the 
Subcommittee is to advance trauma research, private sector initiatives, 
and public understanding of automatic crash notification (ACN). ACN 
technologies link crash sensors in equipped vehicles to a wireless 
telephone. In the event of a crash, an emergency call is automatically 
generated, opening voice communications and sending crash data to 
assist response agencies in deciding what assistance needs to be 
dispatched to the scene. Crash data, such as speed of the crash, airbag 
deployment, point of impact, and seatbelt use is extremely helpful to 
trauma and emergency medical experts in predicting the severity and 
type of injuries sustained in the crash. With serious field research 
based on significant units, we can develop powerful and accurate 
predictive capabilities.
    Currently, U.S. DOT is conducting very limited field testing of ACN 
technologies in two locations (Buffalo, New York and Rochester, 
Minnesota) with only a few hundred vehicles. DOT and one of its 
contractors are paying all the costs, including vehicle equipment. 
While this research has demonstrated that the technology works and it 
can be invaluable to emergency response, the number of units in the 
field does not even begin to approach the number necessary to generate 
sufficient crash data to verify predictions with actual patient 
outcomes. Significant national testing is needed incorporating crash 
data from a statistically significant number of vehicles, and exposing 
ACN use in both urban and rural settings.
    We request that $5-$10 million be included in the fiscal year 2001 
Transportation Appropriations bill to support national ACN field 
testing. Research would be conducted by trauma centers in 
geographically diverse areas across the country. Trauma centers will 
partner with other entities to conduct data analysis and crash 
investigations.
    ACN field testing would take two basic forms: (a) a national test 
with crash data collected from the vehicles of one or more auto 
manufacturers, and/or a retrofit company, and (b) a number of market 
specific tests in a city or region. In-vehicle equipment would be 
provided by commercial entities. Grant funds would be used for medical 
and engineering field research and for establishing information 
distribution systems among public safety and EMS entities and other 
government agencies.

National Dialogue and State Planning Grants for Integrated 
        Transportation and Emergency Communications
    Second, we respectfully request that Congress accelerate the 
process of deploying integrated emergency communications and 
transportation systems by launching a national and state-level dialogue 
on the importance of integration. This will include both incentive 
grants to states to conduct statewide planning and model deployments, 
and a grant for a national educational effort with key stakeholder 
groups.
    Federal, state and local governments have spent significant sums on 
transportation and emergency communications in recent years, but no 
state has fully integrated these systems to improve public safety. Most 
agencies need upgrades (e.g. to provide E9-1-1) and/or more broad 
deployments (e.g. to provide more comprehensive traffic data). More 
effectively linking some of the functions of these agencies at the 
state and local level will save resources.
    Because service areas of some of the providers (e.g. wireless 
carriers) are state and regional, upgrade planning on a purely local 
basis will not work. Governors need to bring together the key 
stakeholders to develop and implement coordinated, efficient plans for 
upgrading wireless emergency communications (E9-1-1), and integrating 
that with transportation policies (e.g. traffic control and congestion 
operations). This will serve both efficiency and safety goals.
    In addition to planning, grants could be also used by states, in 
their discretion, for completing any part of the chain of survival. 
These activities include traffic reporting systems using 9-1-1 location 
technology; upgrade of local 9-1-1 systems and networks to produce and 
receive location of wireless 9-1-1 callers; integration with ITS 
capabilities; and other pre-hospital emergency needs of states.
    In addition, a National Communications & Public Education Program 
is needed to support this state planning. The process of integrating 
transportation, E9-1-1 and EMS systems will require leadership and 
participation from members of the transportation, emergency medical, 
consumer, and public safety communities. Traditionally these groups 
have seldom worked with each other, and they have not considered 
integrating communications technologies that can improve the way they 
handle their respective responsibilities. To show stakeholders around 
the country what they can do to build an end-to-end system in their 
area, a national communications and public education program should be 
established. The ComCARE Alliance and its member ITS America have 
already begun this activity, but it needs to be expanded significantly.
    This program would include: conferences of national, regional and 
local stakeholder group leaders; workshops to discuss how federal, 
state, and local funding sources can leverage private funds to pay for 
infrastructure and staffing costs; research papers on deployment topics 
and sharing of ``best practices;'' technology demonstrations; and the 
development of materials that can be distributed to state and local 
agencies, citizen groups and the media about the public safety and 
transportation benefits.
    To date, there is no federal or state program designed to bring 
these different functions of government together with the private 
sector and consumer groups to integrate their efforts in transportation 
and emergency communications. For example, there is no table where the 
9-1-1 community, the Department of Transportation, the American Heart 
Association, and the Brain Injury Association come together to 
coordinate their efforts to develop emergency transportation systems. 
If local and state agencies and others work together to incorporate 
advances in transportation and communications technologies, staff and 
financial resources will be maximized and systems will be more 
efficient.
    The National Communications & Public Education Program will 
organize a national ``summit meeting'' to educate leaders of the 
various constituency groups (Intelligent Transportation, traffic 
engineers, EMS, 9-1-1, wireless carriers) about the value of working 
together at the state and local levels to enhance public safety and 
improve transportation efficiency. The summit will also include 
technology demonstrations. Following the summit, the Program will 
facilitate working groups in 15-20 states to tailor integration models 
to meet each state's needs. These sessions will bring together all of 
the local stakeholder groups to determine what resources are available, 
both public and private, to build an integrated system in their state. 
To demonstrate different approaches, materials will be compiled and 
circulated after workshops. These will include a ``Report on Best 
Practices'' that will include chapters written by state leaders who are 
heading up deployments.
    We request that Congress appropriate $11.5 million for the State 
Planning Grant Program and the National Dialogue in fiscal year 2001. 
$10 million would be distributed to states to pay for an inclusive, 
coordinated planning and implementation process, and for specific 
deployment costs (any part of the end-to-end system). We estimate this 
would cover activity in 5-7 states. $1.5 million would fund a two year 
public education program in conjunction with state planning activities 
described above. Since this is not a function that the U.S. DOT 
currently performs, resources to support this ``national dialogue'' 
program should not be diverted from existing program funds. New 
resources need to be directed for this important effort.

Leveraging Existing Integration Resources
    The ``Intelligent Transportation System Integration Program'' at 
the Department of Transportation's Joint Program Office was created to 
encourage integration of advanced transportation technologies. This 
program (Section 5208 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century) is an appropriate resource for state, county and municipal 
governments to obtain some resources to support integration 
deployments. These ITS deployment grants can serve as incentives, or 
leverage money to help install a communications platform that can serve 
multiple purposes, with cost savings to all participants.
    We encourage communities across the country to use these ITS 
Integration Deployment grants for the kind of transportation and 
emergency communications purposes that ComCARE has outlined above. The 
more places around the country that demonstrate the value of 
integrating their local 9-1-1, EMS, traffic, and transportation 
systems, the better. Communities can design specific applications that 
address their needs such as improved communications and tracking 
functions for snowplow contractors in the Northeast, or shared traffic 
data between traffic control centers and EMS units in urban areas. 
ComCARE members and others should work at the local level to create 
partnerships that can use these grants to improve public safety.

                               conclusion

    As we begin the Twenty-First century, it is no longer possible to 
view transportation and emergency communications in separate boxes. 
Technologies that have emerged in the information age make it possible 
to integrate these two functions that affect every citizen's life. We 
are presented with an opportunity to work together to upgrade our 
transportation systems, improve public safety and save lives on 
America's roadways. Modest federal support can leverage significant 
private and local resources to get this done. The members of the 
ComCARE Alliance are dedicated to working together with you and your 
colleagues to build these end-to-end systems across the country.
                                 ______
                                 

      Prepared Statement of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

    These comments are submitted on behalf of the Commercial Vehicle 
Safety Alliance, an international organization of truck and bus safety 
enforcement officials and industry representatives in the U.S., Canada, 
and Mexico.
    With respect to the fiscal year 2001 budget for the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration, we suggest two projects for FMCSA that 
may be eligible for funding under the category of high priority 
initiatives. The first relates to the CDL program. The second relates 
to a new requirement in the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 
1999 to certify motor carrier safety auditors.
    In the fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations Conference 
Report, the then Office of Motor Carriers and Highway Safety was 
directed to work ``work with states to assure that they have the most 
up-to-date driving record for people that hold a commercial driver's 
license (CDL) and that this information can be easily transferred . . 
.'' Little or no progress has been made in this effort.
    In addition, the MCSIA requires States to address current 
deficiencies in the exchange of information relating to driver 
violations that would result in either the suspension or revocation of 
a CDL.
    Thus, we recommend that FMCSA place renewed emphasis on the CDL 
program and establish a pilot CDL compliance program to assist States 
in determining what is impeding the speed with which driver convictions 
are entered into the national system (CDLIS) and to further assist 
States in taking corrective action to remedy the deficiencies.
    This pilot program would accomplish these objectives through a 
cooperative effort between FMCSA and the state MCSAP agencies. Funds 
should be provided to the State MCSAP agency to obtain whatever 
resources may be necessary to first determine any deficiencies within 
its own operations that may contribute to the problem in obtaining and 
exchanging the necessary driver conviction information but also to 
enable the MCSAP agency to assist the State Motor Vehicle Licensing 
Agency and any other state agency, including local law enforcement 
agencies, in correcting whatever problems that may exist which impede 
the efficient and timely posting and otherwise necessary flow of driver 
conviction information through all appropriate channels so that drivers 
with revoked or suspended licenses may not operate on our highways.
    CVSA believes that without new and creative leadership of the 
leading commercial vehicle safety enforcement agency at the federal 
level and of the lead MCSAP agency at the state level, the important 
national safety objective of improving the CDL program will not be 
realized.
    On the issue of certification, the MCSIA requires the Secretary to 
complete a rulemaking within one year of enactment to improve training 
and provide for the certification of motor carrier safety auditors, 
including private contractors, to conduct safety audits. In addition 
the MCSIA requires that all new motor carrier entrants be reviewed by a 
safety auditor within 18 months of operation.
    CVSA therefore recommends that FMCSA work with those groups and 
organizations that may already have the experience and expertise in 
establishing and operating similar certification programs in the 
vehicle safety area such commercial motor vehicle inspections.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments to the 
Subcommittee.
                                 ______
                                 

              RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

Prepared Statement of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America

    The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) 
appreciates the opportunity to share our views on the fiscal year 2001 
Transportation Appropriations measure, and in particular, the proposed 
funding for pipeline safety activities. By way of introduction, INGAA 
is the trade association that represents virtually all of the 
interstate natural gas transmission pipeline companies operating in the 
U.S., as well as comparable companies in Canada and Mexico. Our members 
transport over 90 percent of the nation's natural gas.
    Safety is a primary focus for our member companies. The natural gas 
pipeline industry is already the safest mode of transportation, 
according to figures complied by the U.S. Department of Transportation 
and the National Transportation Safety Board. Although there are over 2 
million miles of natural gas and petroleum pipelines in the United 
States today, accidents are rare.
    The reason the industry is so safe is the fact that INGAA's members 
take safety very seriously. Accidents are few, but the consequences of 
any accident can be significant. The American economy needs clean, low-
cost energy to grow, and natural gas is an integral part of that 
growth. Due to its environmental benefits and low cost, most energy 
analysts foresee a huge increase in the demand for natural gas over the 
next 20 years for power generation and industrial processes (see 
below). If our product is somehow viewed as being unsafe, however, the 
general public will not accept continued pipeline operations and the 
significant expansions that will be needed to meet this demand.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.001

    Interstate natural gas pipelines spend about $600 million annually 
on safety activities, which is about $3,400 per mile. We employ a 
variety of techniques, including internal inspection devices (known as 
smart pigs), hydrostatic testing, cathodic protection (which prevents 
corrosion), pipeline right-of-way fly-overs and walking inspections, 
and public awareness and education programs. Interstate natural gas 
pipelines are also required to upgrade their pipeline as the population 
density to the pipeline increases. These ``class location'' changes 
result in pipelines either changing to a thicker-walled pipe, or 
lowering the pressure on the line, to increase the margin of safety.
    The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), which is part of the Research 
and Special Programs Administration at the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, is responsible for regulating the safety of interstate 
natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. OPS is funded almost 
entirely through user fees which transmission pipelines pay based on 
the miles a pipeline operator owns. Accordingly, INGAA wants to see 
that the dollars its members pay to fund OPS are used in ways which 
enhance safety.
    INGAA has several concerns about the Administration's proposed 
budget for OPS. The Administration request would represent an increase 
of over 21 percent in the total budget for OPS, from $38.879 million in 
fiscal year 2000 to $47.137 million in fiscal year 2001. This is a 
significant increase under any circumstances, but it is puzzling given 
the outstanding safety record of natural gas pipelines and the fact 
that the number of natural gas transmission accidents has actually 
decreased, on average, in recent years. INGAA believes OPS should be 
funded in a manner which allows the current programs to continue.
    Regarding INGAA's specific concerns, the Administration request 
includes sufficient funds to hire four new safety inspectors, although 
they anticipate using only two new Full Time Equivalents in fiscal year 
2001. Since OPS seems to be focusing a great deal of its attention on 
oil pipelines and improving inspections on those facilities, INGAA 
believes that the cost associated with these new inspectors should come 
from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
    Because unintentional ``third-party'' damage is a leading cause of 
accidents on natural gas pipelines, INGAA supports the funding for 
public education and one-call damage prevention programs. We propose 
that the $500,000 for public education, and the $1,000,000 in state 
one-call grants, be funded through unexpended reserve account funds. 
This reserve account consists of pipeline safety user fees which were 
collected in previous years, but remain unspent in the OPS account. 
Despite a gradual drawdown of this reserve account in previous fiscal 
years, the balance is still approximately $18 million, which is much 
more than is needed for any emergency contingencies.
    Although INGAA also supports the state Damage Prevention Grants 
which were authorized as part of the Transportation Equity Act of the 
21st Century (TEA21), we strongly oppose this $5 million allocation 
being paid through pipeline safety user fees, as the Administration has 
currently proposed. In fact, the Administration proposal violates 
Section 6107 of TEA21, which states that ``(a)ny sums appropriated 
under this section shall be derived from general revenues and may not 
be derived from the amounts collected under section 60301 (user fee 
section) of this title.''
    Congress was specific on this point for an important reason. 
Underground damage prevention is not an issue that is unique to 
pipelines. In fact, pipelines are affected by only about 17 percent of 
all one-call center activity, with the remainder coming from such 
entities as telecommunications, cable TV, electric utilities and water/
sewer facilities. Rather than have only pipelines pay to fund grants 
which benefit a wide variety of industries--as well as the general 
public--the Congress made it clear that damage prevention grants should 
come from general revenues. INGAA urges the Subcommittee to reinstate 
the intent of Congress by allocating the $5 million in one-time damage 
prevention grants from general revenues.
    INGAA is also concerned about the level of proposed funding for 
state pipeline safety grants. Federal grant funds are made available to 
those states which adopt federal minimum safety standards for intra-
state and local distribution pipelines. Section 60107 of U.S. Code 
Title 49 states that the Secretary of Transportation ``shall pay not 
more than 50 percent of the cost of the personnel, equipment and 
activities the (state) authority deems reasonable'' in a given calendar 
year. It is worth noting, however, that the state grants funds are 
raised from user fees assessed almost exclusively on interstate 
pipelines, which are regulated by federal rather than state 
authorities.
    In fiscal year 1999, the latest year for which complete figures are 
available, pipeline safety grants to the states totaled $13 million. 
This represented 44 percent of total state expenditures for pipeline 
safety (see attached chart). In other words, state pipeline safety 
grants have been close to the statutory limit of 50 percent federal 
funding. However, the states have received federal grant money from 
other accounts, and have benefited from the assistance of OPS in 
obtaining new pipeline safety information systems.
    The Administration's budget proposes $17.5 million for state grants 
in fiscal year 2001, up from $13 million in fiscal year 2000. Based 
upon the 1999 state requests, and factoring in increases for inflation, 
the fiscal year 2001 total for state grants needed to reach a 50 
percent federal contribution should be about $15.7 million. In 
addition, the Administration request includes $50,000 for state risk 
management grants, $1 million for state one-call grants, and the 
aforementioned $5 million for state damage prevention grants. INGAA 
believes that these grants total far more than the 50 percent cap on 
federal funding of state programs which is currently in force. The 
$17.5 million figure, in particular, is too high when you consider that 
$13 million covered 44 percent of state expenditures for fiscal year 
1999. INGAA believes that a far lower state grant number is both 
appropriate and consistent with the Pipeline Safety Act.
    Finally, INGAA takes note of the proposed $250,000 increase in 
research and development. Our members have participated for several 
decades in two organizations that seek new technologies to improve 
pipeline safety--the Gas Research Institute and the Pipeline Research 
Committee International (PRCI). We would welcome having OPS participate 
in and contribute funds to PRCI, in order to better coordinate industry 
and government research on natural gas pipeline safety.
    In summary, INGAA believes the proposed budget increase of over 21 
percent for the Office of Pipeline Safety is not justified. We support 
the $5 million in grants to the states for damage prevention, so long 
as these funds are allocated from general revenues consistent with 
Congressional intent. INGAA encourages the Subcommittee to draw $1.5 
million from the OPS reserve account for public education activities 
and state one-call grants. As OPS is focusing more of its attention on 
liquid pipelines in the coming year, we urge any substantive increases 
in their funding to be drawn from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund--
not from natural gas transmission pipeline user fees. Thank you for the 
opportunity to share our views with the Subcommittee.
                                 ______
                                 

                            U.S. COAST GUARD

  Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Boating Law 
                             Administrators

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Paul Donheffner, 
Boating Law Administrator for the State of Oregon and current 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 its 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 and reciprocity among the various states 
was given high priority. Testimonial of this are the many standards, 
resolutions and model acts that have been generated by our Association 
and adopted by the majority of the states and territories. In doing 
this we bring to the table 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.
    My testimony today will focus on the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund 
(Wallop-Breaux) and more specific, the Boat Safety Account of this 
fund.
    The boat 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, (ie) user pays-user benefits, 
thus not costing the general tax payer one cent and especially 
noteworthy, does not add one penny to the national debt. Allowing the 
States to recoup the federal marine gasoline tax that boaters pay on 
marine fuel used in motorboats is a prime example of the user fees 
helping the user.
    The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators is 
asking this Subcommittee for $70 million as authorized in Tea-21, the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century for fiscal 2001.
    Our Association would emphasize that:
  --States make the best use of these trust funds. The end product is a 
        major contribution by the States to maintain an overall 
        reduction in boating fatalities. Since the infusion of federal 
        funds in the 1970s, boating fatalities in the United States 
        have dropped from 1,754 in 1973 to 815 deaths in 1998. This 
        drop occurred despite more people using our waters in a wider 
        diversity of craft than ever before.
  --The appropriation of federal assistance to the states from this 
        trust fund has resulted in a willingness on the States' part to 
        assume a major share of what is logically and statutorily a 
        joint responsibility.
  --Stability in the appropriation process is very much needed to give 
        the states the credibility, consistency and resources to reach 
        the local boating public.
  --The financial base provided by the federal government from this 
        user fee generated trust fund allows the states to concentrate 
        on establishing an administrative infrastructure, purchasing 
        equipment and promoting education and enforcement techniques to 
        stimulate increased boating awareness and decrease fatalities.
  --The efforts of the states funded from this user fee generated trust 
        fund should result in savings to the federal government rather 
        than additional cost resulting from state curtailment, inaction 
        or indifference.
  --The States willingly picked up the additional responsibility when 
        the Coast Guard removed their boating safety detachment teams 
        some years ago for a savings to the federal government of $10 
        million plus.
  --The States have shown credibility, consistency and resources to 
        reach the boating public with a positive boating safety program 
        directed to make our waterways safer and the boaters experience 
        more enjoyable.
    There is no question that state program interventions, made 
possible with federal funds, are making a difference. Since 1973, when 
the program began, the Coast Guard estimates that over 23,000 lives 
have been saved. With full funding we will strive to keep up with the 
ever increasing demand to better educate the boaters and further reduce 
boating accidents and fatalities. The burden for boating safety has 
shifted from the U.S. Coast Guard to the states, but this would not be 
possible without federal assistance. We see the states being asked to 
take an even greater lead role in boating safety, education and boating 
law enforcement.
    Congress is sometimes concerned over the use and effectiveness of 
these trust funds. Following is a comprehensive listing of how states 
use Federal Boat Safety Trust Funds:
  --Develop new laws and regulations addressing key recommendations by 
        the National Transportation Safety Board in such areas as:
    --Boating while intoxicated.
    --Mandatory wear of life jackets by children
    --Mandatory education and boat operator proficiency
    --Personal watercraft safety
  --Increase boating safety patrols.
  --Conduct better boating accident investigations. By better 
        understanding accident causes, law enforcement and educational 
        programs can effectively address them.
  --Increase enforcement officer training.
  --Purchase better communications and enforcement equipment.
  --Reach more boaters with free education classes.
  --Study the effects of alcohol and boating.
  --Construct kiosks to provide boaters information on coastal bar 
        crossings, navigation, equipment requirements, rules of the 
        road and related information including charts.
  --Provide weatherproof signage with boater safety information at boat 
        launching ramps.
  --Erect wind warning strobe lights across heavily used bodies of 
        water to warn boaters of impending high winds.
  --Conduct courtesy boat safety inspections.
  --Conduct boating surveys, which provide critical data for assessing 
        boat use, conflict areas and safety courses.
  --Distribute free literature on boat noise, sailboarding safety, 
        commercial vessel right-of-way, hypothermia, pleasure craft, 
        use of life jackets (PFD's) and alcohol use.
  --Create internet web sites with facilities access, rules, 
        regulations, news, safety, funding, fees, boating and alcohol 
        and other information.
  --Mark hazards to recreational vessels.
  --Develop school video curriculums and aids.
  --Process regatta permits. Some states now process all such permits, 
        completely relieving the Coast Guard of this responsibility.
  --Provide boating safety services. States picked up the full 
        responsibility for boating safety after the Coast Guard removed 
        their Boating Safety Detachment Teams (BOSDET) from joint 
        jurisdictional waters.
  --Develop and make available boating safety home study courses.
  --Develop and place boating information displays at marine dealers.
  --Develop coloring books for elementary schools.
  --Increase TV and radio public service announcements.
  --Implement boating-while-intoxicated program, including purchase of 
        portable testers, training classes and public awareness 
        announcements.
  --Computerize boat accident information and arrests, allowing states 
        to respond to public, legislative and other inquiries regarding 
        boating accident and water fatality statistics.
  --Improve the integrity of boat registration systems.
  --Expand our boating safety education capabilities.
  --Purchase special search and rescue boats that are fully equipped 
        for marine law enforcement.
  --Add additional full-time and part-time marine patrol officers and 
        boating safety educators.
  --Implement special boating investigation teams to handle boat 
        accident investigations.
  --Improve cooperation with volunteer groups such as the U.S. Coast 
        Guard Auxiliary by providing boat dock space, communication 
        stations, phone, utilities, etc. This has resulted in much more 
        visibility of search and rescue units and free boat safety 
        inspections.
  --Bring together federal, state and local authorities in the interest 
        of boating safety, law enforcement, training and equipment 
        needs.
  --Coordinate better with local governments to establish boating 
        restricted zones in heavy activity areas that present safety 
        hazards to the boating public.
  --Update film and video libraries with additional programs and 
        equipment to provide to the general boating community and to 
        maintain literature dealing with safety equipment regulations, 
        safe boating information, registration, titling and numbering 
        requirements for statewide distribution. Make products visible 
        and readily available to the boating public.
  --Improve communications system to provide for better and extended 
        coverage with waterway enforcement officers. The result is 
        improved response time to marine emergencies and provides 
        greater officer protection.
  --Establish new aids to navigation and regulatory marker system for 
        controlled areas.
  --Construct and repair boat access ramps.
  --Inaugurate programs designed to prevent boating accidents by 
        reaching new generations of recreational boaters in the public 
        schools.
  --Implement the Boating Accident Report Data Base (BARD) Electronic 
        Data Transfer Program.
    Our joint efforts are paying off. We believe the Administration, 
Congress, State Legislators and most of all, the boating public that we 
serve, should recognize the benefits and dividends that are made 
possible with federal boating safety funds.
    In summary Mr. Chairman, We appreciate your continuing support and 
again ask for your consideration for full funding of $70 million as 
authorized in TEA-21 for the states boating safety program for fiscal 
2001.
    Thank you.
                                 ______
                                 

  Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

    The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the 
organization created 19 years ago by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa, 
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating 
the five states' river-related programs and policies and for 
collaborating with federal agencies on regional water resource issues. 
As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for the U.S. Coast 
Guard.
    Though perhaps best known for its important work in coastal waters 
and on the Great Lakes, the Coast Guard also provides essential 
services on the nation's inland rivers. Nowhere are these services more 
important than on the Upper Mississippi River System, which Congress 
has designated as a nationally significant commercial navigation system 
and a nationally significant ecosystem. The Coast Guard helps to ensure 
that the river can continue to serve both of these important functions.
    Of particular concern to the UMRBA is funding for the Coast Guard's 
Operating Expenses account. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget 
proposal includes $3.199 billion for this account, an increase of nine 
percent from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Operating Expenses 
account funds activities that are critical to the safe, efficient 
operation of the Upper Mississippi River and the rest of the inland 
river system, including aids to navigation, marine safety, and marine 
environmental protection. Through these missions, the Coast Guard 
maintains navigation channel markers, regulates a wide range of 
commercial vessels in the interest of crew and public safety, and 
responds to spills and other incidents. In calendar year 1999, the 
Coast Guard's Upper Mississippi River System units inspected 644 
vessels; responded to 100 oil spills; and managed 401 other reportable 
marine casualties, including groundings, injuries, and vessel 
breakaways. These numbers speak to the Coast Guard's vital role in 
establishing and enforcing standards, maintaining navigation aids, and 
responding to various incidents. The beneficiaries include not only 
commercial vessel operators, but also recreational boaters; farmers and 
others who ship materials by barge; and the region's citizens, who 
benefit enormously from the river as a nationally significant economic 
and environmental resource.
    Recent years have brought a number of changes to the way the Coast 
Guard operates on the inland river system, including elimination of the 
Second District; closure of the Director of Western Rivers Office; 
decommissioning the Sumac, the largest buoy tender on the Upper 
Mississippi River; and staff reductions. The states understand that 
these decisions have been driven by the need for the Coast Guard to 
operate as efficiently as possible, and the states support that goal. 
However, such changes must be carefully considered and their effects 
monitored. The UMRBA is increasingly concerned that staff reductions 
have impaired the Coast Guard's ability to serve as an effective, 
proactive partner. The individuals serving in the Coast Guard are 
dedicated, hardworking people; but they are spread too thinly. 
Important regional initiatives are being negatively affected, including 
a joint state/federal effort to ensure spills preparedness and 
coordination on the river and an interagency effort to design and 
establish mooring buoys to safely limit environmental damage from tows 
waiting at locks. It is essential for the Coast Guard to retain the 
capacity to perform its traditional missions on the Upper Mississippi 
River. Toward that end, the UMRBA supports the President's fiscal year 
2001 budget request for the Coast Guard's Operating Expenses account 
and urges Congress to ensure that sufficient resources from within this 
account are allocated to the Coast Guard's inland river work.
    The UMRBA does not support the Administration's proposed fees for 
navigation assistance services. The nation's navigable waterways are a 
critical part of our transportation infrastructure, just as is the 
national highway system. Providing the basic services required to 
operate that infrastructure safely is a fundamental role of government. 
The benefits of buoy placement and maintenance, vessel traffic 
services, radio and satellite navigation systems, and waterways 
regulation do not accrue only to the commercial operators who would be 
subject to such fees. Recreational boaters also directly use these 
services. Moreover, municipal and industrial water intake operators, 
farmers and other shippers, consumers, the river's natural resources, 
and citizens along the river all benefit indirectly from the 
contributions that these Coast Guard services make to the safe, 
efficient operation of the navigation system. One group simply should 
not be required to pay the costs of services whose real benefits are 
distributed so broadly.
    Several other Coast Guard missions and programs are also important 
to the Upper Mississippi River states. Unfortunately, devastating 
floods in recent years have given many of this region's citizens direct 
personal experience with the importance of the Coast Guard's 
reservists. Reserve forces are a critical part of the Coast Guard's 
ability to respond effectively to natural disasters and other large-
scale events. In addition, reservists perform key staff functions at 
many of the marine safety detachments on the inland rivers. The role of 
reservists in the region has become all the more crucial as the 
detachments' active duty staffing levels have been reduced. The UMRBA 
supports the President's request of $73 million for Coast Guard 
Reserve, an amount intended to support approximately 8,000 reservists 
nationwide.
    In addition, the Coast Guard's boating safety grants to the states 
have a proven record of success. The Upper Mississippi is a river where 
all types of recreational craft routinely operate in the vicinity of 
15-barge tows, making boating safety all the more important. As levels 
of both recreational and commercial traffic continue to grow, so too 
does the potential for user conflicts. Boat safety training and law 
enforcement are key elements of prevention. The UMRBA asks Congress to 
appropriate the maximum amount allowed by law to the Boat Safety 
account to support the states in this important mission.
                                 ______
                                 

          Prepared Statement of the Fleet Reserve Association

                              INTRODUCTION

    Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, the 
Fleet Reserve Association appreciates the opportunity to present its 
views with regard to important ``people issues'' addressed in the 
fiscal year 2001 Budget for the United States Coast Guard.
    FRA's mission is focused on protecting and/or enhancing the pay and 
benefits for Sea Service enlisted people, and the Association thanks 
you and members of the Subcommittee for supporting the most significant 
pay and benefit improvements in nearly 20 years which were enacted by 
Congress during the First Session of the 106th Congress.
    FRA also salutes you for your support, however, the Association is 
concerned about the availability of adequate funding for these 
improvements within the Coast Guard budget. FRA believes the Coast 
Guard should not be required to rely on emergency supplemental 
appropriations and/or the Department of Defense, or the shifting of 
precious funds from operations and maintenance accounts to cover these 
enhancements. As in the past, FRA remains totally committed to ensuring 
Coast Guard parity with all pay and benefits provided DOD uniformed 
personnel.

                                  PAY

    FRA strongly supports the proposed 3.7 percent active duty pay 
increase included in the Administration's budget. This follows the 
higher than Employment Cost Index (ECI) pay adjustment for 2000 (4.8 
percent) and subsequent higher than ECI pay adjustments through 2006. 
These increases are especially important to Coast Guard men and women 
and positively send a powerful message to service members about the 
importance and value of their service to our country. However, at the 
end of this six-year period, a pay gap in excess of 8 percent will 
remain between military and civilian pay levels.
    Funding the pay increase along with pay table improvements which 
become effective on 1 July of this year, and the reform of the Redux 
retirement program so as to maintain parity with DOD is essential to 
the Coast Guard. FRA is pleased that funds are included in the 
Administration's budget plan to cover these improvements, however, it 
cautions that as with pay, these improvements mark a beginning and not 
the conclusion or solution to the recruiting and retention challenges 
which determine readiness.
    An example of this is the widespread perception within the 
Uniformed Services enlisted ranks that the career petty officer 
communities were overlooked in the reform effort enacted as part of the 
Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Responding 
to concerns voiced by its members and other senior enlisted leaders, 
FRA examined the new pay tables and found that pay rates for grades E-
5, E-6, and E-7 are undervalued compared to other pay grades. The 
Association studied this issue and recently released a report which is 
endorsed by seven other enlisted organizations and is available on 
request to FRA's Legislative Team at 703-683-1400, or via the 
Association's web site at www.fra.org.
    It's especially noteworthy to spotlight the growing importance of 
enlisted leadership and management and the increasing reliance on 
enlisted personnel to serve in positions of significant responsibility. 
As is indicated in the FRA study, the Coast Guard has approximately 295 
enlisted men and women in grades E-7 through E-9 assigned as Officers 
in Charge of cutters and stations. The value of these personnel to 
maintaining operational readiness cannot be overstated.

                                HOUSING

    As of 31 January 2000, there were 34,631 personnel on active duty 
in the Coast Guard and of this total only about 25 percent live in 
military housing. The remaining 75 percent reside in communities at or 
near their duty stations, many of which are high cost areas along our 
coastlines.
    FRA is grateful that additional housing allowance funds were 
appropriated for fiscal year 2000 to hasten the implementation of new 
BAH rates at various duty stations throughout the country. New rates 
were originally protected to prevent reductions during the remainder of 
current tours of duty. DOD, however, has recently reversed the plan and 
announced that an additional $27 million will be allocated to the 
program to ensure that rates remain at, or in cases of rate increases 
above the 1999 levels.
    Adequate funds are required in the Coast Guard budget to cover 
these unanticipated costs for not only this year but subsequent years. 
The cost projection for the current year (fiscal year 2000) to pay for 
these improvements for Coast Guard members is $15 million.
    A DOD priority for fiscal year 2001 is to further enhance the 
housing allowance and a request for this is included in the 
Administration's budget. The initiative includes paying down the 
average out of pocket cost from 19 percent to 15 percent--the 
contribution level intended by Congress--with a long term goal to 
eliminate the remaining 15 percent over the next several years at a 
cost of $3 billion for DOD. FRA strongly supports this proposal and 
urges your support and the appropriation of adequate funds within the 
Coast Guard budget to cover these enhancements over the implementation 
period.
    While these are solid improvements and funding is included in the 
Coast Guard's fiscal year 2001 budget, they fail to address the lack of 
accurate housing cost data in many rural and high cost resort areas 
where nearly half of all Coast Guard personnel are assigned. The latter 
remains a significant challenge for all members of the Coast Guard.

                              HEALTH CARE

    Access to quality and affordable health care is characterized by 
Vince Patton, the Master Chief of the Coast Guard, as ``probably the 
most frustrating quality of life issue for U.S. Coast Guard 
personnel.'' FRA concurs and notes that this frustration is cited by 
some personnel choosing to end their Coast Guard service rather than 
reenlist for another hitch.
    Despite the assumption (and recruiting promise) that all active 
duty personnel and their families will be provided with free health 
care, many Coast Guard members have limited access to government health 
care treatment facilities and face significant out-of-pocket expenses 
for health care. Only half of these personnel are able to participate 
in DOD's Tricare Prime managed care program because their duty location 
is close enough to a military treatment facility (MTF). Those who are 
not close to MTFs must select Tricare Standard for outpatient treatment 
needs which requires a 20 percent out of pocket cost share along with a 
$300 annual family deductible.
    Compounding the situation for the latter is the fact that most 
medical facilities charge more than the Tricare ``allowable charge'' 
for care, and service members must pay the difference on top of the 
deductible and 20 percent out of pocket cost.
    A second DOD priority for fiscal year 2001 is improving health 
care. Although the budget includes no additional funds to address 
significant health care problems facing military retirees, it does 
include expanded Tricare Prime Remote coverage for family members 
(following enactment of coverage for service members last year), and 
the elimination of co-pays required from active duty families who do 
not reside near MTFs. FRA strongly supports these enhancements.
    The Tricare Prime Remote coverage is especially important to the 
Coast Guard because so many of its members serve in locations far 
removed from MTFs. Not only do these personnel face significant housing 
costs in many of these areas, but also the added burden of these health 
care costs.

            RECRUITING, RETENTION AND RESERVE TRAINING (RT)

    Just as its sister services are struggling to make recruiting 
quotas, so too is the Coast Guard which despite the current 
environment, achieved its mission for recruiting last year. In 2000, 
Coast Guard recruiters are behind at the present time and must work 
hard to enlist 4,700 active duty, 1,100 reservists and around 500 
officers. This is a difficult challenge given the state of the economy, 
declining unemployment rates and the low propensity of young people to 
consider the uniformed services as an option in their life plans. 
Equally challenging is effectively competing with the Department of 
Defense and the individual services' larger advertising budgets.
    The retention of seasoned mid-career and senior enlisted personnel 
is also especially important to sustaining readiness and mission 
capabilities. The thriving economy is a powerful draw to these service 
members, many of whom can earn considerably more in the civilian 
marketplace. This is not only a concern at the mid-career level, but 
also in the senior enlisted ranks at the 20-year or beyond point. 
Capable, experienced mid-grade petty officers and more senior chief 
petty officers are essential to the force and when their ranks are 
thinned by such departures, readiness suffers significantly. Therefore, 
it's essential to retain as many of these key personnel as possible 
through re-enlistment bonuses, benefit improvements and other career 
incentives.
    Unfortunately, the Coast Guard can only offer a fraction of the 
bonuses and other benefits that the DOD services provide. For instance, 
the Coast Guard provides $1,500 per year for individual tuition 
assistance whereas DOD service members can draw a maximum of $3,500. 
Enlistment bonuses for Coast Guard recruits range from $2,000 to 
$12,000 and cannot be combined with a college fund stipend while DOD 
offers from $2,000 to $20,000 combined with college fund amounts that 
can total up to $70,000. (Note that the USCG college fund maximum is 
$30,000 and DOD's is $50,000.) Finally, the Coast Guard can offer up to 
$45,000 for selective reenlistment bonuses for key skill rates while 
DOD offers up to $60,000.
    Despite these variances, FRA notes progress in closing the gaps for 
these and other allowances in recent years, however more must be done 
to ensure parity.
    During the past year Coast Guard recruiters also accessed adequate 
numbers of reserve personnel to achieve the 8,000 billet end strength--
a major accomplishment given the environment discussed earlier. 
However, funding for reserve training only supports 7,300 personnel in 
the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request. Without an 
additional $7 million, the Coast Guard may be required to reduce on 
board selected reservists to match the funding level--an option FRA 
believes is unacceptable given the demanding operational requirements 
assigned to the Coast Guard and the increasing reliance on reservists 
to augment active duty personnel.
    Funding shortfalls are troublesome and can lead to declining 
operational readiness and capabilities not only in the reserve ranks 
but throughout the Coast Guard. Adm. James Loy, Commandant of the Coast 
Guard, stated in his recent State of the Coast Guard address (March 7, 
2000), that `` More than one quarter of our enlisted members at 
operational marine safety units have not received the entry-level 
marine safety course they need to perform their duties efficiently and 
(they) have not been scheduled to receive this training before the end 
of this year.'' Further, he stated that ``Our vessel traffic services 
still face a 21 percent vacancy rate among the Quartermaster and 
Radarman ratings--a problem that cannot help but introduce excess 
fatigue to these safety sensitive positions.''

                               CONCLUSION

    Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the 
Association's views. FRA again salutes you for your commitment to the 
men and women serving today and also to those who've served in the 
past. As indicated above, the FRA strongly supports the 
Administration's budget proposal as the minimum necessary to sustain 
the Coast Guard's current capabilities and its personnel. The five 
percent increase over last year's budget is warranted and 
enthusiastically endorsed by FRA and is hopefully the beginning of a 
trend toward greater funding not only for compensation and other 
personnel benefits, but also for maintenance, training, 
recapitalization and other requirements.
    The Coast Guard provides tremendous service to our Nation with a 
minimal investment of roughly one quarter of one percent of the Federal 
budget. The growth of responsibilities assigned to the service has not 
been matched with adequate resources and this is imposing an exhausting 
toll on its people who must sustain demanding operational commitments--
often without adequate training and/or equipment maintenance.
    A recently published opinion piece by Christopher M. Lehman in the 
Washington Times (Feb. 24, 2000) offers perspective on the current 
situation. He wrote, ``Just like its sister military services . . . the 
Coast Guard has been asked to perform more and more missions with fewer 
resources. Aging ships and aircraft, increased operational tempo, fewer 
people, inadequate training, spare parts shortages, and insufficient 
funds for housing, pay and benefits--these are the symptoms of a 
weakened U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is losing its edge. It has 
been stretched to the limit.''
    This scenario is real. Please support funding to adequately 
compensate Coast Guard personnel for their tremendous and untiring 
service to our Nation and fully fund other benefits so as to achieve 
and/or maintain parity with those offered to DOD uniformed personnel.
    Thanks for your strong commitment and continuing support of the men 
and women serving so magnificently in the United States Coast Guard.
                                 ______
                                 

 Prepared Statement of the Reserve Officers Association of the United 
                                 States

                          COAST GUARD RESERVE

    We wish to thank this committee for the strong support that it has 
provided the Coast Guard Reserve in the past. Nevertheless, funding for 
the Coast Guard is very austere, providing only the minimum level 
required for basic services. Similarly, funding for the Department of 
Defense and the Department of the Navy remains constrained. Therefore, 
it is vital to be farsighted as we cross into the 21st century, to 
ensure a continued robust sea power.
    We further recognize that the Coast Guard is not the Navy, but a 
distinctive armed force with a separate identity and purpose. 
Nevertheless, the Coast Guard's people, systems, and platforms provide 
important national and international capabilities that complement the 
U.S. Navy. As indicated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in ``Joint Force 
Capabilities'' (Joint Pub 3-33 dated October 13, 1999):

          ``During deployment and redeployment operations for the joint 
        force, the Coast Guard can provide force protection of military 
        shipping at U.S. seaports of embarkation and overseas ports of 
        debarkation by conducting port security and harbor defense 
        operations with port security units and patrol craft. Major 
        cutters are deployed to participate in maritime interception 
        operations to enforce sanctions against another nation and to 
        conduct peacetime engagement activities. Port safety 
        responsibilities in the continental United States (CONUS) 
        include the establishment, certification, and supervision of 
        ammunition loading operations.''

    Furthermore, as noted by Dr. Scott C. Truver in his paper, 
``American Seapower in the 21st Century,'' the Coast Guard, along with 
the other Naval Services, has a distinct history of port visits, 
training and exercising with regional navies and coast guards, working 
with local maritime agencies and organizations. Likewise, the Coast 
Guard has played important roles in supporting U.N. sanctions around 
the world. Coast Guard law enforcement detachments (LEDETs) conducted 
literally tens of thousands of searches of ships suspected of violating 
U.N. embargoes. During the U.N. embargo of the former Yugoslavia, Coast 
Guard LEDETs served in U.S. Navy surface combatants and provided the 
law-enforcement and search-expertise necessary to conduct boardings and 
to detect contraband. Such maritime interdiction operations (MIOs) were 
also conducted by Coast Guard LEDETs riding Navy warships in the 
Persian Gulf and Red Sea. In addition, the USCG Cutter Morgenthau 
(WHEC-722) deployed to the Persian Gulf to assist the U.S. Central 
Command's enforcement of U.N. embargoes against Iraq.
    In recent years, the Coast Guard has deployed three cutters--USCGC 
Bear, USCGC Dallas and Gallatin--to the Mediterranean, Black and Baltic 
seas. Coast Guard port security units and aviation squadrons have also 
been sent to Turkey, the northern Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf.
    The demand for high profile, visible overseas presence by U.S. 
forces will not diminish in the years ahead. This need will almost 
certainly increase as natural disasters; humanitarian crises, nation-
building programs, and threats to U.S. interests generate continuous 
calls for active U.S. engagement and involvement. But, the Navy will be 
increasingly challenged in its ability to meet all commitments. This 
fact of life has significant implications for the Navy, the Coast 
Guard, and the nation.
    Because of the growing sophistication of naval weapons systems, the 
Coast Guard will not perform ``high-end'' warfighting missions. This, 
however, does not mean the Coast Guard will not have a warfighting 
role. With a Navy of 116 or fewer surface combatants, and in a world 
plagued with regional instability and strife, the Coast Guard's major 
cutters--along with several hundred coastal patrol boats--take on new 
significance. In this regard, the Coast Guard is a force-in-being, 
trained, capable, and ready for small-scale contingency operations, and 
force protection in major theater war. Most fundamentally, the 
president and the unified CINCs require a full spectrum of naval 
capabilities to meet tomorrow's maritime challenges.
    In response to multiple assessments of future mission requirements 
and a continuous scanning of the long-range planning horizon, the Coast 
Guard is examining its ``deepwater capability'' for the next century. 
From the Coast Guard's perspective, ``deepwater'' means any 
operations--civilian or military--conducted more than 50 miles from the 
coast. These ships would carry C4ISR architecture--especially the 
Navy's evolving Network-Centric Warfare concept--which will link its 
surface and airborne systems with shore-based command structures and 
allow seamless integration of Coast Guard assets with all U.S. Armed 
Forces.
    The Coast Guard, however, 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 to enable the 
Coast Guard to design more capable and less labor-intensive ships and 
aircraft. Without the necessary investment, pressure will continue to 
build on the operational account, as anticipated lower personnel and 
maintenance costs that would be achieved through investment become 
unachievable.
    The need for this investment was recently highlighted in the report 
of the Interagency Task Force on U.S. Coast Guard Roles and Missions. 
This report was compiled by senior members of the Clinton/Gore 
administration. The report concluded that the Coast Guard's roles and 
missions support national policies that will endure into the 21st 
century, and that the recapitalization of the Coast Guard's Deepwater 
capability is a near term national priority. The report further stated 
that Deepwater Acquisition is a sound approach to modernizing the Coast 
Guard's aging fleet of assets.
    Investment in 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 (C4I) systems is critical. Adequate 
investment will 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. 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 will provide 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 DOD in 
the 21st century.
    With the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the 
Congress has said to federal agencies that it supports results-based 
government. The Coast Guard has whole-heartedly committed itself to 
results-based government, as much as or more than any other federal 
agency. The Coast Guard has overhauled its strategic planning and 
capital asset management processes. The Commandant's Quality Award is 
designed to encourage results-based government by using the attributes 
of the President's Quality Award and the Malcolm Baldrige Award 
criteria. The Coast Guard is often referred to as one of the taxpayers' 
best investments. Government Executive magazine published in its March 
2000 issue, a segment of its Government Performance Project examining 
Coast Guard management practices and praising the Coast Guard for its 
stewardship of the taxpayer's money. This praise is well deserved, and 
while surely gratifying to members of Team Coast Guard, such accolades 
alone will not send the signal to other agencies to follow the Coast 
Guard's exceptional leadership.
    Agencies that commit to results-based government must be rewarded 
in the budget process with adequate funding. ROA urges the Congress to 
consider most seriously which signal it wants to send federal agencies 
through the budget process. The federal government is filled with 
dedicated public servants and service members who applaud the intent of 
GPRA, but many question the resolve behind it. With the Coast Guard, 
the Congress has an opportunity to demonstrate its resolve by rewarding 
this high performance agency example with adequate resources to do its 
many jobs for the Nation.

                 COAST GUARD SELECTED RESERVE STRENGTH

    The fiscal year 2001 administration request is to maintain the 
Coast Guard Selected Reserve's authorized end-strength at the 8,000-
level, whereas the appropriation's request is for 7,300. As the Coast 
Guard Reserve's current actual strength is over 8,000, thanks to the 
$5,000,000 fiscal year 1999 Readiness Supplemental Appropriation to 
meet the congressional mandate of 8,000 Coast Guard Reservists, we have 
very serious concerns regarding the administration's proposal for an 
appropriated end-strength of only 7,300. We also have concerns 
regarding an authorized end-strength of only 8,000, in view of the fact 
that the commandant, as directed by OMB, has conducted an in-depth 
study that clearly indicates and justifies a requirement nearly 12,300 
Coast Guard Reservists. Further, the 1997 Study did not include any 
maritime security requirements needed to counter more recently 
identified homeland security risks in U.S. ports and waterways from 
weapons of mass destruction. In this regard, we would request that the 
committee undertake a detailed examination of Coast Guard Reserve 
requirements.
    In recent years, the Congress, the administration, and Coast Guard 
leadership have increasingly recognized the unique capabilities of the 
Coast Guard Reserve. It is well recognized that the Coast Guard Reserve 
is a value-added resource for peacetime day-to-day operations, as well 
as a highly cost-effective source of trained personnel to meet military 
contingency and other surge requirements. For example, as noted by the 
House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, Coast Guard 
Reservists provided 25 percent of the total surge needed for the very 
successful anti-drug initiative Frontier Shield. Furthermore, as the 
nation faces the ever-increasing threat to homeland security from 
weapons of mass destruction, it will be necessary to further rely on 
the Coast Guard Reserve for its unique capabilities to provide a ready 
trained surge force.
    In view of the foregoing, a request to fund only 7,300 Reservists 
simply makes no sense at a time when the Coast Guard has just succeeded 
in completely eliminating the end-strength shortfall that has existed 
over the past several years. The Coast Guard has increased its 
recruiting capabilities and put into place a multi-year plan to keep 
the Coast Guard Reserve at full strength. As of February 18, 2000 Coast 
Guard Reserve strength was at 8,110, having increased from a 2-year low 
of 7,243 in April 1998. Of further note, there were 183 Reservists, on 
extended active duty and long-term active duty for special work, 
filling active duty shortfalls. The number of Reservists on active duty 
is the direct result of the Coast Guard's solicitation of volunteers 
from the Selected Reserve to serve on extended active duty to fill 
full-time active duty billets for periods of 2 to 4 years.
    In addition, it must be noted that the Coast Guard has made 
significant headway in intensifying its Reserve recruiting over the 
past year. Such efforts have included the designation of at least 38 
recruiters to access Reservists. In addition, there has been heightened 
attention to Reserve recruiting, including intensive efforts to attract 
more Reserve affiliations from the ranks of Active component members 
leaving active duty for civilian life. In 1999, 26 percent of eligible 
members leaving active duty chose to become reservists.
    In summary, the Congress and the Coast Guard have made the 
substantial financial and manpower commitment to rectify the Reserve 
end-strength problem. As a result, significant progress has been, and 
will continue to be made. In addition, the Coast Guard is now making it 
easier for active duty commands to ascertain Reservists' skills and 
availability for active duty through the newly established Reserve 
Availability Pool web site (http://www.uscg.mil/reserve/respool/
respool.htm). As a result, the demand for Reservists to fill fleet 
requirements in a Coast Guard that is short of personnel can only be 
expected to increase. It, therefore, makes little sense at this 
juncture to reverse course and force the Coast Guard Reserve end-
strength downward. This would amount to nothing less than squandering 
the Congress' fiscal year 1999 Readiness Supplemental investment, which 
resulted in the successful restoration of the Coast Guard Reserve Force 
to its full 8,000 authorized strength.

                      COAST GUARD RESERVE FUNDING

    The administration has requested $73.3 million for the Reserve 
Training (RT) appropriation for fiscal year 2001, with $26.2 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 7,300 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 prescribe to 14 
days' AT as required by statute).
    The funding required in fiscal year 2000 to support the full 8,000-
level authorized is approximately $77.4 million. It should, however, be 
noted that the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, in appropriating 
$72 million for the Coast Guard Reserve, limited the amount of Reserve 
training funds that may be transferred to operating expenses to $21.5 
million, giving the Reserve an effective budget of $73.65 million. This 
resulted in an approximate $3.75 million operating shortfall, which 
requires the Coast Guard Reserve to either reduce strength or to cover 
by implementing painful current year cuts in accession/retention 
bonuses, training, and support.
    The Conference Report noted that although the appropriation was 
constrained that: ``The conferees agree that all efforts should be made 
to achieve and maintain a Selected Reserve level of at least 8,000 
during fiscal year 2000.''
    Given the continuing high OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO stress on the entire 
Coast Guard workforce and the congressional language to hold strength 
insofar as possible, the Coast Guard Reserve is trying to maintain its 
strength for this year. The ROA urges the Congress to consider a 
readiness supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2000 to enable the 
Coast Guard Reserve to restore these cuts in training, recruiting and 
support otherwise required to maintain their full-authorized strength.
    ROA thanks the Congress for its recognition of the significant 
capability provided by the Coast Guard Reserve and for the provision of 
this additional funding through the limitation in reimbursement for 
operating expenses. In this regard, the Coast Guard is the only 
component among all the armed services that reimburses operating 
expenses to the Active account. The Coast Guard is reviewing its 
procedures for reimbursement with a view toward modification in fiscal 
year 2001, and we agree that the proposed modification is fair and 
equitable. We would, however, note, that the bottom line is that the 
Coast Guard Reserve must have sufficient funding for 8,000 Reservists 
and that the reimbursement cap has over the past 3 years provided over 
$4 million of this much needed funding. Accordingly, we would ask that 
any proposed change in procedures be closely examined and meticulously 
monitored--to ensure that the Coast Guard Reserve strength is fully 
funded at a level of 8,500 ($85 million, or $88.3 million with the 
refund issue resolved).
    Just as the Coast Guard has whole-heartedly committed itself to 
results-based government, the Coast Guard Reserve has led the way 
through the concept of Team Coast Guard. The Coast Guard Reserve 
spearheaded this concept of AC/RC integration in 1994. With the goal of 
increasing the taxpayer's return on investment, the Coast Guard Reserve 
and Coast Guard took on the cultural challenge of creating Team Coast 
Guard. There are no longer AC missions and RC missions, there are only 
Coast Guard missions. There is one command structure, one support 
structure, and one administrative structure. Coast Guard integration is 
held as an effective model to DOD components. As the Coast Guard 
Reserve continues to evolve AC/RC integration, ROA urges the Congress 
to consider what signal it sends to other AC and RC components if it 
does not fully fund the Coast Guard Reserve or funds it at the expense 
of the Active component.

                            TEAM COAST GUARD

    We continue to support the goals and objectives of Team Coast 
Guard. 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. Of 
further note, the Coast Guard Reserve provides the ability to surge the 
Coast Guard by an additional 23 percent, at a cost of just 2 percent of 
the Coast Guard's total budget. In this respect, the Coast Guard 
Reserve is extremely cost-effective. Furthermore, the Reserve component 
provides double benefit because Reservists are only paid when on duty 
and because Reservists obtain their training for emergency response by 
assisting the Coast Guard in its peacetime functions.
    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, including vital 
harbor security for the Department of Defense with the Coast Guard 
Reserve Port Security Units. At the same time, the failure to meet 
Reserve end-strength requirements adversely affects the Coast Guard 
and, therefore, adversely affects the safety of those operating on the 
nation's ports, rivers and waterways and off the shoreline of the 
United States.
    In an effort to assess the progress of Team Coast Guard and its 
impact on Reservists, we canvassed our membership in December 1999, 
asking for their views. Of the many responses we received, several 
issues emerged. These issues are as follows:
    Travel reimbursement.--Many Reservists, including enlisted 
Reservists, must travel long distances to drill. The following 
quotations from drilling Reservists provide additional insight into 
this issue.

          ``In many instances drilling Reservists have to travel 
        upwards of 330 miles one-way to reach their duty sites. This 
        issue of auto-travel-reimbursement is particularly problematic 
        for junior enlisted personnel whose drill pay is already 
        relatively small.''
          ``We currently have a number of enlisted traveling in excess 
        of 350 miles one-way to drill. One (junior officer) is 
        traveling 650 miles one-way to drill.''
          ``I have an E-3 who pays more for his transportation to 
        monthly drill than he gets paid. In other words, he is paying 
        cash in order to be able to drill.''

    Meaningful billets and lack of flexibility upon advancement.--This 
issue was addressed in the 1998 Coast Guard Reserve Policy Board report 
that was approved by the Secretary of Transportation on December 1999. 
The report states:

          ``When most Reserve command cadre billets were eliminated by 
        integration, senior Reserve officers and senior enlisted lost 
        their traditional management roles. The force structure and 
        roles for senior Reserve personnel need to be reviewed as 
        program requirements are established. [This issue]--is about 
        appropriately using personnel in whom taxpayers have invested 
        heavily. Furthermore, it is about ensuring that Reserve 
        personnel perceive they can engage in fully satisfying and 
        challenging work throughout a full career in the Reserve 
        Component.''

    The following quotation from drilling Reservists provides 
additional insight.

          ``I am still concerned that senior Coast Guard officers and 
        enlisted Reserve personnel may not have much to aspire to . . 
        .''
          ``A major issue still unresolved is how the Coast Guard will 
        more effectively utilize its senior officers and enlisted 
        Reservists consistent with their rank.''
          ``Due to many active command structures, there don't seen to 
        be as many opportunities as in the past. There certainly do not 
        seem to be as many opportunities for command or senior 
        executive staff positions. With the noted exception of port 
        security units, career paths for Reserve officers are not as 
        clear as previously.''
          ``With very few senior billets and minimum flexibility 
        (allowing senior people to fill lower ranking billets), many 
        see no real career path. We have seen at least two first class 
        petty officers that have refused to take the examination for 
        chief petty officer because there is not a chief's billet 
        available. In their cases, they had well in excess of 10 years 
        of service and were concerned that they would not be able to 
        maintain a billet long enough to finish 20 years if they were 
        selected as chief petty officers. The same situation applies to 
        lieutenants and to lieutenant commanders. There are many who 
        are seriously concerned about achieving 20 years' service.''

    The 1998 Coast Guard Reserve Policy Board report, approved by the 
Secretary of Transportation on December 9, 1999, also provides further 
insight into this issue. It states as follows:

          ``Reserve force employment is not consistent throughout the 
        Coast Guard. It has evolved over the years based upon the 
        personalities and interests of commands, and the personalities 
        and capabilities of individual Reservists. The current Reserve 
        Personnel Allowance List (RPAL) was developed in 1996-97 
        largely upon then-existing Reserve assignments. As a result, 
        one unit may have a dozen RPAL billets while a similar unit may 
        have no billets. Even when Reserve billet structures are 
        consistent between or among similar commands, units often have 
        different philosophies on employing Reservists. Some commands 
        use Reservists interchangeably with Active duty personnel. 
        Other commands use Reservists primarily to replace Active duty 
        personnel when billets are vacant during the transfer season or 
        leave periods. Some assign Reservists to work independently on 
        special projects. We recognize that field units need 
        flexibility in employing Reserve forces. Yet headquarters, 
        areas, and districts need to identify program requirements for 
        Reserve employment, and to provide guidance to field units on 
        employing Reserves. Based on these program requirements and 
        guidance, the RPAL then can be revised to better reflect 
        service needs. When the workforce structure has been redefined 
        by a revised RPAL, Reserve personnel can be recruited, trained, 
        and assigned to meet established requirements. Reserve 
        personnel will have more meaningful assignments; they will not 
        have to create their own niches at each command.''

    Difficulty in meeting Reserve-unique administrative and training 
needs.--The following quotation from a drilling Reservist provides 
additional insight into this issue.

          ``--for enlisted Reservists--many of their Reserve-unique 
        administrative and training needs are not being as adequately 
        addressed as--in the past. Ultimately, junior enlisted 
        personnel do not seem to be receiving the same level of 
        attention and direction needed for retention and advancement.''

                     COAST GUARD RESERVE EQUIPMENT

    Like the other armed services, the Coast Guard is in need of 
equipment for its Reserve Component. In fiscal year 1998, the Congress 
provided over $13 million for the much needed refurbishment of its 
existing three port security units and the establishment of three 
additional port security units. Today, the Coast Guard Reserve is in 
need of equipment for its Mobile Support Units, as well as chemical, 
biological, and radiological defense equipment.
    Mobile Support Units (MSUs) are Reserve units designed to be a 
limited deployable logistical and maintenance support and repair 
facility service for one, and under certain circumstances, for up to 
two co-located squadrons of Coast Guard 110-foot patrol boats. These 
units are staffed by Reservists and will support the Active component 
(and the combatant commanders-in-chief) when deployed for operations 
overseas. The MSU provides on-site repair facilities for hull 
maintenance and engineering and electronics systems for use by support 
personnel assigned for operational maintenance.

Mobile Support Unit Equipment

        Item                                                        Cost

TRUCK, TRACTOR TRAILER........................................  $105,000
TRAILER, CONNEX BOX...........................................    30,000
TRUCK, PICK-UP................................................    25,000
FORKLIFT, 10,000 LB...........................................    20,000
GENERATOR SET 160KW & SPARE PARTS KIT.........................    23,000
WELDER, GAS POWERED...........................................     3,000
TOOLS.........................................................   148,000
ADMIN SUPPORT KIT.............................................     5,500
COMPUTER HARDWARE.............................................    18,000
COMMUNICATIONS HARDWARE.......................................    23,000
EQUIPMENT, GENERAL............................................    14,000
GENERAL U.S.E/CONSUMABLE ITEMS................................     5,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      TOTAL...................................................   419,500

    Chemical, biological, and radiological defense is required for 
Coast Guard Reserve personnel assigned to the Marine Safety Offices who 
have Department of Defense strategic load-out responsibilities. The 
current mobilization requirements call for a Reserve personnel 
requirement in excess of 3,500 personnel.

Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Defense Equipment

        Item                                                        Cost

Mask, Mark 40 A-1.............................................$1,080,000
CBR-D Gear.................................................... 1,656,000
Canister, CBR-D Mask..........................................    57,600
Kits, CBR-D antidote..........................................   295,200
Decon Kits....................................................    46,800
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total................................................... 3,135,600

                           LEGISLATIVE ISSUES

    There is one legislative issue we would appreciate Congress' 
examining. The fiscal year 1999 National Defense Department 
Authorization Act included a provision prohibiting Selected Reserve end 
strength fluctuations among the DOD reserve components of greater than 
2 percent. This legislation did not apply to the Coast Guard Reserve. 
We believe 10 U.S.C 115(c) should be amended to specifically include 
the Coast Guard Reserve. This would improve parity among the Coast 
Guard and the other military services while helping eliminate the 
ongoing mismatch between authorized and funded Coast Guard Selected 
Reserve end strength.

                               CONCLUSION

    Thank you for this opportunity to present the association's views 
on the fiscal year 2001 Coast Guard Reserve Budget. I also thank you 
again for your past support of the Coast Guard Reserve. With your 
continued support the Coast Guard Reserve will continue to play a key 
role in the our national defense.
                                 ______
                                 

                             MISCELLANEOUS

   Prepared Statement of the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute 
                                 (LRRI)

    Support from the U.S. Department of Transportation is requested for 
the National Environmental Respiratory Center to conduct research and 
provide information on the contributions of transportation sources to 
the respiratory health risks from inhaling mixtures of air pollutants 
from multiple sources.

     THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESPIRATORY CENTER IS A NEW MULTI-
                      STAKEHOLDER RESEARCH PROGRAM

    The National Environmental Respiratory Center was established by 
Congress through the fiscal year 1998 EPA appropriation. The mission of 
the Center is to facilitate and participate in a long-range national 
initiative to understand respiratory health risks from complex mixtures 
of environmental air contaminants from many sources. The Center will 
help place the respiratory health risks from variable, mixed pollutant 
atmospheres in their appropriate context as a basis for strategic, 
regulatory, and technological decision making. The work of the Center 
is relevant to the interests of a broad range of government and non-
government stakeholders. From the outset, the Center was intended to 
meet the needs of multiple stakeholders by building on core funding 
from EPA as a joint effort among multiple federal and state agencies, 
corporations and industry associations, and health and environmental 
advocacy groups. The Center is operated by the independent, non-profit 
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

        THE CENTER WILL PRODUCE NEW INFORMATION IMPORTANT TO DOT

DOT Does Not Know the Contribution of Transportation Sources to the 
        Health Impacts of Air Pollution
    We do not currently have a satisfactory understanding of the 
relative contributions of emissions from transportation sources, air 
pollutants from other man-made sources, and natural air contaminants to 
the aggregate adverse health outcomes associated statistically with air 
quality. This deficiency creates uncertainty in strategic and 
regulatory decisions about choices among different transportation 
technologies. For example, we do not have a solid understanding of the 
total health gains or losses that might accrue by choosing between new 
generation petroleum-based fuels and engines and alternate motive power 
technologies such as natural gas or biodiesel-fueled internal 
combustion engines or electric motors powered by batteries charged by 
power from remote generation stations.
    We do not even have, at present, a satisfactory understanding of 
the relative contributions of the individual constituents of single 
emission mixtures (such as engine exhaust) to the total effects of that 
mixture. This deficiency is impeding the evolution of technology (such 
as changes in engines, fuels, or exhaust after treatment) to mitigate 
health risks by reducing emissions of specific classes of air 
contaminants.

This Information Gap is Becoming More Critical with Time
    As air quality in the nation improves, understanding the health 
effects of mixtures of air contaminants is becoming progressively more 
important. It is becoming less likely that the adverse health effects 
observed in populations are attributable to single pollutants or 
sources. We face an increasing difficulty in making strategic choices 
and investments, and an increasing likelihood of making ill-advised 
decisions.
    The ``mixtures'' problem is not a new issue. It has long been 
recognized, but has never been brought to the forefront of debate or 
research focus. Many organizations have considered the issue and 
consciously avoided making it a central theme because of its complexity 
and because of financial incentives to focus on the ``pollutant of the 
year''. The recent debates on the health effects of ozone, airborne 
particles, and diesel exhaust have focused increasing attention on air 
pollution mixtures and our ignorance concerning them. In contrast to 
the past, few discussions about the health effects of air pollution 
occur today without mention of the mixtures dilemma and our lack of 
knowledge.

No Other Research Program has Focused on Air Pollution Mixtures
    Our present regulatory and research approaches tend to steer 
attention away from the truth that all exposures to air pollutants are 
exposures to mixtures. Under the present Clean Air Act and other 
regulatory mandates, the focus has been on debating the effects of 
single pollutants and pollutant sources in a ``one-at-a-time'', 
``revolving door'' manner. This approach results in the conduct of 
reactive research focused on single pollutant classes. Thus, the 
pressures of single-pollutant issues result in little emphasis being 
given to work aimed at understanding the relationship between air 
quality and health in an integrated manner.

The Center was Created Specifically to Meet these Needs
    The National Environmental Respiratory Center was created by 
Congress through the EPA appropriation in response to Lovelace's 
proposal to develop a significant research and information program that 
would join multiple federal, state, and non-government stakeholders 
together in an effort to substantially improve our ability to place the 
respiratory health risks of air pollution mixtures in their proper 
context. Although the Center can not meet the full spectrum of 
mixtures-related information needs, it was intended to play a 
leadership role in integrating the support of multiple sponsors into a 
substantial, multi-year program of focused research designed with broad 
input and providing knowledge needed by the full range of stakeholders.
    There are many possible approaches to mixtures research, and no 
single program can encompass them all. The strategy for this Center was 
selected to take advantage of the unique research strengths of Lovelace 
to conduct work that will move our understanding of the importance of 
key man-made pollution significantly forward. The strategy selected 
could not be funded through typical grants programs and would not, and 
perhaps could not, be undertaken by any other organization.

       THE CENTER'S WORK HAS BEGUN AND DOT SUPPORT IS CRITICAL

The Center's Research Strategy Has Been Developed and Work Has Begun
    By express intent, Lovelace involved a cross-section of 
stakeholders and technical experts in developing the scope of the 
Center's activities and the specific research strategy to be 
undertaken. This strategy will not only ensure that the Center's 
efforts are guided by the best current thinking, but will also 
facilitate broad acceptance of its findings. A highly qualified 
External Scientific Advisory Committee was developed with members from 
academia, government, industry, and the health and environmental 
advocacy sector. This Committee was integral to the process of defining 
the Center's agenda as: (1) a highly-focused multi-year research 
program; and (2) a source of information and a catalyst of cross-
disciplinary communication in the mixtures field. The first studies of 
the Center's initial five-year research effort are now being initiated. 
The complex atmospheres to be studied include heavy-duty and light-duty 
engine emissions and paved and unpaved road dust. Although sufficient 
support has been developed to initiate the work, there is not yet a 
sufficient commitment to ensure that the work will continue, or 
continue at a rate that fulfills the strategy or meets DOT information 
needs in a timely manner. A commitment from DOT would ensure that the 
information relevant to the Agency is produced, and within the Agency's 
strategic timelines.
    The first multi-year series of studies will generate a matrix of 
data by applying identical, detailed, contemporary laboratory assays of 
respiratory health effects to several real-world, man-made, complex 
exposure atmospheres. The atmospheres will include engine exhaust 
(diesel, old and new; gasoline, catalyst and non-catalyst), wood smoke 
(hardwood and softwood), tobacco smoke, cooking fumes (meat and 
vegetable), road dust, and power plant emissions (including secondary 
transformation products). Importantly, these complex atmospheres will 
provide an array of overlapping, but different compositions. A range of 
predictive health assays was selected to span the types of health 
impacts thought to be associated with air pollution. These effects 
assays encompass the general categories of inflammation and tissue 
toxicity, asthma and amplification of allergic responses, respiratory 
defenses (particle clearance and resistance to infection), lung and 
heart function, and cancer potential. The atmospheres will be 
characterized in great detail, as a basis for determining the health 
impacts of individual constituents.
    The information resulting from the multi-year research matrix will 
serve three principal purposes. First, the studies will produce 
contemporary toxicity information on transportation-related emissions 
of current concern. Second, the studies will make available, for the 
first time ever, information allowing the direct comparison of the 
health impacts of these atmospheres by identical health assays. 
Finally, the identical health assays and the different, but 
overlapping, compositions of the atmospheres will allow, for the first 
time, the use of statistical and modeling procedures to identify the 
contributions of individual mixture constituents, and classes of 
constituents to the different health effects.

The Financial Commitment Required to Conduct the Work Has Not Yet Been 
        Achieved
    As intended by Congress, the Center's agenda was developed by 
identifying the most critical information needs and the best strategy 
for meeting those needs, rather than constraining the plan to the 
amount of resources provided through the EPA appropriation. Because the 
information to be produced is important to a broad range of 
stakeholders, it was intended from the beginning that other federal 
agencies, states, and industry would also be recruited to support the 
effort. If the research described above is conducted over a five-year 
period beginning in early fiscal year 2000 and the statistical analyses 
are completed within the following year, it is estimated that the total 
six-year (fiscal years 2000-2005) cost of Center operations will be 
over $24 million (in fiscal year 2000 dollars), or over $4 million per 
year. Therefore, if EPA support continues at the fiscal year 2000 level 
of $1.8 million per year, the level of funding must more than double.

The Department's Support will be Highly Leveraged by Other Stakeholders
    The leg-work has already been done that creates an opportunity for 
the Department to get information it badly needs cost-effectively by 
sharing the cost with other stakeholders who need the same information. 
Lovelace has undertaken the task of complementing the support from EPA 
as necessary with support developed from other stakeholders. 
Considerable effort is being expended to discuss the mission and 
strategy of the Center with several federal and state agencies and a 
wide range of non-government organizations and trade associations. This 
effort has been successful, but is still far short of the goal. In 
addition to support from EPA, the Department of Energy began funding 
the Center during fiscal year 2000. Lovelace has developed 
approximately $0.5 million in funding from industry, much of it from 
the transportation sector. Contributing organizations include 
(alphabetically) American Trucking Association, California Trucking 
Association, Caterpillar Inc., Chemical Manufacturers Association, 
Cummins Engine Co., Detroit Diesel Corp., Exxon Corp., Ford Motor Co., 
Navistar International, Phillips Petroleum, and the Southern Co. 
Discussions are underway with numerous additional companies and trade 
associations. Among states, the California Air Resources Board has 
committed support, and discussion with other state agencies is 
underway.

Lovelace Requests Support From the Department Of Energy
    Financial support is growing, but falls short of the level required 
to get the job done. We will need over $4 million per year over the 
next six years to follow the consensus advice we have received. The 
Center's work is relevant to the policy interests of the Department 
regarding the nation's long-range transportation strategy, and the 
influence of air quality issues as a driver of strategic choices. 
Participation in this program can, in part, fulfill the Agency's 
environmental mandates as well as meet strategic information needs. 
Several discussions have been held with Department officials, and there 
is agreement that the mission of the Center and the information it will 
produce are relevant to the Department.
    Lovelace respectfully requests that $2 million be allocated in the 
fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation budget to support work of 
the National Environmental Respiratory Center relevant to 
transportation-related issues.
                                 ______
                                 

         Prepared Statement of the Stylin' Concepts Corporation

    My name is John Milos. Together with my wife, I am the owner of 
Stylin' Concepts, a small business located in Independence, Ohio, that 
sells automotive accessories for safety, fuel efficiency, and other 
uses. It is my privilege to testify today before you about the adverse 
impact that a reduction in the availability of information from motor 
vehicle records, let alone a total cut off, will have on my business.
    As a direct marketer that mails to millions of Americans every 
year, we applaud your spirit to protect the individual. In fact, 
responsible direct marketers like Stylin' Concepts and others all over 
this nation have taken extreme and costly efforts on our own for 
decades to insure our customers' privacy. Privacy is nothing new to us. 
As direct marketers, we really don't want to market to someone who 
doesn't want to receive our material. It's just not good business sense 
to be throwing money away. However, last year's amendments to the 
Driver's Privacy Protection Act requiring an opt in for use of motor 
vehicle record data for marketing purposes will do great damage to 
consumers and employees in the direct marketing business. We are a 
small business of approximately $8 million in sales and 75 percent of 
our business comes from the Auto Registration records this law would 
make unavailable.
    We produce an automotive accessories catalog that features products 
for safety, fuel efficiency, comfort and style. Other than the auto 
registration records, there is no other source for this information. 
This law, if it becomes effective, will eliminate 75 percent of our 
business and force the layoff of dozens of employees, many of which are 
single parents, college students, or handicapped.
    It's important to understand that our interests are for consumers 
who have a particular vehicle. When we know what type of vehicle a 
consumer owns, we send them a catalog specific to that vehicle. The 
names are gathered by Polk, the main compiler in the U.S. Polk then 
sends the names to our printer, who puts the labels on the catalogs and 
mails them. We never see the name nor do we keep it unless someone 
calls us, decides to purchase something from us, and gives us their 
name and address.
    Ultimately, that consumer has the final choice of privacy. First, 
by just throwing our catalog away, and secondly, any consumer can put 
their name on the DMA's ``suppression'' list. Responsible mailers, like 
Stylin' Concepts, run their prospect lists, such as the Motor Vehicle 
Registration information, through this suppression list before every 
mailing, at our cost, and that person never gets mailed to. In 
addition, we maintain an internal suppression file for anyone that 
tells us they do not want to receive our catalog.
    We are only looking for the interested consumer who has the 
specific vehicle that we have catalogs for. There is a high likelihood 
this person will be interested in our products. Studies show the 
average person in America overwhelmingly wants to receive direct mail 
about products of interest to him or her. For example, if Jane Doe is a 
gardener, she enjoys receiving gardening magazines and catalogs. If 
John Smith enjoys gourmet cooking, he would welcome receiving a catalog 
of the latest kitchen gadgets. These catalogs give the consumer great 
ideas and deals they wouldn't otherwise have. If we cannot get specific 
vehicle information, then we will be forced to take a more scattershot 
approach, which is a waste of money and resources. In the process, many 
people who don't want our catalog will get it anyway.
    What harm is there to the consumer if this law goes into effect?
Safety and Convenience
    Catalogs provide a consumer one-stop shopping for a wide variety of 
products. Products that improve the safety, fuel economy, and 
convenience of their vehicles.
  --Safety products that we offer include a children's seat belt 
        adjuster that makes it more comfortable for a child to use 
        (which means the child will use it--and that saves lives), a 
        backup alert that warns children when a vehicle is backing up, 
        and products for people to keep in their vehicle in case of 
        emergencies.
  --We have several products that improve fuel economy, such as 
        programmers that can actually reprogram a vehicle's computer to 
        increase mileage up to 25 percent, products that create less 
        wind drag and thus improve mileage, and improved air filters 
        and air intake systems. All these items save fuel, which is 
        extremely important with today's high fuel prices.
  --Much appreciated convenience products include running boards that 
        make it easier for an elderly person, or a mom with a baby, to 
        get into their vehicle, as well as many items that make 
        traveling easier.
    One of the most common responses we get from our customers is ``We 
didn't even know this product existed!'' Unaware of the availability of 
our products, and of our need to know about their vehicle registration 
data, most of our customers probably would not have opted in had they 
been required to do so.

Restriction of Competition
    If this vehicle information is not made available to responsible 
marketers, then the automakers will have a monopoly on direct marketing 
to consumers that buy their vehicles. We all know what happens in a 
monopoly situation. Prices increase and innovation decreases. We 
currently charge 30 percent to 50 percent less than the car 
manufacturers for the same products. Our marketing costs would increase 
substantially under this law and these increases would have to be 
passed on to the consumer. That's assuming we could even stay in 
business. If businesses like ours are not able to stay in business, 
then innovation will also surely decrease. Reduced competition always 
results in reduced innovation--ultimately the consumer is the one who 
gets hurt.

Increased Waste
    If this law goes into effect, consumers will receive additional 
mail that is not specific to them. We will have to start mailing our 
catalog to consumers who might have the appropriate vehicle instead of 
being sure that we're putting our catalog in the right hands. This is a 
waste of paper and resources as well as additional expense and a true 
bother to more Americans.
    What is the effect of this law on businesses, such as ours, and the 
people who are employed by them?

Effects on Employees
    This industry, by its very nature of needing assemblers, packers, 
and data entry personnel, lends itself to hire unskilled employees who 
have a difficult time finding good jobs to support their families. At 
Stylin' Concepts, of those employees who have children, 50 percent are 
single parents, another 25 percent are students working their way 
through school, and others are handicapped. The call center where we 
receive calls from customers (we only receive calls, we never call 
prospective customers) is perfect for those who need flexible hours and 
a handicapped-friendly work environment that our company, and others 
like ours, offers. These people are trained well by us and all they 
want to do is keep their current job. The fact is, most of them will 
lose their job under the new law.

Effects on Business
    The impact on our business and others like ours will be huge. We 
are aware of no other way to get this vehicle specific information. 75 
percent of our business depends on it. The only way to maintain our 
sales would be to mail out 10 times as many catalogs, at an enormous 
increase in expense. Prices would have to be raised considerably, and 
frankly, we doubt that the consumer would be willing to pay the higher 
prices. Thus, the net effect would be to drastically reduce our sales 
and the sales of other businesses like ours.
    What other options are available?
    Other options to protect the privacy of the individual are 
available without hurting workers, consumers, and business. Some of 
these are:
    1. Fine tune the law so that information that is truly private 
(such as driver's license photographs) is prohibited from sale, but 
allow the sale of information that would not unduly harm the privacy of 
the consumer and provide a benefit as well.
    2. Create standards by which the information is used. As an 
example, responsible direct marketers, at their cost, provide easy and 
effective ways for the consumer to let the marketer know they don't 
wish to receive mailings anymore. Continue to let consumers opt out of 
allowing their information to be released. This seems to be a very 
effective method for communicating this information. Only .002 percent 
of consumers who receive our catalogs feel the need to contact us to 
request they not get our catalog.
    3. At the very least, we need time to assess the impact this law 
will have on direct marketing workers and the businesses that employ 
them. Given time, we may be able to minimize the impact of the law. But 
right now, we can't, and too many people will be hurt.
    We believe the opt-in choice, as stated in the law, is not a 
practical solution for this issue. Most states seem to believe the 
revenue received from this method would not offset the cost involved in 
the changeover. It would require costly changes to their forms, 
procedures, and computer systems. The states are saying they will 
simply not make any data available anymore.
    In summary, we agree the privacy issue needs to be addressed. We 
have no desire to send our catalogs to anyone who does not wish to have 
them. However, the impact of this law needs to be seriously considered 
before it's implemented. We urge you delay the implementation of this 
law until a sound economic impact study can be made, as too many 
innocent and responsible businesses, workers, and consumers will be 
hurt by this law as it currently stands. With some modification, the 
law can make great strides in protecting the consumer from release of 
sensitive information without hurting a great many companies and their 
employees.
                                 ______
                                 

          Prepared Statement of the Disabled American Veterans

    My name is Max Hart and I am the Director of Fundraising of the 
Disabled American Veterans (``DAV''). The DAV is a membership service 
organization of more than one million members with an additional 
177,000 Women's Auxiliary. Founded in 1920 and Chartered by Act of 
Congress in 1932, DAV carries on service programs for all of America's 
2.3 million disabled veterans and their dependents. These services are 
totally funded by contributions from a generous American public raised 
100 percent through the mail. Direct mail is the only medium through 
which we can sustain our program service-all others are not viable.
    I appear before you today on behalf of both the DAV and the Direct 
Marketing Association Inc. (``The DMA''), of which we are a member. I 
serve as chairman of The DMA's Nonprofit Council, which consists of 290 
nonprofit organizations and their suppliers with interests in raising 
funds through direct marketing. The National Easter Seals, the 
Arthritis Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the March of Dimes, 
and Consumers Union are among the organizations who are members of The 
DMA Nonprofit Council. With scarce resources with which to make our 
fundraising appeals, we all rely upon the ability to tailor our 
messages to specific audiences by using lists from databases. Many of 
these databases are updated and corrected through the use of motor 
vehicle record information.
    DAV's 65 million fundraising solicitations last year raised 83 
percent of the organization's total revenue. That is, the DAV's 
fundraising solicitations last year grossed $98 million in charitable 
contributions and $2.9 million in bequests, trusts, and gift annuities.
    Motor vehicle records have proven to be one of the single most 
reliable sources of certain demographic information, including age 
information, which we use in our targeted fundraising. This information 
is particularly useful in narrowing our fundraising target mailings to 
individuals that fall within a particular age range. Through the use of 
age and other demographic information that originates in motor vehicle 
records, we are able to better ensure that our messages will be heard 
by the most responsive audiences.
    The future success of our fundraising efforts depends, in large 
part, on continued access to information in the motor vehicle records. 
Requiring an opt-in for use of motor vehicle information potentially 
threatens the ability of charitable organizations to raise the sums 
they need to continue providing the services that they have 
traditionally offered. Total cut off of all marketing uses of motor 
vehicle records would only exacerbate the difficulties we will have in 
obtaining lists that contain data derived from motor vehicle records.

                              INTRODUCTION

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I thank 
you for the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee as it 
examines implementation issues surrounding positive notification 
requirements for the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (``DPPA'').
    My name is Max Hart and I am the Director of Fundraising of the 
Disabled American Veterans (``DAV''). I appear before you today on 
behalf of both the DAV and the Direct Marketing Association (``The 
DMA''), of which we are a member.
    My remarks today will concentrate on the extent to which an opt-in 
requirement for marketing uses of motor vehicle records could 
drastically impact DAV's fundraising efforts and programs, and those 
undertaken by other nonprofit organizations. As I will illustrate, such 
an approach will effectively deprive nonprofits of vital information 
that is critical to the fundraising programs of many nonprofit 
organizations. A decision by the states to cut off all marketing uses 
of motor vehicle records rather than implement last year's changes only 
serves to exacerbate our problems with an opt-in requirement.
    After providing a brief background on the work of both the DAV and 
the DMA's nonprofit council, I will explain: (1) how the DAV and other 
nonprofits use motor vehicle information to most effectively tailor our 
message in connection with fundraising efforts; and (2) the importance 
of continued access to lists developed using certain demographic 
information that is updated and corrected through the application of 
motor vehicle record information.

                                THE DAV

    The DAV is a membership service organization of more than one 
million members with an additional 177,000 Women's Auxiliary. Founded 
in 1920 and chartered by Act of Congress in 1932, DAV carries on 
service programs primarily for the benefit of America's 2.3 million 
disabled veterans and their dependents. These services, provided free 
of charge to all veterans and their dependents, are totally funded by 
contributions from a generous American public raised 100 percent 
through the mail. Direct mail is the only medium through which we can 
sustain our service programs--all others are not viable.
    The DAV was founded on the principle that this nation's first duty 
is to care for its wartime disabled veterans, their dependents, and 
survivors. In fulfilling our mandate of service to America's service-
connected disabled veterans and their families, the DAV employs a corps 
of 260 National Service Officers (NSOs), located throughout the 
country. Last year, these men and women, all wartime service-connected 
disabled veterans, represented almost a quarter of a million veterans 
and their families in their claims for VA benefits, obtaining for them 
more than $2.2 billion in new and retroactive benefits.
    We are extremely proud of the services DAV volunteers provide to 
our nation to assist it in fulfilling its mission to sick and disabled 
veterans. Between October 1, 1998, and September 30, 1999, these men 
and women continued to serve this great nation by providing more than 
2.4 million hours of critical service to hospitalized veterans, saving 
taxpayers more than $35 million in employee costs.
    The DAV also employs 187 Hospital Service Coordinators at VA 
facilities around the country to assist our nation's sick and disabled 
veterans and their families. The DAV transportation program provides 
essential transportation to and from VA health care facilities to those 
veterans who could not otherwise access needed medical care. As of 
September 30, 1999, DAV volunteer drivers transported more than half a 
million veterans more than 19 million miles to and from VA medical 
appointments during a 12-month period. From its inception in 1987, the 
DAV's National Transportation Network logged in nearly 200 million 
miles and transported almost five million veterans to VA health care 
facilities. Since our transportation program began in 1987, DAV has 
donated 890 vans at a cost of more than $17 million. This June, DAV 
will donate an additional 102 vans at a cost of $2.4 million.
    As you can see, as we have done for the past 80 years, the DAV 
devotes its resources to the most needed and meaningful services for 
our nation's disabled veterans. These services aid veterans directly 
support and augment VA programs. We are able to do so only with the 
continuing support of an American public that is grateful for all that 
our veterans have done.

                       THE DMA NONPROFIT COUNCIL

    The DAV is a member of The Direct Marketing Association. The DMA is 
the largest trade association for organizations and businesses 
interested in direct, database, and interactive marketing and 
electronic commerce. The DMA represents more than 4,600 companies in 
the United States and 54 foreign nations. Founded in 1917, its members 
include direct marketers from more than 50 different industry segments, 
as well as the non-profit sector.
    As chairman of The DMA's Nonprofit Council, I preside over a body 
that consists of 290 nonprofit organizations and their suppliers with 
interests in raising funds through direct marketing. They include 
organizations such as the National Easter Seals, Arthritis Foundation, 
American Cancer Society, March of Dimes, Consumers Union, Special 
Olympics, and Boystown, just to name a few. Our reliance upon lists and 
databases to raise funds for our service programs is one of the things 
that all of these non-profit organizations have in common. A good many 
of these lists and databases are updated and corrected through the use 
of motor vehicle records.
    These nonprofit organizations are among the thousands of DMA 
members who have signed on to the Privacy Promise. This initiative 
requires that, as a condition of membership to The DMA, companies 
participate in The DMA's mail and telephone preference services. These 
services are offered free of charge to consumers, giving them the 
ability to remove their names from the lists of national marketers, 
substantially reducing their unsolicited commercial mail and telephone 
marketing calls. Members must provide notice to consumers if they 
transfer data to others and must provide the consumer with the ability 
to opt out of such transfers.

 THE SERVICE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OF AMERICA'S DISABLED VETERANS AND THEIR 
    DEPENDENTS ARE TOTALLY FUNDED BY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM DIRECT MAIL

    Last year DAV mailed 65 million fundraising solicitations which 
grossed $98 million in charitable contributions and $2.9 million in 
bequests, trusts, and gift annuities. This figure represents 83 percent 
of DAV's total revenue from all sources including membership dues, 
investment income, and sale of fraternal items. Of the 65 million 
pieces mailed, 35 million were sent to DAV's 8 million active donors 
and 30 million to outside mailing lists prospecting for new supporters 
to DAV. Because we have an attrition rate of 20 percent each year, we 
need to replace 1.6 million donors in order to maintain the active 
donor file at its present level of 8 million.
    As these figures attest, contributions from direct mailing 
activities are critical to ensuring adequate funding to support our 
service programs. The use of information from lists updated through the 
use of motor vehicle records is instrumental to achieving our 
fundraising goals, and to ensuring that we are able to continue to 
provide our services.

  ACCESS TO CERTAIN INFORMATION GLEANED FROM MOTOR VEHICLE RECORDS IS 
 CRITICAL TO ENSURING THE CONTINUED VITALITY OF MANY NONPROFIT SERVICE 
       PROGRAMS THAT ARE DEPENDENT UPON DIRECT MAIL CONTRIBUTIONS

    Although the DAV and other charities do not use driver's license 
and motor vehicle information directly, the ability to access lists 
from commercial databases with accurate and current information 
revealing particular demographics is extremely important to the 
nonprofit sector's fundraising efforts. Naturally, accurate name and 
address information is important. But so is demographic data. Accurate 
and complete data helps ensure that we direct our fundraising 
solicitations to the members of the public most likely to respond to 
them.
    Motor vehicle record information is used in conjunction with other 
demographic data to identify the characteristics that distinguish an 
organization's best donor candidates. These characteristics are then 
applied against outside lists for new donor acquisition mailings. This 
is accomplished through predictive models and statistical regression 
analysis which are commonly used on large direct response lists such as 
Readers Digest subscription lists.
    For example, our experiences indicate that age and income are two 
of the most significant selection criteria in the use of outside lists. 
The prime audience for most charities is the 50 years of age and older 
market. Also, our supporters are typically middle income; high and low 
income households have proven unproductive. Being able to identify 
individuals that fall within these age and income categories helps to 
ensure that our message is being most effectively communicated. List 
owners rely substantially upon motor vehicle records because they are 
excellent sources of both of these types of information.
    Use of age information is also invaluable to fundraising efforts in 
determining when to propose planned giving as a means of charitable 
contribution. Our experience indicates that individuals over 70 years 
of age respond at a much higher rate on Gift Annuity promotions. It is 
most cost effective, therefore, to target this age range for this type 
of fundraising solicitation. Similarly, age information is also an 
accurate predictor of candidates likely to set up Charitable Remainder 
Trusts. As a pre-retirement function, individuals who fall within the 
early to mid-60's age range, often establish these trusts. Having 
access to age information enables us to more effectively our efforts to 
reach this segment of the population.
    Through the use of this age information, the DAV and other 
charitable organizations are able to expend their limited fundraising 
resources in a cost effective manner by ensuring that we target our 
solicitations at the most responsive audiences.
    Certain financial information gleaned from motor vehicle 
information also is important for fundraising associated with these 
Charitable Remainder Trusts. Because these trusts typically involve 
significant dollar amounts of $100,000 or more, the ability to target 
more affluent individuals helps contribute to a better response rate. 
Car model and year information have proven to be highly accurate 
indicators of wealth information. Owners of late year model Cadillac, 
Lincoln, Lexus, and BMW cars, in high income areas represent better 
prospects for larger trusts. The ability to access this information 
through the use of motor vehicle registration is thus an important tool 
in these efforts.
    Our discussion so far has focused upon solicitations from new 
donors. But age and wealth information are also used to identify from 
an organization's own donors those individuals who are the best 
prospects for a ``planned gift'' (i.e., bequests, gift annuities, and 
charitable remainder trusts). Organizations often overlay age 
information from a database where age is derived from driver's license 
information and wealth indicators where a part of the mathematical 
equation is the make and year information from vehicle registration 
information to help target their messages to the most responsive 
audience.
    Based upon studies that show that a majority of Americans do not 
avail themselves of either opt outs or opt ins, we anticipate that last 
year's opt-in requirement will result in far less information being 
made available from motor vehicle records. This will make it more 
difficult for us to obtain the highly reliable demographic information 
available from motor vehicle records upon which we have come to rely, 
and erode the quality of the lists upon which we rely upon for 
fundraising. This in turn may require nonprofits and others to send 
greater volumes of less targeted solicitations to compensate for the 
loss of age and other predictor demographic data. This will raise our 
costs and will result in more of our solicitations directed at the 
wrong consumers. This, in turn, could adversely impact our ability to 
provide our services.
    I understand that many states may decide to cut off all marketing 
uses of motor vehicle records rather than implement an opt in. This 
will only serve to exacerbate our problems because it will block off 
information from even those individuals who through an opt in would 
agree to the use of the data in their motor vehicle records for 
solicitation purposes.

                               CONCLUSION

    The future success of our fundraising efforts depends, in large 
part, on continued access to information in the motor vehicle records. 
Requiring an opt-in for use of motor vehicle information potentially 
threatens the ability of charitable organizations to raise the sums 
they need to continue to provide the services that they have 
traditionally offered. Total cut off of all marketing uses of motor 
vehicle records would only exacerbate the difficulties we will have in 
obtaining lists that contain data derived from motor vehicle records.
                                 ______
                                 

             Prepared Statement of Financial Services, Inc.

    Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Charles W. Taylor, 
President of Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a www.vidnet.org. Thank you 
for this opportunity to present our statement in support of the Video 
Conferencing and Telecommuting in the 21st Century--Test and 
Evaluation, proposed for the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 
I want to share with you our thoughts about an undertaking that can 
produce significant savings in USDOT travel expenses, traffic 
congestion relief, improvements in public safety, as well as contribute 
to the economic future and quality of life for federal employees and 
the public of our region and nation.
    Significant improvements this past summer and fall in video 
conferencing--telecommuting, and distance learning technology have been 
made, particularly with the user interface and ease of connection, 
which now make it possible for just about anyone to use this 
technology. Cost wise, on the low end, a desktop or laptop personal 
computer (PC) can be video conference--telecommute enabled for less 
than $100, bringing the user cost within the reach of just about 
everyone.
    My technology will allow each user to easily see, talk with, 
collaborate, and share data in real time with up to a dozen other 
people, or more, at the same time on their own video conference--
telecommute enabled desktop/laptop PC, from their offices, homes, or 
where ever, regardless of their location, worldwide via network, 
Internet, or both, essentially by clicking on a web page link.
    My proposal is to equip and enable a minimum of 1,000 USDOT desktop 
and/or laptop PC's for high quality video conferencing and 
telecommuting capability. The cost to enable video conference/
telecommute capability per desktop/laptop PC is expected to be between 
$100.00 and about $400.00 each, depending on user preferences, quality 
of service needs, and USDOT system requirements. The system proposed 
includes desktop/laptop PC software, color digital PC cameras, PC 
telephony devices (i.e. microphones or headsets), servers, server 
software, and could enable IP broadcast capability to a USDOT web page, 
if desired, on an internal or external, secure, USDOT network.
    According to an analysis I completed earlier this year, assuming a 
2 hour round trip commute, telecommuting only one day per week would 
save a worker about 100 hours on the road, and about $250.00 in out of 
pocket travel expenses over a year's time. A recent study by MCI-
Worldcom, ``Meetings in America,'' suggests that for an average 
business meeting, an employer would save over $1,000.00 per employee, 
per meeting, if the employee used video conferencing instead of the 
traditional face to face--travel and time intensive method. In 
addition, according to the study, the employer would recoup more than 
12 hours in lost productivity per employee, per meeting due to meeting 
travel and preparation time savings. On an annual basis, video 
conferencing has demonstrated a cost benefit ratio of about 4 to 1.
    In addition, low cost desktop video conferencing has particular 
mobility implications for our elderly, homebound, travel limited, and 
isolated persons. This new technology now makes it possible to see, 
hear and talk with a dozen other people, or more, share text and data, 
and collaborate on projects with business associates, neighbors, 
friends, and relatives . . . or take a course at a world class 
university . . . without leaving the home, or from any location 
worldwide.
    For our men and women in uniform, who must spend months away at sea 
and in foreign lands defending our freedoms, they will now be able to 
see, hear, talk with, and visit with their loved ones, friends, and 
relatives, no matter where they are. They deserve no less.
    My technology is proven. In fact, the proposed server software was 
recently selected as part of the US Army's--First Data Division--
command and control communication system upgrade for it's superior 
performance, lip sync quality, and ability to link servers for world 
wide connectivity.
    The Internet is no longer faceless, nor silent.
    Given the high cost of fuel, horrific traffic congestion, and 
extraordinary travel costs, it seems to me that it is long past time to 
consider proven, cost effective technologies as part of the 
transportation solution.
    Secretary Slater has said that transportation is more than 
``asphalt, concrete, and steel.'' We've talked the talk. It's time to 
walk the walk.
    The attached materials describe systems proposed. Additional 
information is available on my website: WWW.VIDNET.ORG.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement. I would be 
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
                                 ______
                                 

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

 Prepared Statement of the Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas

                              INTRODUCTION

    This testimony is submitted on behalf of the Electric Vehicle 
Association of the Americas (EVAA or Association), a national non-
profit organization of electric utilities, automobile manufacturers, 
state and local governments and other entities that have joined 
together to advocate greater use of electricity as a transportation 
fuel. A membership list is attached.

     THE ROLE OF ELECTRICITY IN THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

    The Association believes that utilization of electricity offers 
significant advantages in transportation applications. Electric 
transportation technologies present our nation with an important means 
for reducing our dependency on foreign petroleum and increasing the 
diversity of fuels relied upon in the transportation sector. During the 
last gasoline price and availability crisis in 1973, the United States 
was only 36 percent dependent on imported oil. Today, the U.S. 
Department of Energy reports that net imports of petroleum in the year 
2000 will account for 52 percent of total U.S. petroleum demand. 
Clearly the need for this country to transition to the use of 
alternative fuels is more critical than ever. According to the Energy 
Information Administration (EIA), crude oil prices have pushed regular 
gasoline prices to $1.50 per gallon, the highest level in nominal terms 
since 1981. (In fact, EIA predicts that average retail gasoline prices 
could reach a monthly average of $1.75-$1.80 per gallon some time 
during the summer peak driving season.) A wide variety of 
transportation modes--individual passenger and light-duty vehicles; 
heavy-duty vehicles, like buses and trolleys; light rail; commuter 
rail; maglev technologies, high speed rail; and heavy rail services--
can be powered by electricity--an abundant, clean, and domestically 
produced energy resource generated from a variety of sources. All of 
these technologies will reduce pollution, reduce our dependency on 
imported oil, and improve the quality of life in many of our cities and 
towns, while maintaining our high degree of mobility.
    In addition to diversifying sources of transportation ``fuels'', 
air quality considerations also are requiring municipal transit 
operators to consider the use of alternative fuel technologies as a 
means to reduce emissions and achieve air quality goals. For many urban 
areas, electric transportation may be a particularly important means to 
substantially reduce emissions of mobile source pollutants, including 
volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen, that are the 
precursors of smog. Electric vehicles, electric buses and maglev 
technologies are truly ``zero emission'' transportation modes in 
operation. They produce no tailpipe emissions and generate 
insignificant emissions during operations. They also have the benefit 
of being very quiet and energy efficient.

FEDERAL PROGRAM TO SHOWCASE ELECTRICITY AS THE 21ST CENTURY INTERMODAL 
                                  FUEL

    The EVAA supports the establishment of a significant federal 
program to demonstrate the environmental, energy security and economic 
benefits of alternatively fueled, intermodal transportation networks in 
our nation's urban centers. Vehicular traffic in ``center city rings'' 
has become a significant environmental and transportation problem not 
just in the U.S., but around the world. Global trends toward increased 
urbanization mean that current problems associated with transporting 
people and goods will worsen. In Europe, Mexico and parts of Asia, 
cities are imposing drastic measures; closing center city rings to all 
vehicular traffic and/or imposing ``no drive'' days. In the U.S. local 
officials and transportation authorities are examining various means to 
relieve congestion, reduce emissions and noise from the transportation 
sector, while still assuring urban residents and commuters convenient 
and ready mobility.
    The Association believes an industry and government partnership 
should be created to demonstrate that people and goods in urban areas 
can be moved cleanly, quietly and efficiently without using petroleum. 
To demonstrate the versatility of electricity, and more importantly, to 
focus upon alternative clean, efficient mechanisms to quickly move 
people and goods in our country's urban centers, the EVAA recommends 
the authorization and funding of a nationwide intermodal transportation 
program. This national effort should be designed to demonstrate the 
environmental, energy security and economic benefits of creating 
electric-powered intermodal transportation networks in urban centers. 
Such a program would provide highly visible ways to demonstrate 
emerging technologies; evidence the value of electric-powered 
transportation options in creating ``livable communities''; address 
urban sprawl; and, encourage sustainable development and ``smart 
growth''. Examples of model projects could include the use of electric 
bikes and neighborhood electric vehicles by police and/or parking 
enforcement officials; the use of electric/hybrid electric buses for 
mass transit; EV ``station car'' connections to electric commuter rail; 
and/or the use of electric ground support vehicles, shuttle buses and/
or EV rental car demonstrations at airports.
    As envisioned, the proposed program would encourage energy 
diversity by showcasing a variety of transportation modes in several 
demonstration projects around the U.S. Such a program also would 
further determine the best applications for many of these emerging 
clean technologies. The demonstration program also would support the 
increased development/use of supporting infrastructure which will 
assist communities both in the near and long-term as they continue to 
transition to the use of clean, alternative transportation modes.
evaa supports the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the cmaq program 

               AND THE CLEAN FUELS FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM

    It is vitally important to fund transit programs, which encourage 
innovative technological development with regard to electric, hybrid-
electric and fuel cell transportation applications. Therefore, the 
Association urges funding--to the fullest extent authorized under the 
Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21)--of public 
transit programs. In particular, the Association encourages funding for 
the following:

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
    The CMAQ program provides critical funding for projects and 
programs that reduce transportation-related emissions in nonattainment 
and maintenance areas. EVAA encourages DOT to give priority to those 
projects that have the greatest positive impact on air quality. An 
important dimension to the CMAQ program is the Public/Private 
Partnership Program that provides a mechanism through which the private 
sector may access CMAQ funding. The Association is supportive of full 
funding for the CMAQ program.

Clean Fuels Program
    In TEA-21, Congress authorized a $60 million electric and hybrid 
electric bus deployment program as part of the Federal Transit 
Administration's (FTA) Clean Fuels Formula Grants program. During the 
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 appropriations processes, funding 
for the Clean Fuels program was merged with funding for the bus and 
bus-related facilities program. Combining these programs allowed 
Congress, during the appropriations process, to substantially increase 
the pool of authorized funds that could then be designated to specific 
projects. The Association encourages the Committee to appropriate 
funds, as authorized, for the conduct of competitive solicitations to 
test and demonstrate electric and hybrid electric buses.
    The EVAA also believes that it is important for the Federal Transit 
Administration to issue guidance on the implementation of the Clean 
Fuels Program. The issuance of guidance documents would help to focus 
attention on the jeopardy to technology development if projects are 
designated specifically for funding and then implemented without regard 
to standards, common goals or technology transfer.

                               CONCLUSION

    The Association appreciates the opportunity to make its concerns 
known to the Subcommittee and to submit for the record its funding 
priorities for the upcoming fiscal year.
                                 ______
                                 

 Prepared Statement of the Regional Transportation Commission of Clark 
                             County, Nevada

                              INTRODUCTION

    The Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, Nevada 
(RTC) is pleased to have the opportunity to submit this testimony to 
the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee in support of our fiscal 
year 2001 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 now carries more than 51.6 million annual passengers and 
recovers nearly 50 percent of its operating and maintenance costs from 
the farebox.

                               COMMUNITY

    The Las Vegas community is currently home to over 1.3 million 
permanent residents. With 17 of the world's largest resort hotels 
adding over 32 million annual visitors, the actual population of Las 
Vegas on any given day exceeds 1.5 million persons. Meanwhile, the Las 
Vegas metropolitan area continues to experience explosive growth. 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 175,000 new jobs and 
has witnessed the influx of over 500,000 new residents to the valley. 
Current projections indicate that population and employment will 
continue to increase, exceeding 2.1 million residents and over 1 
million jobs by the year 2020. Ensuring adequate mobility is essential 
to maintaining a superior quality of life for residents and a pleasant 
visitor experience.

                         CITIZENS AREA TRANSIT

    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. Annual CAT ridership has grown from 14.9 
million riders in 1993 to over 51.6 million riders in 1999; a growth 
rate of over 246 percent in only 7 years, catapulting CAT to the 25th 
largest bus system in the nation. Las Vegas is the fastest growing city 
in the United States, but the CAT system is growing at a rate faster 
than any other local economic indicators, including population, 
employment, hotel rooms, visitor volumes, airport passengers, vehicle 
miles traveled, and auto registrations.
    With 42 routes operating throughout the greater Las Vegas Valley, 
as well as routes in the rural communities of Laughlin and Mesquite, 
Nevada, CAT is now servicing over 4.5 million passengers per month. 
While the CAT routes operating along the high-profile Las Vegas 
Boulevard provide service to up to 900,000 passengers per month, these 
routes account for only 25 percent of the total monthly ridership. 
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 essential to the fabric of the Las Vegas 
community.
    To address the ever increasing demand for transit services, the RTC 
has continually increased bus service. Since startup, total annual 
hours of revenue service have almost doubled, from 585,134 hours in 
1993 to over 1.1 million hours in 1999. Similarly, annual vehicle miles 
have also doubled; from 6,384,660 miles in 1993 to over 14,500,000 
miles in 1999. In addition, the CAT system has continued to 
successfully increase ridership while remaining operationally 
efficient. Costs per passenger have dropped consistently since startup, 
to approximately $1.29 per passenger. 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. In 1998, and again in 1999, APTA again recognized the CAT 
system by awarding it the William T. Coleman Silver Safety Award for 
outstanding performance in traffic and passenger safety. For the past 
four years, the annual University of North Carolina, Charlotte 
Comparative Performance Report has also recognized CAT as one of the 
nation's top bus systems in terms of system performance.
    Although the CAT system has doubled service availability since 
startup, the demands for even more service continue to escalate. The 
urban boundaries of the Las Vegas Valley continue to push in all 
directions, creating new areas of growth and transit demand. In 
addition to under served areas, the frequency of service on most 
existing routes serving the residential base of the valley is 
substantially less then desired. The single largest constraint faced by 
the RTC to providing more service continues to be fleet availability. 
When compared to other peer cities, CAT transports up to 3 times the 
number of passengers per vehicle.

        BUS PASSENGER FACILITIES (HENDERSON INTERMODAL FACILITY)

    The RTC is requesting $6 million in Section 5309 bus discretionary 
funds for land acquisition and facility construction for an Intermodal 
facility located in Henderson, Nevada.
    With over 51.6 million annual passengers using the CAT system, 
passenger comfort and convenience are essential components to 
maintaining transit's viability as an alternative mode of 
transportation. To enhance customer amenities and facilitate transfers 
between routes, the RTC plans to build a network of terminal/transfer 
facilities throughout the Las Vegas Valley. These 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. In 
addition to the Downtown Transportation Center (DTC), the RTC is in the 
process of siting a second terminal transfer facility at the southern 
end of the Las Vegas Strip. An Environmental Analysis has been 
performed on the South Strip site and RTC has received a Finding Of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) on the site. RTC is now engaged in the land 
acquisition process and will soon be moving forward with final site 
design and construction.
    In the southeast area of the Las Vegas Valley, five CAT routes 
provide services in the Henderson area. Until recently, these five 
routes utilized private property belonging to a local casino as a ``de 
facto'' terminal area. However, new ownership at the property recently 
refused CAT's continued use of the property. Currently, the five CAT 
routes are now using on street parking as a layover/transfer area, with 
no nearby amenities or facilities. Clearly, a dedicated facility in the 
Henderson area has become a priority for CAT services.
    RTC has issued an RFP for consulting services to locate an 
appropriate site for a dedicated CAT terminal in Henderson, as well as 
to perform all necessary environmental analysis. By the end of calendar 
year 2000, a preferred site will be identified. Acquisition and 
construction funding will allow RTC to proceed with this project as 
expediently as possible.

              BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

    The RTC also requests $7 million in Section 5309 bus discretionary 
or Research and Technology funds for the implementation of a Bus Rapid 
Transit (BRT) project in the Las Vegas Valley.
    Overall ridership on CAT has increased by over 246 percent since 
its inception in 1992 and some CAT routes have shown even greater 
increases, operating in excess of 200 percent of available capacity. 
This significant ridership demand, coupled with the unique Las Vegas 
environment and climate, create a distinct opportunity for the 
implementation of new bus technologies and transit services.
    The RTC is interested in the use of new and innovative technologies 
to improve capacity, increase efficiency, and meet the ever increasing 
needs for mass transit in the Las Vegas Valley. Toward this end, the 
RTC is beginning the process of planning for the deployment of new Bus 
Rapid Transit services. Specifically, RTC is developing operational 
plans to deploy a high capacity vehicle with low floor accessibility, 
perimeter seating, and off vehicle fare collection. In addition, RTC is 
focusing on emerging technologies that utilize alternate fuels and 
provide opportunities to reduce roadway spaces and minimize costly 
traffic engineering improvements. From a research perspective, the most 
significant element of the BRT project is the potential usage of an 
automated guidance system. This guidance system will assist coach 
operators in the approach to a bus stop and aligning the actual 
stopping point of the vehicle at the bus stop. The service advantages 
of such a system in BRT operations include maintaining close curb 
distances, ensuring that vehicle doors are aligned with loading/exiting 
areas, and eliminating gaps between the vehicle and the platform 
stopping area.
    The development of a reserved right of way for bus rapid transit 
technologies is a new concept for the Las Vegas Valley. Las Vegas Blvd 
North has been identified for the project due to the high demand for 
transit in this corridor, the available right of way, as well as the 
ability to determine the impacts of the reserved lane on automotive 
traffic. In fact, CAT route 113 which serves Las Vegas Blvd North is a 
key link in getting workers to the new jobs being generated in the 
rapidly growing resort industry.

                  FLEET EXPANSION--CLEAN FUEL VEHICLES

    The RTC requests the sum of $6 million in Section 5309 bus 
discretionary funds or Clean Fuels program funds for the purchase of 25 
CNG powered 40 foot vehicles to be dedicated to fixed route service. 
The CAT fleet consists of 297 fixed route vehicles and 120 CNG powered 
Paratransit vehicles. 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 in December 1994, 
the RTC mandated the entire paratransit fleet use an alternative fuel. 
As a result, the RTC is currently the largest single sponsor of an 
alternative fuel fleet in the State of Nevada. The RTC directly 
contracts with a CNG wholesaler for the purchase of CNG fuel at the 
lowest possible cost.
    In 1999, the CAT fixed route fleet provided over 14,500,000 miles 
of revenue service throughout the Las Vegas Valley. The fixed route 
fleet currently provides almost double the operating miles per vehicle 
than most other transit agencies. In addition to the need for vehicles 
for fleet expansion, RTC aims to diversify the fixed route fleet to 
also include alternative fueled vehicles.

                             FIXED GUIDEWAY

    The RTC is requesting $2.5 million in Section 5309 new starts 
funding for continuing environmental studies and engineering for the 
Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway project. During the past year, the RTC 
continued to engage in project definition activities, technical studies 
in support of an environmental document, and preliminary engineering 
activities. Most notably, the RTC adopted a Financial Plan that 
utilizes STP and CMAQ funds, and capitalizes on local private equity 
investments and the expected substantial ridership levels and revenues.

                               CONCLUSION

    The Subcommittee has been very helpful in the past in recognizing 
the ever increasing transit needs in Clark County. Consistent with that 
past history, the RTC requests that the Subcommittee give positive 
consideration to the projects described in this testimony. 
Specifically, the RTC requests funding from Section 5309 in the amount 
of $6 million for Bus Passenger Facilities; $7 million for a Bus Rapid 
Transit emerging technology project, $6 million for transit bus 
alternative fuel fleet expansion, and $2.5 million for continuing 
activities related to the Resort Corridor fixed guideway project. As 
shown in this testimony, these projects are indispensable to the 
comprehensive development of an integrated intermodal transportation 
system capable of meeting the needs of the fastest growing city in the 
United States.
                                 ______
                                 

     Prepared Statement of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority

    Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Phil Gramm jointly submit this 
written testimony on behalf of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) 
Authority. It is indeed a pleasure to reaffirm our support of DART and 
to recommend to the Subcommittee their fiscal year 2001 appropriation 
request of $100 million for the North Central Light Rail Transit (LRT) 
Extension, purchase of transit buses, aquisition of property for the 
Southeast Corridor, and DART's ITS Program. The request is for 
inclusion in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal 
Highway Administration Intelligent Transportation Systems portion of 
the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
budget.
    For fiscal year 2001, DART is requesting from the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA) discretionary funding program, $70 million for the 
North Central Light Rail Transit (LRT) Extension, which is an 
installment of the $333 million Federal Share for the North Central 
Corridor Full Funding Grant Agreement between DART and FTA. The $70 
million of New Start funds will be dedicated to the North Central LRT 
Extension of the 20-mile DART LRT Starter System. The funds will be 
used totally for construction elements, light rail vehicles, and real 
estate. Completion of the 12-mile North Central LRT Extension and the 
companion 12-mile Northeast LRT Extension (100 percent local funds) 
will more than double light rail coverage, to 44 miles, and penetrate 
the DART suburban cities of Richardson, Plano, and Garland.
    DART is requesting $10 million in FTA capital funds for the 
purchase of transit buses. DART's Business Plan approves the multi-year 
replacement of 740 buses under three contracts. The first contract has 
been awarded for 489 buses which are currently being delivered to DART. 
In fiscal year 2000, two additional contracts will be awarded for the 
remaining 251 buses with deliveries in fiscal year 2001. The $10 
million appropriation will be immediately obligated and expended for 
the fiscal year 2001 bus deliveries.
    Nine stations are planned for the Southeast Corridor of DART's LRT 
System Project, seven of which will require the acquisition of 
additional real estate in order to provide for patron parking areas 
and/or busbays. The acquisition of this real estate is estimated to 
cost approximately $10 million. DART is requesting $10 million for 
property acquisition.
    DART's approved Transit System Plan calls for deployment of 
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). DART is requesting $10 
million from the Federal Highway Administration Intelligent 
Transportation Systems funding program.

      WHY THE SUBCOMMITTEE SHOULD APPROPRIATE $100 MILLION TO DART

    Full Funding Grant Agreement Approved.
  --DART and FTA agreed on a $333 million Federal Share for the North 
        Central Corridor.
  --The President's fiscal year 2001 FTA budget contains a line item of 
        $70 million for the North Central Corridor, which is an 
        installment of the $333 million Federal Share for the North 
        Central Corridor Full Funding Grant Agreement between DART and 
        FTA.
    The North Central LRT Extension is under construction.
  --The $70 million is needed immediately to meet cash flow 
        requirements for contracts authorized under a FTA Letter of No 
        Prejudice (LONP).
  --DART has already awarded contracts totaling more than $298 million 
        for the NC-3 Line Section, 21 new light rail vehicles, real 
        estate, welded rail and fasteners, special trackwork, the 
        vehicle maintenance facility, and yard expansion.
  --By the end of fiscal year 2000, virtually all the contracts, valued 
        at close to $1 billion for both the North Central and Northeast 
        (100 percent local funds) LRT Extensions will have been 
        awarded.
    DART initiated construction before executing the Full Funding Grant 
Agreement because of a citizen-approved sales tax.
  --The citizens of the DART service area in 1983 voted to impose a 1 
        percent sales tax dedicated to DART for public transit.
  --A total of $3.18 billion has been collected through December 31, 
        1999, with $332.7 million received in fiscal year 1999.
  --DART uses sales tax receipts and short-term borrowing to finance 
        the initiation of construction; but, The timely receipt of 
        federal funds is critical to repaying these short-term notes 
        and minimizing the additional expenses associated with 
        borrowing funds before receipt of the federal funds.
    DART continues to overmatch.
  --The $860 million LRT Starter system was financed with 19 percent 
        ($160 million) federal and 81 percent ($700 million) local DART 
        funds.
  --The combined $992 million construction cost of the two LRT 
        extensions continues DART's philosophy of providing a 
        substantial local overmatch, as was done on the LRT Starter 
        System.
  --DART local funds ($659 million) represent 66 percent of the total 
        project cost, with federal discretionary new start funds 
        accounting for just $333 million (34 percent).
    Solid elected official and business support.
  --Richardson Mayor Gary Slagel, Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Mary Poss, and 
        several business executives DART member cities have met with 
        most of the Delegation Members to voice their strong support 
        for the investment DART is making to bring major mobility 
        improvements to North Texas.
  --DART member cities and service area chambers of commerce have shown 
        their support by writing letters and passing supporting 
        resolutions.
  --DART, the City of Richardson, Hunt Petroleum, and Northern Telecom 
        are incorporating a rail transit plaza in the Galatyn Park 
        expansion of the Telecom Corridor.
    DART is an economic engine to North Texas and the state.
  --DART is providing a hefty boost to the North Texas and state 
        economies, with a total regional impact estimated at $3.7 
        billion and more than 32,000 jobs through 2003.
  --The new study prepared by the Center for Economic Development and 
        Research at the University of North Texas looks at three 
        separate DART economic engines: the current $1 billion light 
        rail expansion, other capital projects, and ongoing DART 
        operations.
    DART rail boosts property values and retail sales.
  --Values of property near DART light rail stations are 25 percent 
        higher than for similar properties not served by the growing 
        rail system, according to a new study. DART has also helped 
        occupancies and retail sales, especially in Downtown Dallas.
    The LRT Starter System was built on time and within budget.
  --DART has shown that it can capably manage a large, multi-million 
        dollar project, keep it on schedule and within budget through 
        strong project management and strict cost control.
  --DART has proven to be a cost-effective manager of both local and 
        limited federal funds through conservative financial policies 
        instituted and approved by the DART Board.
    Since the opening of Light Rail in June 1996, private developers 
have invested more than $800 million of private funds along the 20-mile 
Light Rail System.

                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Major Accomplishments
    DART operates a highly successful 20-mile light rail transit system 
within Dallas, and a 10-mile commuter rail line between Dallas and 
Irving. In addition to the rail services, DART operates a variety of 
transportation alternatives including high occupancy vehicle (HOV) 
lanes, 130 bus routes, paratransit services for the mobility impaired, 
rideshare programs and corporate trip-reduction programs. These multi-
modal systems are the result of thorough corridor planning and 
implementing the right mode to match the corridor characteristic and 
ridership. A mix of high capacity systems is being implemented and 
operated in the Dallas area. This mix includes HOV lanes that are 
planned, designed, built, and operated in partnership with the Texas 
Department of Transportation.

Exceeding Expectations
    DART's new LRT and commuter rail services are generating ridership 
well beyond initial projections, with more than 41,000 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 actively 
supporting efforts to expand the rail system in a timely manner, in 
accordance with the DART Transit System Plan. The citizens of North 
Texas are eager for DART to complete these major transportation 
projects in a timely and fiscally responsible fashion.

DART Rail Generates Major Real Estate Impact
    The investment in DART is paying off. Through early 2000, more than 
$800 million in private funds has been invested in development along 
DART's $860 million, 20-mile Light Rail Starter System. Throughout the 
DART Service Area, investors and developers are following DART rail 
lines for the fastest track to successful developments.

DART is an economic engine to North Texas and the State of Texas
    According to a February 1999 study prepared by the Center for 
Economic Development and Research at the University of North Texas, 
DART is providing a hefty boost to the North Texas and state economies, 
with a total regional impact estimated at $3.7 billion and more than 
32,000 jobs through 2003. The study looks at three separate DART 
economic engines: the current $1 billion light rail expansion, other 
capital projects, and ongoing DART operations. Quoting from the study, 
``By any measure, DART is a key economic engine for the North Texas 
region, generating jobs and economic activity just in the amount of 
money it spends on building new facilities and operating activities. If 
we factored in the benefits DART brings by providing inexpensive 
transportation to work and improved traffic and air quality, the number 
would be even higher.''

Miles to Go
    DART's Transit System Plan calls for the development of 93 miles of 
light rail, 22 miles of commuter rail, and 110 miles of HOV lanes. The 
Financial Plan portion of the fiscal year 1999 Business Plan projects 
the sources and uses of funds for DART's projects through the next 20 
years. The Financial Plan projects $7.3 billion in locally funded 
operating expenses and a total of $4.6 billion in capital costs. 
Because of DART's one-cent sales tax, it has been Board policy to use 
the local funds for transit operations and DART has never sought or 
received Federal operating assistance. Therefore, federal funding 
accounts for only 19 percent of capital investments and 9 percent of 
overall expenditures.

                               CONCLUSION

    The citizens of the DART service area have invested their sales tax 
dollars to implement the Transit System Plan. The $100 million request 
is realistic based on the Board-approved DART fiscal year 1999 Business 
Plan, which also has been examined by many of the finance directors of 
DART's member cities.
    As the Subcommittee deliberates the hundreds of funding requests, 
remember:
  --DART and FTA agreed on a $333 million Federal Share for the North 
        Central Corridor.
  --The North Central LRT Extension is under construction.
  --$298 million in contracts have been awarded.
  --DART initiated construction before executing the Full Funding Grant 
        Agreement, because of sales tax revenues.
  --DART continues to overmatch (66 percent local, 34 percent federal).
  --There is solid elected official and business support.
  --DART is an economic engine to North Texas and the State of Texas.
  --The LRT Starter System was built on-time and within budget.
    These are very compelling reasons to honor DART's $100 million 
request that has our complete support. We urge your endorsement of 
DART's fiscal year 2001 funding request of $100 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.
                                 ______
                                 

Prepared Statement of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) 
         and the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD)

    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate this 
opportunity to submit written testimony, as prepared by the Colorado 
Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Denver Regional 
Transportation District (RTD), to discuss important transportation 
issues in the Denver metro area. It is with pleasure that we present to 
you our fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriation needs.
    First, we want to thank you for the subcommittee's continued 
support for the Denver Regional Transportation District's Southwest 
Corridor Light Rail Project. The project is scheduled to open July 
2000. Its Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) requires a final 
appropriation of $20.4 million to complete the project's federal 
funding, and we would urge you to provide these remaining funds. It is 
a project that is on time and on budget.
    Second, we are grateful for the $2.94 million in funding you 
provided in fiscal year 2000 for the Southeast Corridor. These funds 
were used for preliminary engineering. An appropriation of $63 million 
is requested for the Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project for fiscal 
year 2001. The Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project team is working 
aggressively to meet project readiness criteria, as established by the 
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), so that an approval of the FFGA 
can be accomplished by the summer of 2000.
    The $63 million requested in fiscal year 2001 for the Southeast 
Corridor Multi-Modal Project light rail transit line will cover 
critical right-of-way acquisitions, early utility relocation, and 
critical items for federal funding. Last November, voters 
overwhelmingly approved both state and local bond initiatives to 
provide local funding for the multi-modal project to decrease traffic 
congestion on Denver's transportation system.
    There are two elements to this multi-modal project--highway and 
transit. The highway element of the project will include additional 
lanes and safety single project, single design and single construction 
improvements. The project will also include 19 miles of new double-
track light rail which will run on the west side of Interstate 25 for 
15 miles from the existing Broadway station in Denver to Lincoln Avenue 
in Douglas County and within the median of Interstate 225 for four 
miles from Interstate 25 to Parker Road.
    The Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project connects the two largest 
employment centers in the region and the State. Together the Denver 
Central Business District and the Southeast Business District employees 
over 230,000 people. The Southeast Business District alone generates 25 
percent of the annual sales revenue of the State.
    The Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project is a joint effort and 
partnership of four agencies. Interagency agreements are in place 
between CDOT, RTD and additionally between the Federal Transit 
Administration and the Federal Highway Administration. It is a single 
design and single construction of both highway and transit. We are 
working cooperatively and collaboratively together on a ``ONE DOT'' 
approach to ensure that we deliver this project on time and within 
budget.
    Completion of the Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project is vital 
in helping Colorado address the challenges we face from rapid growth. 
Moving forward with the Multi-Modal Project will go a long way in 
demonstrating the Federal Government's commitment and support for 
communities that look toward the future in meeting the long-term 
mobility needs for the people of Colorado. We seek your support for our 
fiscal year 2001 Appropriation Requests of $20.4 million to complete 
our FFGA for the Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project and $63 million 
for the Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we thank you for this 
opportunity to provide you with this written testimony regarding these 
significant Colorado transportation projects.
                                 ______
                                 

        Prepared Statement of the Chatham Area Transit Authority

    Mr. Chairman and Member of the Subcommittee, on behalf of Chatham 
Area Transit Authority (CAT), I appreciate the opportunity to present 
this statement in the hearing record for outside witnesses.
    First I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the funds provided 
over the past four years for CAT's transit needs. CAT officials and 
riders sincerely appreciate your efforts on our behalf.
    At this point, it is anticipated that CAT will obligate the bulk of 
prior year appropriations before the end of this calendar year.
    For fiscal year 2001, CAT is requesting $8 million for (1) 
Renovation and refurbishment of CAT's existing administrative and 
service/repair facility ($1,000,000); and (2) Desperately needed bus 
replacement funds ($7 million). In addition, CAT requests that $750,000 
be allocated to the CAT system under the Access to Jobs provisions of 
the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations Bill. Each component 
is discussed below.

                        CENTRAL FACILITY REPAIR

    The CAT central facility, which houses both administrative offices 
and our bus repair and service functions, is in desperate need of 
renovation and refurbishment. The facility has not received any major 
improvements since CAT began operating from this location in 1984. The 
needed improvements include the following: Safety and Code 
improvements; Lighting and security improvements; Utilities upgrades 
(water and natural gas); Pavement repairs; Improved operational 
sequence; Drainage improvements; and Roof repairs.

                            BUS REPLACEMENT

    Currently over half of CAT's bus fleet have accumulated over 
500,000 miles per vehicle. This puts these buses beyond their useful 
and designed life. None of the buses that require replacement meet the 
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The fiscal 
year 2000 Appropriations of $2.5 million for the beginning of CAT's bus 
replacement needs will permit less than 50 percent of the replacement 
goal to be met. As each year passes, the percentage of CAT's bus fleet 
that becomes outmoded increases significantly. The total funding needed 
to replace these buses is now in excess of $12 million. CAT is seeking 
$7 million of the total need in fiscal year 2001. Without this infusion 
of additional funds for escalating bus replacement needs, CAT will (1) 
fall behind capability to deliver existing service to our riders, much 
less meet the growing ridership demand we have been experiencing for 
the past three years, and (2) fail to provide service required under 
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

                             ACCESS TO JOBS

    CAT provides transportation to and from work for a large segment of 
the service area. The use of mass transit for these purposes makes CAT 
eligible for additional funding under the Job Access funding category. 
In prior years, this category had been available on an application 
basis. Recently, only those systems identified in the appropriations 
conference agreements have been recipients of these funds. In fiscal 
year 1999, CAT received a competitive grant for access to jobs. These 
funds are used under a public/private partnership to provide 
transportation to CAT riders traveling to and from work. These funds 
will expire soon, and the community has expressed its desire to 
maintain this program. CAT requests that $750,000 be identified for CAT 
in this funding category for fiscal year 2001.

                               CONCLUSION

    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 last year. We earnestly and sincerely request that you 
consider carefully CAT's defensible and justifiable request for $8 
million for buses and bus related facilities, and $750,000 for Access 
to Jobs from the Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 2001.
                                 ______
                                 

         Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, Florida

    Mr. chairman and members of the Transportation subcommittee: On 
behalf of Miami Beach, I thank you for the opportunity to present 
testimony to the subcommittee.
    The City respectfully submits a transportation-related project for 
a discretionary earmark through the Federal Transit Administration, 
within the fiscal year 2001 transportation appropriations bill. The 
City-proposed earmark of ten million dollars will be used toward the 
construction of a storage and maintenance facility/intermodal transit 
station that will support the existing and future electric shuttle 
service, known as the electrowave. FTA funds may also be used for 
right-of-way acquisition, if needed.
    Miami Beach is internationally known as a major tourist and 
convention destination, as well as a successful and economically 
healthy island community--which is undergoing a true renaissance. This 
renaissance, however, has also brought congestion to our limited 
roadway system. The City's response to the increasing congestion 
problem is the provision of a reliable and attractive public transit 
option, the Electrowave Shuttle Service. The existing shuttle route has 
been operated by a fleet of seven (7) vehicles, carrying over 2.5 
million passengers in two years of service. Its success is undeniable 
and unprecedented.
    This fleet will soon grow to eleven (11) vehicles, allowing for the 
operation of an enhanced route that will extend service to the hotel 
area of Miami Beach, which has over 20,000 rooms. However, eleven (11) 
vehicles is the maximum number that the existing shuttle facility can 
accommodate and maintain. If the Electrowave Service is to expand 
further and accomplish its mission of reducing congestion citywide, it 
is essential that a permanent facility be constructed to accommodate, 
at a minimum, a fleet of twenty (20) vehicles.
    The intermodal station component of this project will function as a 
transportation collector for the area, where commuters and visitors 
will have access to an information center, and to local and regional 
transit services. Pending lot size and location, the facility will also 
accommodate parking that will support a park-and-ride program. the 
park-and-ride concept was proved successful during the millennium 
celebrations, carrying 17,200 customers over the holiday weekend.
    The City is conducting a site selection study for this shuttle 
facility/transit station project, which will also explore the potential 
for on-site economic development and joint mixed-use opportunities.
    The electrowave is included in the five-year transportation 
improvement program of Miami-Dade County, and has the financial support 
of the City of Miami Beach, the Florida Department of Transportation, 
the FTA/Miami-Dade Transit Agency, the Metropolitan Planning 
Organization, the Florida Power & Light Company, and other clean air 
and energy agencies.
    A $10 million, fiscal year 2001 discretionary FTA fund earmark 
toward the shuttle facility/transit center project is critical to the 
long-term effectiveness of the electrowave program, and to the 
continued attractiveness and economic vitality of a 21st century Miami 
Beach.
    Your consideration is sincerely appreciated.
                                 ______
                                 

          Prepared Statement of the City of Newark, New Jersey

    Chairman Shelby and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 
giving me the opportunity to present testimony on projects within your 
jurisdiction which are critical to the people of Newark, New Jersey and 
the surrounding region. The support of this Committee has been critical 
in the past, and we wholeheartedly thank you for your aid to projects 
that have truly impacted on the people of Newark and our economy. 
Newark's transportation infrastructure needs are critical to enabling 
us to maintain our position as a regional center for commerce, 
government and entertainment.
    Newark is truly at a crossroads: we are a City with all of the 
problems of many major urban centers, but we are also a City with vast 
potential, and there is a renewed vitality and sense of optimism in 
Newark. As the physical crossroads of the Northeast Corridor, the 
future economic viability of Newark is inextricably dependent upon the 
continued modernization and expansion of our intermodal transportation 
system. Improvements to our roadway network, our rail system, and our 
port and airport facilities will directly translate into jobs and 
economic prosperity for our City, State and Region.
    The construction of major new facilities, including the three year 
old New Jersey Performing Arts Center, our minor league baseball 
stadium which opened last summer, and the Joseph G. Minish Passaic 
Riverfront Park and Historic Area--on which the Army Corps of Engineers 
has begun construction--are all related to the proximity and 
effectiveness of our transportation network. The repopulation of older 
office buildings, and construction of new ones, is occurring in large 
part due to the ease of access for commuters. Your help on 
transportation funding has improved access to not only the downtown 
business, arts and entertainment district, but also the rapidly growing 
Newark Airport/Port Newark complex. The success of University Heights, 
where four institutions of higher learning provide educational 
opportunities to over 50,000 commuter students per day, is also 
directly related to the ease of access to the highway system.
    We are working to further capitalize on the existing transportation 
infrastructure by connecting current and proposed facilities with the 
Newark Elizabeth Rail Link. The first segment of the Newark Elizabeth 
Rail Link (NERL) will soon be under construction, thanks to your 
previous support. The first operable segment will provide the missing 
link between downtown Newark's two train and bus transportation nodes. 
It will be a 0.94 mile connection between the Broad Street Station, 
where trains from the western suburbs enter the City, and Newark Penn 
Station, on the Northeast corridor line and the central hub for New 
Jersey Transit trains and buses. There will be three new stations on 
this segment--Broad Street Station, Washington Park/Riverfront Stadium, 
and NJ Performing Arts Center/Center Street--which connect sites 
mentioned above, as well as our renowned Newark Museum and Newark 
Public Library, that are crucial to Newark's economic and cultural 
growth. The line then will enter a portal where it will connect with 
the existing City Subway tunnel to access Penn Station, which I will 
discuss further in a moment. At full build-out, the NERL is planned to 
be an 8.8 mile, fifteen station light rail transit line linking 
downtown Newark with Newark International Airport and the City of 
Elizabeth.
    The NERL is an important and central component of our overall 
transportation plan. We are proud that a full funding agreement for 
this first operable segment of the Newark Elizabeth Rail Link has been 
submitted to the FTA, and the Administration has included funding for 
it in its budget. I respectfully ask this Committee to add its support 
to a $47.5 Million fiscal year 2001 allocation for this vital 
connection.
    An additional related transportation issue is the next critical 
step in our revitalization of Newark's downtown. Penn Station and the 
presence of AMTRAK facilities is a central feature of Newark's 
downtown/riverfront area. This station is the last northbound stop on 
the Northeast Corridor before New York City, and provides rail and bus 
linkages to the rest of New Jersey, and the region beyond. New Jersey 
Transit is doing an admirable job of renovating and modernizing the 
facility to accommodate increases in demand at the station, but the 
portion of the overall rail infrastructure that is owned and operated 
by AMTRAK is in great need of attention.
    The renovation and upgrading of AMTRAK property to better serve the 
City of Newark, its residents and visitors is a key factor in the 
City's economic development and transportation initiatives. The key 
property is at the south side of Penn Station, and improvements to it 
will be a worthy investment.
    The extension of the platforms at the southern end of Penn Station 
will enable passengers to exit the rail facility without having to 
navigate through passageways to exit through the station itself. This 
improvement will enable the connection of a pedestrian walkway to a 
planned economic development project, the new downtown sports and 
entertainment complex. With this extension, an old abandoned railroad 
bridge and right of way will be transformed into a productive 
pedestrian corridor, linking passengers to a recently planned 
intermodal transportation facility that will be housed adjacent to the 
new sports facility. The project will help to revitalize the southern 
portion of Broad Street--which is Newark's main commercial corridor--
just as other transportation projects have facilitated the renaissance 
of the upper Broad Street area. The estimated cost for the platform 
extension is $20 million, and I ask your support for funding to plan 
and implement this exciting undertaking.
    The assistance of this committee in funding these projects is 
vital. The Newark Elizabeth Rail Link and the Penn Station/AMTRAK 
facilities improvements are critical links in Newark's transportation 
network, and your support for them is crucial to our continued economic 
development. Your attention and consideration of the needs of Newark, 
New Jersey are deeply appreciated, and I thank you for your time.
                                 ______
                                 

                      Prepared Statement of Metra

                             METRA OVERVIEW

    Metra, the second largest commuter rail system in the U.S., 
provides service to north-eastern Illinois on twelve lines that serve 
more than 120 communities with 240 stations and a stop at O'Hare 
International Airport. The Metra system covers a territory the size of 
Connecticut with a population of 7.5 million. Each week, Metra provides 
nearly 4000 revenue trains and carries more than 1.5 million riders, 96 
percent of whom use the system to go to and from work. On-time 
performance has been well above 95 percent every year of Metra's 
existence.
    Metra has consistently been rated the best commuter rail service in 
the country. In 1996, Metra was the recipient of the first APTA award 
as the outstanding commuter rail operation. Metra has always emphasized 
the development of internal operations that contribute to this overall 
excellence. In 1995 and 1998, Metra received successive triennial 
reviews from FTA that had no findings or follow-ups required.

                METRA'S FISCAL YEAR 2001 FUNDING REQUEST
 
   In the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations legislation, 
Metra is seeking $75 million in section 5309 New Start funds to 
continue work on its Metra 2000 Capital program that extends and 
upgrades three lines on the Metra system. They are the North Central 
Service (Wisconsin Central), Union Pacific West Line to Elburn, and the 
SouthWest Service to Manhattan.
    For fiscal year 2000, Metra received $25 million in New Starts 
funds for all three projects. These funds will be used for engineering 
and design, track and signal work, and land acquisition. These funds 
will also enable Metra to enter into Full Funding Grant Agreements 
(FFGA) with the FTA on all three projects this year, all of which were 
included in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget.
    Of the $75 million in Metra's fiscal year 2001 funding request, $35 
million is slated for the North Central line. The funds will be used 
for design, track and signal work and construction of new stations and 
parking. $25 million is for the Union Pacific West Line, and will also 
be used for design, track and signal work, and station and parking 
construction. $15 million of the fiscal year 2001 request will be for 
the Southwest Corridor for engineering and design work, track and 
signal work, and stations and parking.

                        FEDERAL/STATE COST SHARE

    The total cost of the three projects is $735,348,000. The federal 
share of this project is $343,215,000, or 47 percent. The local share 
is $392,133,000, or 53 percent. This is a very favorable federal/state 
cost share, with the recognition by Metra to utilize as much of their 
own local resources as possible to build these three very vital 
transportation projects.

Fiscal Year 2001 Combined Capital Costs Metra Capital Improvement 
Program

Federal New Start:      [In thousands of dollars]
    Engineering & Design......................................    11,393
    Management & Inspection...................................     6,433
    Track & Signal............................................    57,000
    Storage Yards.............................................     5,000
    Stations & Parking........................................    13,923
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................    93,749
        Federal...............................................    75,000
        Local Match...........................................    18,750
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Additional local commitment:
    Land......................................................     5,500
    74th Street Connection (SWS)..............................    10,000
    Belt Flyover (SWS)........................................     6,000
    Track & Signal (NCS)......................................    10,000
    Stations & Parking........................................     2,475
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................    33,975
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Project Cost......................................   127,724
        Federal Share.........................................    75,000
        Local Share...........................................    52,725
        Percent Federal.......................................        59
        Percent Local.........................................        41
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.002

                     NORTH CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT

    Since the initiation of service in this corridor in 1996, the line 
has experienced unprecedented levels of ridership. Between 1997 and 
1998, ridership increased by almost 27 percent, the greatest increase 
on the Metra system. There is an acute need to double track the line 
and provide more frequent full day and weekend service to meet the 
demand. In addition, the freight traffic on the Wisconsin Central 
Railroad has also seen dramatic increases, exacerbating the problem for 
Metra. The corridor is experiencing rapid employment growth that is 
expected to continue over the next 20 years.
    The scope of the project on the North Central line will be an 
upgrade of commuter service from the existing ten trains per weekday 
schedule with only two mid-day trains and no weekend service to twenty-
two trains per weekday and provide increased train service during off-
peak periods. It also is hoped that limited weekend service will be 
achievable as part of this alternative.
    Capital improvements needed to provide the expanded service will 
include the following:
  --Twenty-six miles of new main line track on the Wisconsin Central, 
        Ltd. between the O'Hare Transfer Station and Mundelein;
  --Twelve miles of track, signal and station upgrades on three main 
        line tracks of the Milwaukee-West between Franklin Park and 
        Union Station in Chicago;
  --Four new stations at Franklin Park, Schiller Park, Rosemont, 
        Grayslake, and a transfer station at Deval Junction;
  --4,500 new parking spaces at proposed and existing stations;
  --Expansion of the Antioch and Western Avenue rail yards; and
  --One new train set (locomotive and coaches).
    The fiscal year 2001 funding request for the North Central line 
will begin work on station construction and track and signal work. The 
following is a detailed funding chart that outlines the scope of the 
project.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.003

                   UNION PACIFIC WEST LINE EXTENSION

    The western suburbs of the Chicagoland area have been experiencing 
tremendous growth over the last 20 years. They are expected to grow by 
nearly 60 percent by 2010. At the present time there is severe 
overcrowding at existing stations on the UP West line, especially in 
Geneva.
    The Union Pacific Railroad and Metra are planning long-term signal 
improvements to the major access route (UP West line) to Chicago. Great 
benefits will accrue to Metra commuter operations, as well as to 
freight operations. Some of these improvements will be included in the 
New Start project costs; the remainder will be paid for by the UP and 
Metra using their own funds.
    The project will provide an extension of commuter service to Elburn 
on the UP West line. It entails the same level of service to Elburn as 
currently available in Geneva, namely thirty-seven trains per weekday 
and weekend service.
    Capital improvements needed to extend service to Elburn will 
include the following:
  --Seven miles of a new third main line track on the Union Pacific 
        West line between Randall Road and Elburn;
  --Upgrades of train control systems and at-grade crossings along the 
        seven miles of track;
  --Two new stations at Elburn and LaFox;
  --1,600 new parking spaces at the proposed stations;
  --New train storage yards in Elburn; and
  --One new train set (locomotive and coaches).
    The fiscal year 2001 funding request for the UP West extension will 
be used for track and signal work, storage yards, and land acquisition. 
The following is a detailed funding chart that outlines the scope of 
the project.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.004

                SOUTHWEST SERVICE EXTENSION AND UPGRADE

    The SouthWest Service project will bring the line up to a full 
service route, providing double-tracking of the line and an eleven mile 
extension to Manhattan, serving Will County. This corridor, perhaps 
more than any other Metra service, has a continuing problem with 
freight interference. Metra has already undertaken a study of possible 
actions that might be taken to ease some of this interference. Metra 
has utilized $12.6 million of CMAQ formula funds and local monies for 
improvements to some of the bottlenecks with freight traffic. In 1999 
Metra included $20 million of its own funds for implementation of 
recommended improvements that arose from the study.
    The project provides for an upgrade to the existing service and 
extension of limited service to Manhattan in Will County. The upgrade 
of service on the SouthWest Service will provide approximately thirty 
trains per weekday to Orland Park. This will improve the frequency of 
trains during peak periods of travel and provide bi-hourly train 
service during off-peak periods. Four trains per weekday will be 
provided on the extension to Manhattan. Weekend train service to Orland 
Park will also be provided as part of the service upgrade.
    Capital Improvements needed to implement service expansions on the 
SWS will include the following:
  --Four miles of a new second main line track on the Norfolk Southern 
        between Palos Park and 143rd Street in Orland Park;
  --Rehabilitation of bridges between 40th and 74th Streets;
  --Upgrades of track, train control systems, and at-grade crossings 
        over 32 miles of right-of-way between 74th Street in Chicago 
        and Manhattan;
  --Two new stations and parking in the Manhattan area;
  --Improvements to existing stations and added parking capacity;
  --New train storage yard in Manhattan and expansion of existing yard 
        at 47th Street;
  --Relocation of the Chicago terminal to LaSalle Street Station;
  --Additional locomotives and coaches; and
  --Commuter and freight train interface improvements.
    The fiscal year 2001 funding request for the SouthWest Service 
extension will be used for engineering and design, track and signal 
work, and land acquisition. The following is a detailed funding chart 
that outlines the scope of the project.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.005

                                 ______
                                 

           Prepared Statement of Bi-State Development Agency

    Mr. Chairman I am pleased to report to you that your past support 
for the Missouri/Illinois MetroLink Light Rail system continues to be 
strongly vindicated. In 1992 the Bi-State Development Agency provided 
40 million rides to the public. In 1999 the combined bus and rail 
system provided over 53.6 million rides demonstrating that the bus 
system benefits greatly from MetroLink and that the combined bi-state 
system continues to attract a new discretionary market becoming more 
and more willing to use public transit. As you may recall, our original 
line was projected to attract 17,000 riders. The first year the system 
opened we far exceeded that number and today are attracting in excess 
of 44,000 riders a day that continues to grow.
    Since your committee has emphasized the importance of inter-modal 
connections we are also pleased to report that the two St. Louis 
Lambert International Airport Metro Link Stations were expected to 
generate about 800 riders a day and are instead generating over 3,200 a 
day and has proven to be a major tool being used by the St. Louis 
tourism and business community.
    This overwhelming acceptance and demand for additional service 
brings us to our fiscal year 2001 appropriations request of $60 million 
to continue the vital expansion of Metro Link into St. Clair County 
Illinois. This amount tracks the amount designated for the extension in 
our Full Funding Agreement with FTA. An early look at the popularity of 
this extension is evidenced by the fact that on the existing system, 
the most east-ward stop in East St. Louis, Illinois has generated so 
many riders trying to escape the bridge congestion into Missouri that 
the parking lot originally designed for 150 cars has been expanded to 
over 1,000 cars. Over 30 percent of the downtown St. Louis workers 
reside in Illinois.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, MetroLink has increased bus ridership by 6 
percent with the average age of our bus fleet exceeding nine years 
resulting in a tremendous need for assistance in modernizing our fleet. 
Therefore we are seeking a bus discretionary earmark of $15 million to 
continue our important modernization program.
    We thank you Mr. Chairman and all of the Members of the Committee 
for your past support as we strive to continue expanding this highly 
successful new rail start program.
                                 ______
                                 

Prepared Statement of Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, 
                                 Texas

                              INTRODUCTION

    My name is Robert Miller. I am Chairman of the Board of Directors 
of the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas, more 
commonly known as Houston METRO. I am pleased to report on the progress 
METRO has made in the past year to expand and enhance its public 
transportation services. METRO's fiscal year 2001 appropriations 
request builds on our past success while moving forward with aggressive 
plans to enhance the service we provide to our customers.
    1999 marked METRO's twentieth year as the Houston region's public 
transit agency. We are proud of the service we provide in the city of 
Houston and Harris County with our extensive network of buses, HOV 
lanes, transit centers, and park & ride facilities. Because METRO 
reduces highway congestion by 200,000 cars per day, everyone in the 
Houston region benefits from METRO regardless of whether they use the 
system.
    While METRO is proud of its current bus system, we have a real and 
immediate need to enhance our high capacity transit infrastructure in 
certain corridors. It is projected that our region will grow in 
population from 4.4 million in 1998 to 6.6 million in 2025, with 
employment increasing from 1.5 million to 2.5 million. These dramatic 
increases will put pressure on the public transit system that METRO 
must anticipate and address. METRO's ridership has grown twelve percent 
in the past two years alone. We believe our proposed capital projects 
and service enhancements will draw additional riders to our system.
    METRO, in partnership with the City of Houston, Harris County and 
the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) also operates a high-
tech transportation and emergency management center called Houston 
TranStar. This consortium was formed to prevent the duplication of 
traffic congestion efforts and coordinate the resources of the 
participating agencies.
    Houston TranStar is a control center that monitors and tracks 
traffic using Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) devices. Some of 
these include: a Computerized Freeway Transportation Management System, 
a Regional Computerized Traffic Signal System, a Motorist Assistance 
Program, and the HOV lane network and modernizing projects.
    One program that is part of Houston TranStar that helps elevate 
truck accidents is the Truck Safety system. This system identifies 
unsafe speed conditions for various vehicle sizes and weights, and 
initiates warning devices to prevent out-of-control accidents by these 
vehicles.
    METRO recognizes the importance of a strong transportation network 
to the economic vitality of the Houston region. As we begin the 21st 
century, METRO will complete construction of the various projects 
comprising the Regional Bus Plan (``RBP'') and move forward with the 
follow-on project--known as the Advanced Transit Program or the 
``ATP.''
    In 1999, METRO completed its Major Investment Study (MIS) for 
enhancing mobility in the Downtown to Astrodome Corridor. The MIS 
concluded that light rail in the corridor was the locally preferred 
Houston alternative, and the METRO Board of Directors unanimously 
adopted these findings. I can report to you first-hand that local 
enthusiasm for the rail project is overwhelming. METRO looks forward to 
working with Congress and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to 
build a rail line that will carry thousands of passengers to and from 
major business centers, medical facilities, universities, and cultural 
attractions. We believe the rail line will have an added benefit--it 
will reduce congestion in a city where pollution is a real issue. The 
seventeen planned stations along the corridor will serve major 
destinations, including downtown, midtown, University of Houston 
Downtown, the Texas Medical Center, Rice University, Hermann Park, the 
Museum district, and the Astrodome. We expect the rail project to 
trigger economic development along the corridor and, accordingly, local 
businesses led by the Main Street Coalition, have voiced strong support 
for this project. Residential and commercial developers see the 
potential for light rail to spur housing and commercial development. 
Over 60 local organizations have endorsed METRO's Millennium Mobility 
Plan and voiced support for the light rail transit project.
    Without Congress, METRO could not have made such significant 
progress on the rail project or many of its transit improvements. 
Congress voiced its support for the RBP by providing the full funding 
specified under the full funding grant agreement. Congress has also 
provided ATP funding which METRO has used for the LRT the MIS and 
preliminary engineering.
    METRO seeks to build the rail project with funds already 
appropriated under the RBP. In that regard, last fall the Federal 
Transit Administration entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
with METRO agreeing to amend the full funding grant agreement to 
include rail, when the project meets all of the statutory and 
regulatory requirements and after giving Congress the notice required 
under the law. We are confident that the Members of this Committee will 
recognize the tremendous benefits of the light rail project and support 
the full funding grant agreement amendment.
    Last year, I used the opportunity of submitting testimony to 
introduce our new President, Shirley A. DeLibero. As you can see from 
our progress this past year, Shirley's leadership, management skills, 
and enthusiasm have benefited both METRO and our customers. We are 
lucky to have Shirley to lead METRO in building our first rail line and 
continuing to build infrastructure to support our extensive high 
capacity bus system.

            FISCAL YEAR 2001 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES

    Regional Bus Plan--$10.86 million.--In fiscal year 2001, METRO 
seeks final payment under the RBP full funding grant agreement. METRO 
appreciates the overwhelming congressional support for this project, 
comprised of high capacity transit projects including an HOV lane, park 
& ride facilities, transit centers, buses for service expansion, and 
related infrastructure. The METRO Board of Directors initially adopted 
the RBP in 1992 as the comprehensive public transportation program for 
the region. We continue to work toward the objective of implementing 
approximately 40 individual projects whose independent utility provide 
incremental improvements in facilities and services as projects are 
completed. These projects include park and ride facilities, ramps and 
other street improvements, and transit stations connecting the light 
rail line to the network of bus routes.
    As I discussed earlier, we look forward to working with Congress 
and the Federal Transit Administration to incorporate construction of 
the Downtown to Astrodome light rail project within the Regional Bus 
Plan. This change to the full funding grant agreement is easily 
accomplished, will have no effect on the cost of either the RBP or ATP 
projects, and will not result in delays to any of the planned projects. 
In fact, the idea for the change arose when the local community decided 
it preferred a tollroad in Houston's Westpark Corridor instead of an 
HOV lane as included in the full funding grant agreement. Because METRO 
cannot build a tollroad with FTA funds, it sold a portion of the 
Westpark Corridor to the Harris County Tollroad Authority. This change 
freed up the bulk of the federal money needed to construct the rail 
project under the existing RBP full funding grant agreement. A 
tremendous benefit of this project substitution is that the funds are 
already appropriated.
    The federal share of the RBP full funding grant agreement is $500 
million. With a final payment of $10.86 million, the federal government 
will satisfy its commitment to the project.
    We at METRO are excited about the many benefits of the RBP, which 
is an example of how different projects work in different corridors. We 
have always involved the community in the planning process, this has 
resulted not only in an extensive and well-utilized HOV system, but in 
a light rail project, which has independent utility because of the many 
destinations it will serve and the potential home-to-work utilization. 
METRO remains committed to working with Congress and the local 
community to determine the most effective and efficient transit options 
to meet the region's growing needs.
    Advanced Transit Program--$28.1 million.--With RBP funding almost 
complete, METRO is excited to move forward with the ATP. The ATP builds 
on the successes of the RBP. Like the RBP, it is a program of 
individual projects which will each have independent utility. Because 
the ATP is a series of projects it will benefit many segments of our 
service area. Projects include transit centers and other improvements. 
While the Westchase Park & Ride facility construction and the clean 
fuel engine project were originally in the RBP, METRO now plans to 
construct them under the ATP without any compromise in schedule.
    Congress has recognized the importance of the ATP to the Houston 
region and appropriated almost $6 million in New Start funds for the 
project in fiscal years 1998 through 2000. METRO has used this funding 
for the Major Investment Study and to initiate PE on the light rail 
project, and to initiate the clean fuel engine project. For fiscal year 
2001 METRO is requesting $5 million in New Start funding to allow us to 
advance desperately needed transit improvements on the Katy Freeway and 
the West Loop. The improvements will insure that METRO can provide 
transit access which will complement TxDOT planned freeway improvements 
in this corridor.
    In addition, METRO is requesting $23.1 million in Section 5309 Bus 
funds for design and construction of several key ATP projects that are 
scheduled for implementation in fiscal year 2001-2003. These projects 
include the Gulfgate Transit Center, Hobby Transit Center, Westchase 
Park & Ride, and the Clean Fuels Engine Program.

                               CONCLUSION

    1999 has been an exciting year for Houston METRO and we look 
forward to building on our success as we embark on the new millennium. 
We operate a public transit system used by over 117 million people per 
year, and are constantly adapting our plans to best meet the future 
mobility needs of the people of Harris and surrounding counties. The 
federal investment in transit in Houston continues to benefit the 
millions of users who reach their destinations efficiently and the rest 
of the community by spawning economic growth in the downtown area and 
reducing congestion and pollution. As a business, METRO remains on 
sound financial footing with no debt and is committed to seeking 
innovative ways to operate more efficiently and contribute to the 
growth of the economy.
    Thank you for the opportunity to offer these remarks. METRO is 
prepared and looks forward to responding to any questions the Committee 
may have.
                                 ______
                                 

      Prepared Statement of the Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority

    Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the thousands of daily commuters who use 
the Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) in the South Florida 
region, I (Linda Bohlinger) would like to express my sincere 
appreciation of your support in funding the South Florida Rail Corridor 
Improvement Program in the past years.
    We are now requesting that the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations provide $30.0 million in New Starts 
funds for Segment 5 of our Double Track Corridor Improvement Program as 
part of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill for the Department of 
Transportation. This request is consistent with our Full Funding Grant 
Agreement (FFGA) financial plan for the Segment 5 Project. Tri-Rail's 
FFGA request is currently under review by your committee and other 
committees of jurisdiction. We are hopeful the committee will recommend 
FTA approve our request shortly. In addition, we are requesting $2.5 
million in Bus Program funds (Section 5309) be allocated to Tri-Rail.

                             ABOUT TRI-RAIL

    Mr. Chairman, the development of Tri-Rail must be understood within 
the context of the demographic changes occurring throughout South 
Florida since the 1970's. The South Florida region consists of the 
counties of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade. As a region, South 
Florida's population has more than doubled since 1970 to more than 4.7 
million people, and is expected to grow at a rate of 2 percent 
annually.
    As residential development out paced the provision of 
infrastructure improvements, public attention increasingly shifted to 
issues relating to regional mass transit and growth management. In 
response, the Florida Department of Transportation and the three 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the region formed the Tri-County 
Transportation Subcommittee in 1985. The subcommittee recommended that 
a commuter rail line be established and drafted a detailed action plan 
to implement the recommendations. In 1986, Tri-County Commuter Rail 
Organization was formed to begin the task of building a new commuter 
rail system. The Tri-County Commuter Rail Organization was the 
predecessor agency of the present Tri-Rail.
    In 1988, the State of Florida purchased an 81-mile corridor, later 
to be known as the South Florida Rail Corridor, from CSXT freight 
railroad for $264 million. The corridor runs from West Palm Beach to 
Miami. In a flurry of activity during 1988, rail vehicles and temporary 
funding was quickly assembled, and the Governor signed a bill creating 
Tri-Rail. On January 6, 1989, commuter rail service between West Palm 
Beach and Miami was initiated. This was the first commuter rail start-
up in North America in over 20 years.
    Today, Tri-Rail operates commuter rail service along 71.7-miles of 
the South Florida Rail Corridor. The Tri-Rail system is currently 
comprised of 18 stations, five in Miami-Dade County, seven in Broward 
County, and six in Palm Bach County. Services to these stations are 
provided by 28 weekday trains, 14 Saturday trains, and 12 Sunday 
trains. Additional trains are occasionally furnished for special 
events.

               DOUBLE TRACK CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

    During the first five years of Tri-Rail operations, ridership 
increased at a steady rate. During the initial year of operations, 
ridership averaged approximately 3,000 riders each weekday. In 1991, 
system ridership increased to approximately 7,200 weekday riders and by 
1993, average weekday ridership had grown to approximately 9,500.
    In 1995, Tri-Rail ridership started to decline. This decline was 
attributed to the over-capacity of the single mainline track in the 
corridor resulting in poor on-time performance. Along with Tri-Rail, 
the corridor is shared with CSXT freight service and Amtrak long-haul 
passenger service. Under this type of operating condition, Tri-Rail's 
ability to schedule commuter service is extremely difficult. Tri-Rail 
can only operate service on one-hour headways during peak periods.
    Mr. Chairman, thanks to Congress' investment in the federal transit 
program, Tri-Rail in 1995 initiated the first of five segments of its 
Double Track Corridor Improvement Program to address the corridor 
capacity issues. We are pleased to report, Segments 1 and 2 have been 
completed, Segment 3 is near completion and Segment 4 is in the final 
design phase. Today, we are asking the Subcommittee on Transportation 
to provide $30.0 million in New Starts funds for the final segment of 
the double track program--Segment 5.
    Once completed, the Double Track Corridor Improvement Program will 
reduce congestion on I-95, shorten average trip time lengths and 
provide travel alternatives in the largest travel market in South 
Florida. Upon completion of the program in March 2005, Tri-Rail will 
operate 20-minute headways. It is projected Tri-Rail ridership will 
jump to 43,132 annual new riders in 2015. Finally, the program will 
result in travel timesavings of 11.2 million annually and a 4.1 million 
reduction in daily vehicle trips. This program will directly benefit 
those businesses that rely on Tri-Rail to provide access to customers. 
It will also benefit the thousands of daily commuters in South Florida.

    Segment 5 Project
    Tri-Rail is undertaking a major capital improvement program to 
double track all 71.7-rail miles, with the objective of increasing 
speed, reliability, and safety along the corridor, and is expected to 
significantly increase current ridership. The scope of work covered by 
the Full Funding Grant Agreement consists of 44.31 miles of double 
track work (Segment 5). It includes the laying of a second mainline 
track, rehabilitation of the signal system, grade crossing 
improvements, station improvements, parking expansions, and rolling 
stock acquisition. The other portion of the overall double track 
program (approximately 27.39 miles) was divided into four segments, and 
is either completed, under construction, or under design.

                        SEGMENT 5 FINANCIAL PLAN

    Tri-Rail intends to complete the construction of the $327.0 million 
Project through the execution of a Full Funding Grant Agreement with 
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), under which FTA will provide 
$110.5 million in New Starts funds over the period fiscal year 2000-03. 
The balance of the funds are derived from the State of Florida ($70.0 
million in gas tax funds and $35.0 million in federal highway funds); 
the Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations ($22.2 million); Tri-Rail ($34.2 million in federal 
formula funds); and a private sector loan or revenue bond issuance 
($55.1 million).
    Mr. Chairman, this project is a very attractive and cost-effective 
new starts project, in that the total New Starts funds sought are 33 
percent of the funding being provided from non-discretionary resources 
(formula, flexible, and State funds); this is very high.
    The Segment 5 Financial Plan calls for $30.0 million in New Starts 
funds for fiscal year 2001. Allocation of the full amount will ensure 
the project's construction schedule can be maintained and our 
contractual obligations under the FFGA can be met.

                  RELIABILITY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

    The phased approach used by Tri-Rail in the construction of the 
double track program provides a level of reliability in the Segment 5 
Project cost estimate that is unusual in new starts projects. The 
initial four segments of the Double Track Corridor Improvement Program 
each involve the design and construction of track, signals, and 
stations. As a result, the same basic scope of work has been repeated, 
from segment to segment, in what could be viewed as a series of smaller 
projects. Segments 1 and 2 have been completed, Segment 3 is near 
completion and Segment 4 is in the final design phase. With Tri-Rail's 
past experience with Segments 1 through 4, Tri-Rail knows the actual 
cost per mile of the track work and the actual cost of specific station 
improvements.
    Tri-Rail has the benefit of having actually incurred construction 
costs in the same alignment and under the same conditions, which allow 
Tri-Rail to base its cost estimates for the FFGA Project. This cost 
experience was supplemented by the analysis done during preliminary 
engineering for the FFGA Project and has provided Tri-Rail with highly 
reliable cost estimates.

                           FEEDER BUS PROGRAM

    Mr. Chairman, Tri-Rail is requesting $2.5 million in Bus Program 
funds (Section 5309). The funds will be used to acquire buses to 
support Tri-Rail's Feeder Bus Program. Tri-Rail's feeder bus service 
was initiated in conjunction with the commuter rail service in January 
1989.
    The current bus network serving Tri-Rail is a combination of 
service provided by the three local county bus operators in the South 
Florida region. In addition, Tri-Rail operates six of its own shuttle 
routes at various stations. With the requested funds, Tri-Rail will be 
able to place an additional 20 buses into service. Such service is 
needed to fully support the commuter rail system and ensure maximum 
ridership.
    The feeder and distribution bus network plays an essential role in 
complementing and supporting Tri-Rail's service. In many cases, Tri-
Rail riders are dependent on bus service to connect to their employment 
and/or residential destinations. Therefore, in order for Tri-Rail to 
improve its ridership, increased rail frequency (20 minute headways) 
will be largely insignificant without corresponding improvements in bus 
service. These improvements will include matching service frequency 
while ensuring reasonable wait times between bus and rail connections. 
Another key element is the balance between adequate area coverage and 
cost effectiveness.

                               CONCLUSION

    In closing, Mr. Chairman we again thank you for this opportunity to 
discuss before your Subcommittee the critical role Tri-Rail can and 
does play in providing transportation service to millions in South 
Florida. We urge your committee and other committees of jurisdiction 
recommend to the FTA to approve and to execute our FFGA. This will 
facilitate completing the double track program by March 2005. Once 
completed, the South Florida Rail Corridor will increase accessibility 
and mobility options to all persons, as well as improve freight 
operations in South Florida.
    We are also requesting that the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations provide $30.0 million in New Starts 
funds for Segment 5 of our program as part of the fiscal year 2001 
appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation. In addition, 
we are requesting $2.5 million in Bus Program funds (Section 5309) be 
allocated to Tri-Rail.
    Once again, thank you for this opportunity to testify before the 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations. We 
would be pleased to provide you additional information to assist you in 
your deliberations.
                                 ______
                                 

  Prepared Statement of the American Public Transportation Association

                              introduction
    The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) appreciates 
the opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2001 Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
    APTA's 1,270 member organizations serve the public interest by 
providing safe, efficient and economical public transportation service, 
and by working to ensure that those services and products support 
national energy, environmental, community, and economic goals. APTA 
member organizations include transit systems; design, construction and 
finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions, 
and state associations and departments of transportation. More than 
ninety percent of the people who use transit in the U.S. are served by 
APTA member systems. On the first day of this year, APTA adopted a new 
name to reflect the broader role that APTA member organizations play in 
addressing the transportation needs of our nation--The American Public 
Transportation Association. Our members chose ``public transportation'' 
in lieu of ``public transit'' to better convey the full range of 
transportation services that APTA members are engaged in--planning how 
to meet local transportation needs, managing mobility demands, and 
delivering a range of services in a number of ways, including commuter 
rail, paratransit, and ferry boats, that are often not considered 
``transit.''

Transit and TEA 21
    Over its first three years, the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century (TEA 21) has, with its policy changes and guaranteed 
funding, been critical in assisting the public transportation industry 
address mobility issues around the country. We sincerely appreciate 
what the legislation, and its annual funding through the appropriations 
process, has meant for our industry. But large unmet needs still exist 
in the United States' public transportation sector. The U.S. Department 
of Transportation finds that $14 billion needs to be invested each year 
just to maintain and improve transit conditions and performance.\1\ 
With the most recent report from the Congressional Budget Office 
projecting as much as $1.92 trillion in potential surpluses over the 
next decade, we believe that there is no better time than the present 
to invest in the future of our nation's transportation infrastructure. 
Therefore, APTA urges the Subcommittee in its fiscal year 2001 
Transportation Appropriations Act to fund the federal transit program 
at the $7.3 billion level authorized in TEA 21. On a related issue, 
APTA strongly opposes any efforts to repeal federal motor fuel taxes 
dedicated to supporting federal investment in our surface 
transportation infrastructure. In that regard, on March 12, 2000, 
APTA's Board of Directors unanimously adopted a resolution opposing any 
revision to the existing federal motor fuels tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 1997 Status of the Nation's Surface Transportation System: 
Condition and Performance; U.S. DOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    ADMINISTRATION'S BUDGET PROPOSAL

    Mr. Chairman, we are pleased that the Administration's fiscal year 
2001 Budget proposes to increase funding for transit by more than 9 
percent. This proposal keeps us on track to improve mobility for 
millions of Americans while easing traffic congestion and improving the 
quality of life in communities throughout the U.S. Moreover, APTA 
agrees with the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) assessment that 
the vitally important Job Access and Reverse Commute Program should be 
funded at the fully authorized level of $150 million as provided in TEA 
21. However, we believe that this program should be fully funded by 
using discretionary spending authority rather than by reopening TEA 21.
    Some 94 percent of welfare recipients attempting to move into the 
workforce do not own cars and must rely on public transportation to get 
to work. And while 60 percent of welfare recipients live in central 
cities, the majority of new jobs are in the suburbs. If we as a nation 
wish to continue the positive trends in getting more people into 
decent, productive employment, we must provide the necessary funding to 
get them there. Not only do these programs get people to jobs, but they 
also provide America's employers with access to the services of 
thousands of new employees. This program is a non-traditional one that 
needs to be implemented creatively. We commend FTA on its outreach 
efforts to date, and urge it to continue its efforts to streamline the 
program administratively and to focus on increased program coordination 
at the federal, state, and local levels.
    While certain transit welfare-to-work activities have been 
enormously successful, more needs to be done. In October 1998, the APTA 
Access to Jobs Task Force was created in an effort to coordinate and 
assess APTA member welfare-to-work activities. Frequently described new 
services include new routes to employment locations outside the 
existing service area; more direct service to reduce very long trip 
times; late night and early morning service; so-called reverse commute 
service; and shuttles from rail stations and the ends of bus routes to 
dispersed job locations. Regardless of the type of service made 
available, APTA's 1999 Access-To-Work Best Practices Survey Summary 
Report reveals that a number of welfare-to-work projects have been 
hampered by funding deficiencies. That is why we believe increased 
funding is warranted for this program.
    In fact, Mr. Chairman, we strongly urge the Subcommittee to 
appropriate the TEA 21 fully authorized level for all parts of the 
federal transit program. Again, Mr. Chairman, transportation experts 
agree that it would take $14 billion each year--nearly twice the amount 
authorized under TEA 21 for the coming fiscal year--to effectively 
preserve and expand our public transportation infrastructure. 
Therefore, if Congress adjusts the spending caps put in place as a 
result of the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement, APTA strongly urges the 
Subcommittee to use this additional spending authority to fund the 
federal transit program at the $7.3 billion level authorized in TEA 21. 
With an fiscal year 2001 Non-Social Security surplus projected to reach 
as high as $69 billion, we can think of no better time to maximize 
investment in our public transportation infrastructure.

            PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION RIDERSHIP AT RECORD LEVELS

    Mr. Chairman, the latest numbers are in, and they indicate that 
more and more people are choosing to use public transportation. Thanks 
to Congress' investment in the federal transit program, improvements in 
the transit commuter benefit tax law, and a healthy economy, 
approximately 9 billion transit trips were recorded in 1999. Over the 
last four years, transit ridership in the United States has grown by 16 
percent, an average of 4 percent per year.
    U.S. transit ridership was up 4.9 percent through the first nine 
months of 1999.\2\ Ridership is on the rise in every mode, led by more 
than a 7.3 percent increase in trolleybus passengers and a 6.6 percent 
increase in heavy rail passengers. In the bus category, ridership 
continues to grow in areas across America. For example, the following 
areas experienced significant bus ridership increases: New York City, 
10 percent; Buffalo, 13 percent; Cincinnati, 7 percent; Minneapolis, 10 
percent and Canton, Ohio, 41 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ APTA Transit Ridership Report, Third Quarter 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Transportation Growing in Rural America and Small Cities
    Moreover, Mr. Chairman, public transportation ridership is not just 
growing in large cities and suburbs. Through the first nine months of 
the year, bus ridership increased by the greatest percentage in areas 
with less than 50,000 people.
    Thanks to this Subcommittee, the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act, and TEA 21, transit funding for rural communities and 
smaller cities has increased significantly. For example, in fiscal year 
1993, the Rural Capital and Operating Program was funded at $91 
million. In contrast, during the most recent fiscal year, the transit 
Rural Formula Program received more than twice that amount, nearly $194 
million. Moreover, the fiscal year 2000 appropriation for rural areas 
is 195 percent higher than it was only a decade ago.
    Small urbanized areas have also seen dramatic increases in federal 
transit funding over the last decade. In 1990, small urbanized areas 
received approximately $150 million in federal transit funding. In 
contrast, nearly $268.5 million was appropriated to these cities during 
the current fiscal year. That's an increase of 79 percent over the ten-
year period. Thanks to this dramatic investment in public 
transportation infrastructure in smaller cities, transit is now also 
seen as a crucial mobility solution in areas outside America's 
traditionally transit dependent regions.
    As a result of this increased investment, bus systems across small-
town America were able to implement major expansions in service during 
the last year. For example, Knoxville Area Transit has introduced new 
antique-style trolley-replica buses, one of which connects the 
University of Tennessee with downtown Knoxville. The agency has also 
increased frequency of service and extended hours of operation. Trolley 
operators have been trained as city ambassadors who can inform visitors 
of attractions throughout the downtown Knoxville area. In State 
College, Pennsylvania, the Centre Area Transportation Authority 
recently began operating free LOOP service on two routes serving the 
Pennsylvania State University and downtown State College.

                     PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DELIVERS

Public Transportation Has Significant, Positive Impacts On the U.S. 
        Economy
    Beyond the increases in transit use, public transportation 
generates a real return on the federal investment. In addition to the 
300,000 people employed directly by the $27 billion-a-year public 
transportation industry, thousands of other people employed in the 
engineering, construction, manufacturing and retail industries rely 
upon transit investment for their livelihood. A recent study prepared 
by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. finds that transit capital investment is 
a significant source of job creation. Every $10 million of transit 
capital investment creates approximately 314 jobs and a $30 million 
gain in sales for businesses. Furthermore, the changes in travel 
patterns caused by transit investment remove vehicles from the traffic 
stream, saving time for both transit and highway users. The increased 
productivity caused by this significant timesaving serves to stimulate 
the economy.

Public Transportation and Traffic Congestion
    Mr. Chairman, there is no disputing the fact that traffic 
congestion in the U.S. has reached epidemic proportions. However, as 
bad as it is, imagine what it would be like without public 
transportation! Regions like Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles would 
require nearly 300,000 more cars on the road without transit. Chicago 
would need approximately half a million more cars. But who would have 
thought 20 years ago that places like Memphis, Tennessee would require 
between 10,000 and 30,000 extra vehicles if there were no transit? \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Dollars & Sense: The Economic Case for Public Transportation in 
America. Donald Camph, 1997, p. 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      increased public transit infrastructure investment is needed
    As noted, Mr. Chairman, transit ridership is up and public 
transportation delivers significant benefits. Even though highway and 
transit spending has increased under TEA 21, transportation experts 
agree that our capital investments still fail to keep pace with the 
annual $14 billion needed for public transportation infrastructure in 
the U.S. An unprecedented level of travel is taking place, and will 
continue to take place, throughout this country. If current trends 
continue, over the next 15 years alone, highway travel is expected to 
increase by 40 percent, and transit use by 60 percent. In order to 
accommodate such growth, it is critical to provide maximum investment 
in all forms of surface transportation, including public 
transportation.

More Investment Needed to Provide Mobility Choices
    Mr. Chairman, traffic congestion has become a major political 
issue. The average person need not be reminded of the size of the 
problem; they are surrounded by it weekdays, weekends, no matter what 
the time of day. Here in Washington, there have been countless 
briefings, seminars, conferences and round table discussions focusing 
on the issue of congestion, and possible solutions to enhancing our 
mobility.
    A new study released by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 
confirms our observations: traffic is bad, and it's getting much worse 
every year. The study notes that in 1997, congestion cost travelers in 
68 urban areas 4.3 billion hours of delay. The financial cost of 
congestion now exceeds $72 billion annually, an increase of more than 
$6 billion from the previous year. That's the equivalent of $755 per 
eligible driver, or $3 every workday. Cities on top of the list include 
Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco and Chicago. The Washington, D.C. 
region finished 2nd among very large cities.
    Mr. Chairman, it's no wonder that so many American cities are 
seriously debating the merits of asking local voters to start or expand 
light rail, commuter rail, or bus service in their communities, 
including Austin, Texas; San Antonio, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; 
Tampa, Florida; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Dallas, Texas; and Cincinnati, 
Ohio.
    The need for more public transportation infrastructure is becoming 
apparent to Americans in all corners of the nation. Last November, by 
more than 60 percent of the vote, Denver area residents overwhelmingly 
voted to endorse a light-rail project that will dramatically expand the 
city's public transportation system along heavily congested I-25. Last 
month, by a margin of almost two to one, voters in Phoenix, Arizona 
approved the region's first light-rail system, as well as an expansion 
of bus service. In addition, 60 percent of the electorate in Sonoma 
County, California recently voted to increase the county's sales tax to 
fund local transit improvements.
    While the TTI study advances a number of possible solutions to 
America's traffic congestion crisis, one of the obvious proposals to 
increase mobility is very clear: offer citizens mobility choices. We 
believe that public transportation can and will play an enormous role 
in doing just that. In this regard, consider the New York City area. 
APTA believes that it is no coincidence that the transit oriented New 
York City-Northeastern New Jersey region, one of the most densely 
populated areas in the entire world, ranks low on the TTI study's list 
for annual congestion cost per eligible driver (number 27). If there 
was no transit in that region, up to two million additional personal 
vehicles would have to be added to the already crowded roads in that 
area.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Dollars & Sense, p. 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Funds are Required to Maintain ADA Compliance Standards
    Since the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, transit 
agencies have made significant progress in the effort to ensure that 
all forms of public transportation are accessible to individuals with 
disabilities. According to an APTA survey of 300 transit agencies, 
there were approximately 25,000 U.S. transit buses in 1993 that were 
not wheelchair accessible. In 1998, that number was less than 14,000. 
Similarly, commuter rail operators reduced the number of non-accessible 
rail cars by more than half over the same period. However, as the 
population ages, the need for demand response and paratransit service 
will continue to rise. Public investment for these services and further 
on-vehicle lift, ramp and station improvements must keep pace for 
transit to meet mobility demands.

New Study: People Will Use Quality Public Transit Where it is Available
    The steady increase in ridership figures reported above is 
consistent with a new study released last spring by Paul M. Weyrich and 
William S. Lind of the Free Congress Foundation. In their report 
regarding the ability of public transit to get people out of their 
cars, Does Transit Work? A Conservative Reappraisal, they dispel the 
myth that a large percentage of people choose not to take public 
transportation. Weyrich and Lind point out that this is simply not the 
case. The authors explain that measuring transit ridership based on the 
percentage of total trips taken throughout the United States is simply 
wrong, and misleading. This is because there are large portions of the 
U.S. where people do not have the option of taking the bus or the 
train, because it is not readily available.
    However, when given the choice between taking quality public 
transportation and driving, many people are more than willing to leave 
their cars at home. This is especially true with respect to those trips 
where transit can compete, namely, trips to work and recreation. In 
fact, in areas of the country where these criteria are met, public 
transportation use reaches significant levels, even in areas where 
people are entirely new to public transportation. For example, a recent 
poll by the Dallas Morning News found that 8 out of 10 people said 
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) is worth the 1 percent sales tax it 
collects. That simply wasn't the case only a few years ago.

Investment in Rail Safety
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, as the federal transit program becomes 
increasingly intermodal, all aspects of transportation appropriations 
have become important to APTA. This includes programs funded through 
the Research and Special Programs Administration, the Federal Highway 
Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the 
Federal Aviation Administration, among others.
    In this regard, APTA commends the Subcommittee for providing 
funding through FRA's research and development program to perform crash 
tests of rail passenger equipment at the Transportation Technology 
Center in Pueblo, Colorado. The initial tests conducted provided data 
that will be very useful in enhancing the safety of rail equipment. We 
also commend the Subcommittee for providing funds for the development 
of positive train control (PTC) systems, though we do urge that special 
consideration be given to the applicability of these systems to 
commuter rail operations. Crash avoidance systems such as PTC are a key 
to the continued development of safety in rail passenger services.

                               CONCLUSION

    APTA supports funding the respective components of the federal 
transit program consistent with the full authorization levels and 
program structure as embodied in TEA 21. Predictable funding levels as 
provided through TEA 21 help America's transit agencies facilitate long 
term capital planning and development. This has been especially 
important in America's rural and small urbanized areas, where transit 
agencies are taking full advantage of the transit formula distribution 
set forth in TEA 21.
    As we enter a new century, there has been much thinking about what 
we would like our future to be. In order to keep pace with our nation's 
growth, more than $14 billion in capital investment is needed every 
year to preserve and expand our public transportation infrastructure. 
Taking advantage of the favorable budgetary climate and surplus, now 
would be an opportune time for Congress to step forward as the catalyst 
for the ongoing renaissance of public transportation and its many 
benefits. Let's get the job done! We believe that public transportation 
has many positive impacts on the nation's economy, delivering an 
enormous return on your federal investment. We urge the Subcommittee to 
fund the federal transit program at the $7.3 billion level authorized 
in TEA 21.
    APTA appreciates the opportunity to testify on the development of 
the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations Act. We would be 
pleased to provide additional information to assist you in your 
deliberations.
                                 ______
                                 

  Prepared Statement of the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority

                              INTRODUCTION

    My name is Lawrence M. Meckler and I am the Executive Director of 
the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA). 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, rail and ADA paratransit system, two 
international airports, a small boat harbor, and transportation centers 
in Buffalo and Niagara Falls. I am pleased to testify today regarding 
NFTA's federal legislative priorities for fiscal year 2001.
    NFTA recognizes the importance of a strong transportation network 
to the economic vitality of Buffalo and Western New York. As a result, 
NFTA has aggressive plans for capital and operating improvements to its 
surface and aviation systems. These improvements include projects to 
enhance and increase transit ridership and projects to expand and 
enhance operations at the Buffalo Niagara International Airport (BNIA) 
and the Niagara Frontier International Airport (NFIA).

                           METRO BUS AND RAIL

    NFTA operates the combined bus and light rail rapid transit system. 
The system carries 83,000 bus passengers and 22,000 rail passengers 
each day over a 1,575 square mile service area. Annual system ridership 
totals 26.9 million passengers. The transit system's 1,100 employees 
operate 330 buses, 18 paratransit vehicles and 27 rail cars.
    NFTA and the City of Buffalo have received discretionary bus 
capital fund allocations in recent years to construct an intermodal 
transportation center and Amtrak passenger facility. NFTA and the City 
of Buffalo have begun design of the project, an intermodal 
transportation center for NFTA buses and Amtrak as well as an 
intermodal connection to the Buffalo light rail system and Inner Harbor 
project. NFTA has begun obligating previously earmarked funds for the 
project.

New Bus Acquisition
    NFTA seeks $5,400,000 in section 5309 discretionary funds to 
purchase sixteen 40 foot and two 30 foot transit buses. The new buses 
will replace buses purchased in 1988, which have exceeded their useful 
life. NFTA's total bus and rail capital assistance needs exceed the 
amount available to the NFTA under its annual section 5307 formula 
apportionment. To assist NFTA to meet its capital needs, we request 
priority consideration for an allocation of discretionary bus capital 
funding for bus purchases. The new buses will enable NFTA to continue 
to provide safe and reliable mobility to the Western New York 
Community, achieve service standard goals for rolling stock 
replacement, and succeed in its job access and reverse commute efforts.

Job Access And Reverse Commute Grant
    NFTA seeks $500,000 in fiscal year 2001 funds under section 3037 of 
TEA 21 for operational expenses associated with NFTA's Job Access and 
Reverse Commute program. This program provides late night and extended 
weekend service on seven existing bus routes and improved peak hour 
service to address reverse commute needs on four existing routes. The 
service was designated, through a collaborative planning process, as a 
high priority for low-income individuals and welfare recipients to 
access jobs.

                 BUFFALO NIAGARA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

    BNIA is the NFTA's second largest business center. Eight major air 
carriers--AirTran, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta 
Airlines, Jet Blue, Northwest Airlines, United Airlines and US 
Airways--service the area, supplemented by the regional services of 
seven commuter carriers. The airport averages 108 daily flights and 
provides nonstop service to 21 cities. BNIA served approximately 3.6 
million passengers in 1999.

Hold Harmless Provision
    BNIA is currently undergoing major airport expansion and safety 
improvement projects at the airport, including the addition of seven 
gates. BNIA has been successful in attracting competitive air service 
to Buffalo, which has resulted in significant growth in air travel. As 
a result, the number of passenger enplanements has increased 
dramatically and we expect BNIA will graduate from a small hub to a 
medium hub in fiscal year 2001. While we are excited about BNIA's 
successes and the benefits of competitive air service to Western New 
York, BNIA will be in a serious predicament as a result of its change 
in hub status.
    NFTA developed its financial plan for the BNIA expansion program 
that is under construction on the assumption that the federal 
government would fund 90 percent of the eligible costs of the projects 
undertaken at the airport, which is the federal participation for small 
hub airports. Because the federal participation is reduced to 75 
percent for medium hub airports, BNIA will lose over $4.4 million in 
federal funding eligibility for the terminal expansion project alone, 
when BNIA transitions to a medium hub. Additionally, NFTA will lose 
over $1.9 million in federal funding eligibility on the acquisition of 
the Buffalo Airport Center property, acquired for both safety 
improvements and the expansion program, and as much as $2.5 million on 
the apron expansion and access improvement projects of the expansion 
program. The total funding loss will depend on the amount of federal 
funds NFTA receives in fiscal year 2000 before the airport transitions 
to a medium hub.
    NFTA requests that Congress include a provision in the fiscal year 
2001 transportation appropriations legislation providing that the 
federal share of allowable project costs for any airport project given 
priority consideration in either the House or Senate Report or 
Conference Report on Public Law 106-69 shall be no less than the 
federal share in effect for the airport at the time of enactment of 
such Public Law. NFTA also seeks to clarify that the term project means 
the total project and not simply the individual grant applications for 
a project.

BNIA Projects for Which NFTA Seeks Priority Consideration
    Consistent with its expansion plans, BNIA has begun new projects 
that will enhance safety and improve operations. NFTA seeks priority 
consideration for AIP funding in the fiscal year 2001 transportation 
appropriations legislation for the following projects:

Runway 14-32 Safety Improvements
    NFTA seeks discretionary funds to extend Runway 14-32, the 
crosswind runway, by approximately 1,790 feet to 7,163 feet and upgrade 
runway instrumentation to make the runway safe for use by commercial 
airlines. The extended runway will be a safe and viable alternative to 
the main runway, Runway 5-23, when runway 5-23 is closed or if wind 
conditions make takeoff from or landing on Runway 14-32 preferable. The 
total project cost is $43 million.

ILS & MALS Installation on Runway End 32
    NFTA requests $3,848,000 in the FAA Facilities and Equipment (F&E) 
budget for fiscal year 2001 for the procurement and installation of an 
Instrument Landing System (ILS) and Medium-intensity Approach Landing 
System (MALS) on Runway End 32 at the Buffalo Niagara International 
Airport. These navigational aids will enhance the operation of Runway 
14-32 and provide for safer navigation.

BNIA Projects Which Congress has Given Priority Consideration
    BNIA received priority consideration in previous years for two 
projects that are currently underway--The Buffalo Airport Center (BAC) 
Acquisition and Demolition project and the airport's terminal expansion 
and access improvements. The BAC project will optimize clear zones, and 
improve protection of transitional surfaces enhancing the safety of 
Runway 14-32. NFTA financed the acquisition and demolition of the BAC 
in anticipation of FAA and New York State grant award. In January 1999, 
NFTA acquired the BAC property. It completed demolition of the BAC, 
with the exception of the removal of the slab, in December 1999. FAA 
has awarded grants totaling $7,720,041 for Phase I of the project and 
$5,602,041 for Phases II through IV. NFTA will seek $11,486,113 in 
fiscal year 2001 AIP discretionary funds to complete the federal 
contribution to the acquisition and demolition of the BAC.
    BNIA also received priority consideration for AIP funding for Phase 
II of the east access improvements and expansion of the east terminal 
apron. The terminal extension project adds seven gates to serve air 
service passenger demand, while the access improvements will provide 
safe and convenient access to the new east airport entrance and parking 
areas. The apron expansion is required to serve the terminal extension. 
NFTA will seek $2,430,900 in AIP discretionary funds to make 
improvements to the circulatory road system to provide convenient 
access to the new east airport entrance and parking areas. NFTA will 
seek $12,605,175 to expand the apron associated with the East Terminal 
expansion.

                  NIAGARA FALLS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

    The Niagara Falls International Airport (NFIA) serves as a reliever 
airport for the BNIA. It is operated under a joint-use agreement with 
the U.S. military. The airport has a 9,130 square foot runway, making 
the airport suitable for non-stop long haul service. Air Force Reserves 
cargo transport units are based at the airport. One of NFIA's primary 
goals is to develop business in charter, cargo and general aviation 
markets.

NFIA Project for Which NFTA Seeks Priority Consideration--Taxiway ``D'' 
        Rehabilitation
    NFTA requests priority consideration for AIP funding for the 
rehabilitation of Taxiway ``D'' at the Niagara Falls International 
Airport. The project, which is currently underway, involves the 
rehabilitation of the original taxiway pavement, including drainage and 
lighting improvements. NFTA recently extended Runway ``D'' to 9,130 
square feet. That project received priority consideration in the fiscal 
year 1998 and 1999 transportation appropriations legislation. The 
importance of rehabilitating the original pavement is underscored by 
the fact that FAA rated the pavement fair to poor in its Pavement 
Management Study. The total cost of the taxiway rehabilitation project 
is $925,000.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding NFTA's federal 
legislative priorities. We have an aggressive agenda, which will result 
in improved transportation services for residents of and visitors to 
the Buffalo region and will benefit the Western New York economy.
                                 ______
                                 

             Prepared Statement of the State of New Jersey

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the 
opportunity to submit testimony. I am Jim Weinstein, Commissioner of 
Transportation for the State of New Jersey and Chairman of the Board of 
New Jersey Transit.
    To begin, I wish to express the appreciation of the people and 
State of New Jersey for the hard work and fine efforts of this 
Subcommittee, its leadership, its members and its staff, which are so 
critical to the annual appropriations process. Your good work makes 
possible considerable financing which is key to the safe, effective and 
efficient transportation network so important to our nation.
    I want to provide you with a short overview of what we are doing in 
New Jersey to address the very real transportation challenges of the 
nation's most densely populated state, and to indicate where federal 
appropriations in transportation provide a significant impact and role 
in meeting those challenges which affect us all.
    New Jersey is not big geographically, but our transportation needs 
are great. We realize that traffic congestion and aging infrastructure 
are two major issues demanding our attention, so that commerce--
international, national, regional and local--continues to prosper. We 
recognize our responsibility not only to the residents of our state, 
but also to the many visitors, users and beneficiaries of 
transportation in New Jersey.
    We have some of the worst traffic congestion in the nation. This is 
taking its toll on our infrastructure, our economy, our air quality and 
our citizens. Our success in dealing with this challenge depends on the 
ongoing partnership between the State and the Federal Government. The 
State of New Jersey has dedicated a full 40 percent of our state 
Transportation Trust Fund to public transit this year. We match the 
federal contribution to our transit capital program on a dollar-for-
dollar basis, and the financing for our new start transit project in 
southern New Jersey is entirely state money.
    We are making great strides in New Jersey to alleviate our traffic 
problems. Public transit ridership in our state is at an all-time high, 
with approximately 360,000 daily riders on our bus and rail system. The 
Hudson Bergen Light Rail System between Bayonne and Exchange Place in 
Jersey City will open this Spring. A new station on the Northeast 
Corridor will serve Newark Airport starting in 2001. Our Secaucus 
Transfer rail project will be completed on time in 2002. Our MidTown 
Direct service, which opened in 1996, has attracted significantly more 
riders than anticipated.
    We have more work to do, and I ask for your continued support so 
that we can achieve our goal of a single, seamless intermodal 
transportation network. This year, we are seeking funding for several 
important transit and rail projects that will further the connectivity 
of our state's transportation network.
    First and foremost is the Hudson Bergen Light Rail Line. New Jersey 
is seeking, consistent with its Full Funding Grant Agreement, $121 
million for fiscal year 2001 for the first segment of the project. When 
completed, this new rail line in the nation's sixth-most-densely-
populated county is expected to carry 100,000 daily riders. The project 
complements and serves the tremendous economic growth this area is 
experiencing.
    As construction of the first segment is nearing completion, we 
intend to move directly into design and construction of the second 
segment. We are currently negotiating a Full Funding Grant Agreement 
with FTA which will enable us to finance the second segment. While we 
will not actually be seeking federal funding for the second segment 
this year, this Committee's support is critical if we are to get the 
Full Funding Grant Agreement signed this year so that we do not lose 
momentum on this important effort. Your support in this endeavor is 
greatly appreciated.
    Additionally, we are requesting $47.5 million in fiscal year 2001 
for construction of a new light rail line connecting Newark's Broad 
Street Station with Newark Penn Station. A Full Funding Grant Agreement 
with FTA is pending. The construction of this vital link will allow 
riders on our Morris and Essex lines to transfer to the Northeast 
Corridor, which will also allow connection to our new Newark 
International Airport Station. It will provide 13,000 daily riders from 
both rail lines with access to offices, shopping and other destinations 
in downtown Newark--and alleviate congestion.
    We have also identified a significant rail connection needed to 
improve the national and regional flow of freight rail through New 
Jersey, which until recently had been focused on an east-west 
orientation but is now increasing its focus on north-south. A major 
bottleneck has developed in New Jersey at Marion Junction (Jersey 
City)--an impact directly related to the national rail mergers of 
recent years. Built to provide a smooth flow of traffic from the north, 
this single-track structure must now also provide for flows from the 
south destined to northeastern markets, as a result of the recent 
takeover of Conrail by the Norfolk Southern and CSX Railroads. To 
accommodate these bi-directional flows by two railroads, the structure 
must be ``twinned.'' Additionally this project will enable the 
railroads to vacate the former Conrail River Line east of the 
Palisades, in order to free up that right-of-way for the future phase 
of the previously described Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System. 
The Marion Junction rail improvements are estimated at $30 million over 
the course of the project, and we seek your consideration of this 
because of its national implications.
    An additional transit request is an earmark in the bus category to 
assist in purchasing new buses to replace aging ones currently operated 
by both NJ TRANSIT and private carriers in our state. We need 
approximately 300 new buses to serve the large commuter market between 
New Jersey, New York and Philadelphia. I ask that you consider an 
earmark for the purchase of new buses at $400,000 per bus.
    While we are asking for significant monies for public transit in 
New Jersey, that investment has impacts throughout the country. We are 
purchasing buses produced in Roswell, New Mexico, with engines built in 
Columbus, Indiana. Another fleet of buses is assembled in Pembina, 
North Dakota, with engines built in Pontiac, Michigan and transmissions 
made in Indianapolis, Indiana. We have major bus components and systems 
produced in Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, 
Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas, and we have a contract for rail cars to 
be built in Hornell, New York. So you can see that the federal 
investment in New Jersey's public transit system employs workers and 
builds local economies all over the nation.
    Let me again emphasize New Jersey's commitment to our own 
transportation network. Governor Whitman recently announced her plan in 
our state budget to provide one billion dollars in funding for 
transportation in the next fiscal year alone.
    New Jersey DOT is about to begin construction on the first projects 
of its Portway initiative--a series of freight system improvements that 
will strengthen direct access to and between the Newark-Elizabeth Air/
Seaport Complex and intermodal rail, truck and warehouse/transfer 
facilities located within or near a linear corridor of about 12 miles. 
We have allocated State funding on the order of $50 million to replace 
a significant truck route bridge and related improvements in the City 
of Newark. Multi-billion dollar transportation investments are planned 
for the area by the State and the region's transportation authorities, 
most notably the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. By properly 
coordinating the many transportation projects of Portway, the nation 
will benefit from the resulting regional improvements in this critical 
corridor.
    We have a vision of a single transportation network that is the 
backbone of an economy--seamless, integrated systems from air travel, 
to rail, to ferry, to bus and to car; moving large numbers of people 
and goods fluidly through an intermodal network; alleviating 
congestion, de-stressing our citizens and improving our environment. 
This network is within our grasp, and I ask that you help fuel its 
creation by funding its construction.
    In conclusion, we look forward to the opening of the first part of 
the Hudson Bergen Light Rail Transit System in the next few months. On 
behalf of the State of New Jersey, I am sure I am joined by our senior 
Senator, Frank Lautenberg, in inviting the members and staff of the 
Subcommittee to visit New Jersey to see this new light rail system, as 
well as the Portway district, and to personally view the first results 
of what you have made possible in our transportation system in New 
Jersey, that serves our region and the nation.
                                 ______
                                 

       Prepared Statement of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

    Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to 
submit this testimony on behalf of the Colonial Williamsburg 
Foundation.
    As many of you may know, Colonial Williamsburg is America's largest 
outdoor living history museum spread over 170 acres with more than 600 
original and reconstructed buildings. I hope many of you have been part 
of the three million visitors Colonial Williamsburg attracts annually . 
. . coming to hear the voices of Washington, Jefferson, and Henry 
remind us all of America's rich history, while educating and exciting 
our visitors about our country's democratic principles and ideals.
    Ever since John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s vision of the restoration of 
Williamsburg began in 1926, the Foundation has been faithful to Mr. 
Rockefeller's mission statement, ``that the future may learn from the 
past.'' We are active stewards of our American culture and principles, 
and we consider this a responsibility we owe to all the people of our 
nation as well as nations struggling to create democratic republics.
    In the next five years, Colonial Williamsburg will be engaged in 
the largest preservation effort since the restoration of the Historic 
Area living museum began in 1926. This second restoration effort is 
being undertaken to ensure that we are ready for our 75th anniversary 
and the 400th anniversary of Jamestown in 2007.
    As part of the more than $150 million dollar effort, we must 
upgrade and expand our visitor center. This project has the 
enthusiastic support of the Jamestown/Yorktown Foundation, the National 
Park Service, the Association for the Preservation of Virginia 
Antiquities, Busch Enterprises, the Hampton Roads Partnership, the 
College of William and Mary, as well as the local Chamber of Commerce, 
the three local municipalities, and the local hotel and motel 
association.
    Part of this visitor center project involves the construction of an 
intermodal bus hub that will be the center for a new bus service that 
will carry passengers to Jamestown, Yorktown, and Colonial Williamsburg 
via the National Park System's Colonial Parkway. The National Park 
System has already agreed with our proposal for this bus system and 
approved the use of the parkway for this purpose. Since there are only 
two, two-lane roads to Jamestown, a bus system will be essential to 
ease traffic congestion and potential environmental impacts from 
increased numbers of visitors to this important national Historic 
Triangle area. Our plans call for increasing our parking area to 
provide spaces for 3,000 cars and 250 tour buses at one time. Families 
will be able to leave their cars and travel to the three historic 
sites, and to other local attractions, such as Busch Gardens and Water 
Country. Plans are also being made to provide for bus service from this 
intermodal hub to other museums and attractions throughout the lower 
Virginia peninsula. In addition the hub will be used as a link for the 
bus systems of James City County, the College of William and Mary and 
Colonial Williamsburg for the purposes of an integrated transit system 
for the greater Williamsburg area.
    While the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation is engaged in a 
comprehensive fundraising campaign to secure private funds to cover 
much of the cost of this restoration and expansion for 2007, we are 
also seeking public funds as part of a private-public partnership. It 
is our hope that federal funds could be made available to cover part of 
the cost of the intermodal bus hub. We will also need help in replacing 
8 diesel buses that have far outlived their expected life span. We have 
been slowly replacing our buses with more environmentally friendly and 
efficient natural gas buses. We will, however, have to purchase 10 
additional natural gas buses in order to meet the needs for the service 
we want to provide from our intermodal bus hub. New natural gas buses 
are, as you know, initially more expensive, but in the long run more 
efficient and less polluting. The cost for each bus is approximately 
$230,000.
    In order to assist Colonial Williamsburg in this significant effort 
and to ensure the restoration work can be accomplished on time, we will 
be seeking $3 million. This funding will allow us to purchase three 
natural gas buses in the next year and cover part of the costs 
associated with developing the intermodal bus hub. We will appreciate 
any assistance that you may be able to recommend.
    Thank you for your consideration. We hope to have you as our guests 
at Colonial Williamsburg in the near future.
                                 ______
                                 

         Prepared Statement of the City of Gainesville, Florida

    Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the City of Gainesville, Florida, I 
appreciate the opportunity to present this written testimony to you 
today. The City of Gainesville is seeking federal funds in the fiscal 
year 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill to assist with the 
following two projects: (1) an innovative Joint Communications 
Technology Project the City is undertaking to improve public safety, 
and (2) continuation funding for our Bus and Bus Facilities Project.

                JOINT COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PROJECT

    The City of Gainesville is seeking $5.4 million for a joint 
communications technology project to enhance public safety. The goal of 
this effort is to facilitate communication between our urban area 
public safety agencies through the use of system-wide communications 
software and technology upgrades. The City and Alachua County have 
initiated a joint communications system for the future. The impact for 
the entire region is considerable, since this county serves as the 
regional center for much of rural north Florida's medical care, 
disaster management, and criminal justice services.
    The agencies involved in this project are: Alachua County 
Government (14 internal user agencies), Alachua County Sheriff 
(includes Corrections Facility and Civil Division); Cities of 
Gainesville (8 internal user agencies), Archer, Newberry, High Springs, 
Alachua, LaCrosse, Waldo, Melrose, Hawthorne, and Micanopy; School 
Board of Alachua County, Santa Fe Community College, University of 
Florida, Gainesville-Alachua County Airport Authority, Gainesville 
Regional Transit and Gainesville Regional Utilities (electric, gas, 
water, wastewater, telecommunications).
    To continue the Joint Communications Technology Initiative to the 
next step requires the purchase of enhanced software and new equipment. 
The urban area public safety agencies will need the following:
  --Mobile Lap Top Computers /Data Terminals for urban area public 
        safety agencies ($4.8 Million)
  --Crash Reporting Software for urban area law enforcement agencies 
        ($120,000)
  --System-Wide Communications Software ($200,000)
  --Geographical Information System (GIS) Software and WEB Software 
        ($280,000)
    The need for the addition of lap top computers to this system is 
partially driven by the Federal Government's ``re-farming'' of radio 
frequencies through the Federal Communications Commission. Due to this 
``re-farming'' and the high cost of radios, law enforcement agencies 
will no longer have radios mounted in department vehicles. Radios 
``mounted'' in vehicles traditionally have a much higher wattage output 
and therefore are more reliable and robust than portable radios. 
Additionally, portable radios can be lost or damaged during emergency 
incidents. This creates a critical need for an alternative means for 
officers to be able to communicate with the dispatch center. Mobile lap 
top computers with the additional communication and software components 
can become the secondary means of communication utilizing the 
infrastructure currently being developed for the Alachua County Joint 
Communication Center.
    The use of lap top computers can fulfill the critical need for a 
second communication device, and at the same time help accomplish 
several other public safety objectives, including in-car computer aided 
dispatch, automated report writing and the use of a GIS (Crime Mapping, 
etc.).

               RESULT # 1 MOBILE COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH

    Utilizing lap top computers as in-car computer aided dispatch 
terminals significantly increases public safety officers' 
communications ability. Computers used in this manner can perform many 
important tasks.
    First, the computers can send and receive information between the 
officer and the dispatcher, including calls for service. Non-emergency 
calls are forwarded from the dispatcher to the appropriate unit without 
the need to transmit the information verbally over the radio, thus 
saving ``air-time'' for use in emergency situations. This also improves 
the reliability of the information communicated and virtually prevents 
the need for the information to be repeated. This also decreases the 
need for additional dispatchers even when the number of calls for 
service increases.
    Secondly, officers and supervisors can find the location of other 
officers and check on their current status. This eliminates the need 
for officers to request this information from a dispatcher and gives 
all members of the agency a complete picture of the availability of 
officers for calls for service. Officers can also refer to information 
about calls that have not yet been dispatched in addition to 
information regarding previous calls for service.
    Third, officers can communicate vehicle-to-vehicle. The computers 
can be used to send messages from one officer to another. This also 
eliminates the need for officers to waste ``air-time'' for less 
important transfer of information.
    Fourth, law enforcement officers can conduct FCIC/NCIC checks on 
wanted persons and stolen vehicles without having to tie up a 
dispatcher. This allows officers to check a large number of persons and 
vehicles, which will significantly increase the number of people who 
are arrested for warrants and the number of recovered stolen vehicles. 
A single dispatcher can only handle 1 request at a time, while the 
computer system, can handle numerous request all at the same time.

               RESULT # 2 MOBILE AUTOMATED REPORT WRITING

    Area law enforcement officers currently hand write law enforcement 
reports that are manually filed. A small portion of that report is then 
entered into a computer database at some later date. The benefits to 
public safety of mobile automated report writing are numerous.
    First, the time lapse between when a report is started and the time 
that is entered into the computer is virtually eliminated. As a result, 
analysis of the information is immediately available for enhancing 
resource utilization.
    Second, the time now spent on satisfying requests for copies of 
paper-based reports and completing those requests can be better spent 
on activities directly impacting public safety. Once filed, electronic 
reports could be forwarded to anyone electronically as appropriate.
    Third, the amount of storage space now required to house all of the 
completed law enforcement reports could be freed up for better use. 
Now, for example, reports are only kept at the police department for 3 
years. The reports are then removed from the file one at time by a 
records technician. The reports are then re-filed in a new folder and 
transported to a storage warehouse. Any report over three years old, 
must be retrieved from a storage company warehouse. Electronically 
filed reports take up virtually no space at all and can be 
electronically backed up for security purposes and stored on some form 
of optical disk. This would eliminate the need for an entire room to 
store reports.
    Fourth, electronic reports can be created that will take the data 
required for one report and automatically enter it on subsequent or 
additional report forms. Now, an officer might be required to enter the 
information on several report forms, including the original report, a 
sworn affidavit, a vehicle tow sheet, a forfeiture request, an ATF 
firearms report, etc. Thus filing the reports electronically would save 
the officers significant time more urgently needed for public safety-
related activities.
    Finally, many handwritten reports are nearly illegible and have 
numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Some of the current report 
forms are also 4 or 5-part NCR paper. Usually only the first one or two 
copies of the NCR forms are legible. Filing reports electronically 
would drastically reduce the number of spelling and grammatical errors, 
it would allow officers to easily correct errors in reports, and it 
would eliminate the need for NCR paper.

            RESULT # 3 GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)

    For years Law Enforcement Agencies have tracked crime using pin 
maps to geographically show where crimes were occurring. This method of 
tracking crime has become impractical and too time-consuming for all 
but the smallest of law enforcement agencies. The advent of 
computerized geographical information programs, like ``ArcView'' has 
enabled law enforcement agencies to return to the pin map method of 
displaying crime patterns, but in a much more effective manner. 
Additionally, mapping programs can contain several hundred data layers 
that can be utilized by numerous public and private agencies. The 
following objectives are examples of how a GIS system will enable us to 
use the information immediately entered on mobile lap top computers.
    Electronic Pin Maps.--Once a GIS system is established, all reports 
that are generated will be mapped in several formats. Maps will be 
generated for calls for service. This enables agencies to properly 
decide where to deploy their limited resources. Electronic pin maps 
also can be made time sensitive as well as location sensitive. Officers 
working various shifts can identify hot spots by time and location. A 
hot spot during the day, may not be a hot spot at night, or visa versa. 
Additional maps can be generated for UCR (Unified Crime Reports) 
crimes, Crime Analysis identified crimes, and calls verified by Florida 
State Statutes. Information that is not immediately available is of 
little or no use when it is entered at a later date.
    Management of Resources Utilizing Computer Statistics.--Many law 
enforcement agencies have begun to use a method of management which 
utilizes crime data. Law Enforcement supervisors are being held 
accountable for the level or increase in crime in their assigned 
geographical area. The Gainesville Police Department has begun the 
process of dividing the City into districts. Each District Commander 
will be held responsible for the criminal activity and the utilization 
of resources in that geographical area. GIS information will be used to 
manage the department's limited resources.
    WEB Mapping.--Sharing the information gathered in an effective 
manner is another key component to this process. Many of the Law 
Enforcement Agencies in Alachua County currently have a WEB site on the 
Internet. In the future, crime maps developed by the GIS system will be 
used to display maps over the Internet. Maps will be made available to 
other law enforcement and governmental agencies and the public at 
large.
    Integration with other Agencies.--In order for a geographical 
information system to be truly effective, it requires the cooperation 
of several agencies. GIS systems with hundreds of layers of data can be 
a useful tool for all the cooperative agencies. Law Enforcement 
personnel will be able to view maps and aerial or satellite photographs 
of any given area of the city. Crime data and analyses can be placed on 
top of those maps and/or photographs at specified points that will be 
available to all users. Law enforcement personnel will provide numerous 
layers of data to the system and will in return be able to access the 
layers from other agencies. Alachua County already has begun the 
process of developing a GIS and the Gainesville Police Department is 
currently working with the University of Florida to develop a method of 
converting data to a format used by ``ArcView''.

                     BUS AND BUS FACILITIES PROJECT

    Pursuant to the fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations 
Bill, approximately $0.5 million was reserved for Gainesville. The City 
continues to pursue the $5.5 M that represents the remainder of the 
original funding request. (The original request was for funding 
assistance to purchase 25 new buses at an approximately cost of $7.5 
million.) The balance will be used to purchase 19 ADA accessible buses. 
The City is continuing to work with Alachua County, the University of 
Florida and the Florida Department of Transportation to enhance bus 
service in the metropolitan area.
    Nineteen buses will replace used buses acquired from several other 
transit systems to demonstrate the feasibility of this major expansion 
of service to the University of Florida. The operation of these buses 
will be supported by a unique partnership of the City of Gainesville, 
Alachua County, the University of Florida, the Florida Department of 
Transportation and the University of Florida Student government.
    The University of Florida Presidential Task Force on Parking and 
Transportation recommended an increase of 25 buses to serve the 
commuting needs of UF students, faculty, and staff. The University of 
Florida student population is currently estimated at 50,000 students.
    The City of Gainesville through its Regional Transit System has 
brought together the University of Florida, Alachua County, and the 
Florida Department of Transportation to implement the recommendations 
of the University of Florida Presidential Task Force. Service utilizing 
eight buses was implemented to enhance several routes serving the UF 
campus from Southwest Gainesville.
    The enhanced service has already resulted in record-breaking 
ridership for RTS during the past year. Express service utilizing two 
additional buses from an off-campus park-and-ride lot is currently 
operational. The University of Florida Student Government has 
implemented a student transportation fee that allowed unlimited access 
to all RTS routes by all 50,000 current UF students. In addition, a fee 
increase has been approved for the upcoming year. The University of 
Florida, the City and the County will be implementing a bus pass 
program for City and County employees as well as University of Florida 
faculty and staff to allow unlimited free access during the current 
year.
    In closing, federal support is critical for these initiatives. As a 
result, we respectfully request that the Subcommittee give funding 
assistance for our projects every consideration throughout the fiscal 
year 2001 appropriations process.
                                 ______
                                 

        Prepared Statement of the Memphis Area Transit Authority

    The Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) respectfully requests 
that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation make 
provision for an allocation of $14,174,990 in ``New Start'' funds for 
the Memphis Medical Center Rail Extension in its fiscal year 2001 bill 
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies. The Clinton Administration has proposed this level of funding 
for the project and is working to draft a Full Funding Grant Agreement 
(FFGA) to submit to Congress later this year. We also request the 
support of the Committee in execution of the FFGA.

                                OVERVIEW

    The Medical Center Rail Extension is a two-mile rail project in 
downtown Memphis, Tennessee. The project represents an eastward 
expansion of the existing 5-mile Main Street Trolley/Riverfront Loop 
rail system. This project is proposed as the last segment of the 
downtown rail circulation system as well as the first segment of a 
regional light rail line. The two-mile extension will add six new 
stations and a park-and-ride facility.
    The Medical Center Rail Extension has been designed to link the two 
largest employment centers in the region--the Central Business District 
and the Medical Center--and accommodate increased trip demand generated 
by new development along the line. Examples of new development include 
a new Triple AAA baseball park (opened on April 1), a new elementary 
school (under construction), and a major new apartment complex of 375 
units (under construction). Existing development in the Medical Center 
area includes seven hospitals, four colleges and universities, and 
various related businesses and retail establishments.
    Ridership on the two-mile extension is projected to be 2,100 per 
day in the year of opening (2004) and will increase to 4,200 in the 
forecast year (2020).
    The Medical Center Rail Extension is expected to be a catalyst for 
redevelopment and a tool to enhance the livability of the Medical 
Center area in much the same way as the Main Street Trolley/Riverfront 
Loop has helped to transform the Central Business District.

                               BACKGROUND

    Since implementation of the Main Street Trolley in 1993 and 
Riverfront Loop in 1997, ridership has grown steadily each year. In 
calendar year 1999, 922,475 riders were carried representing an 
increase of 13 percent over 1998. Data for January-March 2000 show 
usage up by 30 percent over the first three months of last year.
    The Main Street Trolley/Riverfront Loop has been credited with 
playing a major role in the rebirth of downtown Memphis and its 
emergence as an entertainment center and focal point for urban 
residential development. The limits of activity have been stretched 
north and south in part as a result of implementation of joint use 
transportation terminals at each end of the line.

                          STATUS AND SCHEDULE

    Preliminary Engineering has been completed. MATA expects Final 
Design approval and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from FTA 
in early April. The project schedule calls for development of 60 
percent engineering plans and determination of cost estimates by July 
2000 with submittal of the FFGA package to Congress by August 1, 2000. 
Construction will be done in phases, with utility relocation beginning 
late in calendar year 2000, followed by bridge construction in early 
2001, and general construction in mid-2001. Revenue operation is 
projected to begin in early 2004.
    The project was rated ``Recommended'' by FTA in the Annual Report 
on New Starts for fiscal year 2001.

                            FUNDING AND COST

    The Medical Center Rail Extension has received earmarks from 
Congress in the past several years, as follows:

Fiscal year:
    1996................................................      $1,250,000
    1997................................................       3,039,000
    1998................................................       1,000,000
    1999................................................       2,200,000
    2000................................................       2,500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      TOTAL.............................................       9,989,000

    The Administration's fiscal year 2001 Budget proposes an FFGA and 
funding totaling $14,174,990 in fiscal year 2001. The complete funding 
schedule for the project is as follows:

Funds Appropriated \1\..................................      $8,932,176
Fiscal year:
    2001................................................      14,174,990
    2002................................................      14,826,027
    2003................................................      17,334,958
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      TOTAL FEDERAL.....................................      55,268,151
      TOTAL COST........................................      69,085,189

\1\ Less monies expended for Preliminary Engineering and allocated to 
FTA's Project Management Oversight (PMO) program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                SUMMARY

    We urge the committee to appropriate the recommended funding of 
$14,174,990 in fiscal year 2001 in order to allow MATA to continue to 
build on the past success of the downtown rail system. A substantial 
appropriation is needed in fiscal year 2001 in order to maintain our 
broad base of local support and keep the project on schedule. Your past 
assistance is greatly appreciated and we look forward to continuing the 
partnership.
                                 ______
                                 

                   Prepared Statement of Easter Seals

    Mr. Chairman, I am Courtland Townes, III, Director of Services for 
the Boston Center for Independent Living, Inc. in Boston, 
Massachusetts. I am pleased to have the opportunity to submit testimony 
on behalf of Easter Seals in support of Project ACTION. I currently 
serve on the Project ACTION National Steering Committee. The National 
Steering Committee is comprised of members of both the transit and 
disability communities who support Project ACTION and work to ensure 
that the Project's resources are devoted to the most critical 
transportation accessibility issues facing the transit and disability 
communities. On behalf of the people with disabilities and transit 
operators that we represent, I want to say that we are grateful for the 
Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee's ongoing support for 
Project ACTION.
    I work at an Independent Living Center in Boston and am also active 
on the national level promoting disability issues as the Chair of the 
Civil Rights Subcommittee of the National Council on Independent 
Living. I know that many people are not yet familiar with the 
Independent Living movement so please permit me to provide some brief 
background. Independent Living is a philosophy and a movement of people 
with disabilities who work for self-determination, equal opportunities 
and self-respect. At the most basic level, Independent Living means 
that people with disabilities expect and deserve the same choices and 
control in our everyday lives that our non-disabled brothers and 
sisters, neighbors and friends take for granted.
    We want to grow up in our families, go to the neighborhood school, 
use the same bus as our neighbors, work in jobs that are in line with 
our education and abilities, and start families of our own. Just as 
everybody else, we need to be in charge of our lives, think and speak 
for ourselves. To this end we need to support and learn from each 
other, organize ourselves and work for political changes that lead to 
the legal protection of our human and civil rights.
    This is the movement and philosophy that you and your congressional 
colleagues embraced nearly 10 years ago when you enacted the landmark 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). In passing the ADA, you 
and your colleagues recognized that, without access to transportation, 
people with disabilities could not benefit from the promise of full 
participation in society. I am submitting this statement to thank you 
and to let you know how important Project ACTION is in the march toward 
full integration and equal participation of people with disabilities.
    As we approach the ADA's tenth anniversary in 2000, we should take 
note of the tremendous progress we have made in recent years in terms 
of transit access. The 1998 Survey conducted by Louis Harris & 
Associates polling firm for the National Organization on Disability 
demonstrated some of this progress. In 1986, 31 percent of people with 
disabilities who were unemployed stated that lack of access to 
accessible transportation prevented them from working. In 1998 this 
percentage dropped to 24. It is too early to declare victory. Still one 
quarter of the survey participants say that the lack of access to 
transportation is an important reason they were not working, but we are 
clearly headed in the right direction.
    Accessibility is increasing all across America: bus fleet 
accessibility has grown; rail station access has increased; and most 
importantly the disability and transit communities have learned to work 
together 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. In recent 
years you have heard testimony in support of Project ACTION from both 
transit and disability leaders. The Project's broad-based support from 
groups that have historically had an adversarial relationship is a 
testament to its success at seeking cooperative solutions.
    Despite this progress there are still issues to resolve. But thanks 
to Project ACTION the disability community and the transit community 
have a forum to work toward solutions in a cooperative fashion. Through 
this cooperation we in the disability community have learned that many, 
though not all, transit operators are earnestly working toward 
compliance with the ADA and trying to provide the best quality service 
to all Americans--those with disabilities and those without. But these 
transit operators need ongoing assistance and guidance on 
transportation accessibility issues. And people with disabilities need 
to understand their rights and responsibilities under the ADA. This is 
where Project ACTION has played and can continue to play a vital role.
    With the support of this subcommittee in recent years, Project 
ACTION has become the principal resource of tools, training and 
procedures to make the ADA work. Since this subcommittee established 
Project ACTION, it has sponsored innovative research, funded 
demonstration projects, provided technical assistance to hundred of 
transit providers, and developed an impressive resource center with 
information on the most cost-effective ways to achieve accessibility.
    Let me briefly describe some major initiatives that the Project 
completed since we last submitted testimony to this subcommittee. In 
June 1999, Project ACTION hosted two National Technical Assistance 
Conferences, one in Dallas and the other in Portland, Oregon. These 
conferences provided transit operators with every available resource to 
implement cost-effective ADA compliance strategies. Conference topics 
included:
  --Reducing paratransit costs by transitioning riders from paratransit 
        to fixed route service
  --Solving rural transportation issues
  --Ferry and other water vessel accessibility
  --Serving passengers who use seeing eye dogs and other service 
        animals
  --Training transit operators to make stop announcements
  --Dispute resolution principles.
    This brief overview of these topics demonstrates that accessible 
transportation encompasses so much more than just bus lift operations 
for passengers in wheelchairs. Project ACTION has developed tools and 
resources in all areas of accessibility. These conferences succeeded in 
getting tools directly in the hands of the transit operators that need 
them.
    Last year we told you that we would reach out to the Over the Road 
Bus companies to bring this industry into compliance with the ADA and 
to open up intercity, cross-country and tour and charter travel to 
people with disabilities. And this has and continues to be a primary 
focus for Project ACTION. In conjunction with the American Bus 
Association and a core group of operators, we have developed an 
educational package and scheduled training events specifically tailored 
to the unique needs of motorcoach operators.
    The demand for Project ACTION information is strong and continues 
to grow. We have new products on many of the significant issues facing 
the transit and disability communities. We have developed guidance for 
AMTRAK to help meet the needs of disabled rail passengers and also 
created web-based software to assist rail systems in evaluating the ADA 
accessibility of their facilities. We have also developed a best 
practice guide to providing accessible water transportation on 
passenger ferries.
    We are meeting much of the demand from customers for information 
through the Project ACTION website. We now have an Accessible Travelers 
Database online. One of the challenges for passengers with disabilities 
when they travel from place to place is not knowing what level of 
accessible service exists in any location. To help prevent the 
unpleasant surprises many disabled passengers face, we now have over 
1,400 accessible transportation providers listed online for trip 
planning purposes. The Project ACTION website has received over 212,000 
visitors in calendar year 1999.
    In the first quarter of fiscal year 2000, Project ACTION:
  --Handled orders for 2,000 documents
  --Responded to over 3,000 calls for assistance of various kinds
  --Produced and distributed the Project ACTION Update to over 14,000 
        individuals and transit agencies
  --Received 85,000 visits to the Project ACTION Webpage.
    As this subcommittee has requested, we continue to work closely 
with officials at the Federal Transportation Administration to 
coordinate and plan project activities. Working with FTA, Project 
ACTION is developing a 5-year strategic plan that will guide the 
activities of the organization.
    In February, Easter Seals submitted its fiscal year 2000 federal 
application to the Federal Transit Administration. This document 
outlines how Project ACTION will spend the $3.0 million in support that 
this subcommittee approved in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation bill. 
The funding that you provided will enable us to greatly expand our 
activities. New activities that Project ACTION will undertake in the 
near future based on requests from the field include:
  --Hosting an event to teach transit professionals how to measure the 
        benefits of accessible public transit
  --Creating a ``turnkey'' package for transit systems that will allow 
        them to assess, train and mentor new fixed route customers with 
        disabilities. And also provide driver sensitivity training and 
        customer service monitoring
  --Providing direct technical assistance to motorcoach operators to 
        help them serve passengers with disabilities.
    On behalf of the millions of people with disabilities who rely on 
public transit, Easter Seals thanks this subcommittee for its past 
support of Project ACTION. As we look toward the future, Project 
ACTION's main focus will be to continue to find and implement creative 
and cost-effective methods to promote ADA compliance and to reduce the 
rising costs of paratransit. As a person who works on a full time basis 
to promote civil rights for Americans with disabilities, I want to 
emphasize how important the march toward 100 percent transit 
accessibility is and to recognize the vital role that Project ACTION 
plays in this struggle.
    On behalf of Easter Seals, I respectfully request this subcommittee 
to provide $3.0 million dollars to fund Project ACTION in fiscal year 
2001. 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 in both the disability and 
provider communities and with the Federal Transit Administration. The 
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 the Port Authority of Allegheny County

    Chairman Shelby and members of the subcommittee, it is my pleasure 
and honor to submit testimony on behalf of Port Authority of Allegheny 
County, the principal public transportation provider in the Pittsburgh 
urbanized area. Port Authority carries over 76 million public 
transportation riders annually over a 730-square mile area including 
the City of Pittsburgh. We operate and oversee a variety of services 
including bus, busway, light rail, incline, and the nation's largest 
specialized paratransit system known as access.
    As chief executive officer of Port Authority of Allegheny County, 
it is my privilege to present this testimony regarding Port Authority's 
request for fiscal year 2001 transportation appropriations ``earmarks'' 
for two very exciting and important projects for the Pittsburgh 
urbanized area--the north shore connector and the stage II light rail 
transit projects, both of which are major components of Port 
Authority's ``rail 21'' program.
    I will also be including in my testimony a funding request for the 
purchase of buses.
    For fiscal year 2001, Port Authority is requesting $25 million of 
section 5309 ``new start'' funds for the north shore connector and $40 
million for the stage II light rail transit projects. Port Authority is 
also requesting a section 5309 ``bus/bus facility'' earmark of $20 
million to be used to acquire approximately 80 buses in fiscal year 
2001. Procurement of new buses will enable Port Authority to continue 
modernizing its fleet and ensure the continuation of quality transit 
service to its customers.

                          ``RAIL 21'' PROGRAM

North Shore Connector
    The heart of the Pittsburgh metropolitan region is its golden 
triangle, the center of business, employment, cultural and sporting 
events, tourism, and government services. In order to accommodate and 
facilitate its continued growth and vitality, there is pressing need to 
better integrate the north shore area with the golden triangle by 
providing much improved transit service along the downtown's Allegheny 
River corridor. This corridor encompasses the north shore, cultural 
district and strip district areas of downtown and is the region's 
premiere tourist destination with three rivers stadium (the home of the 
Pittsburgh Steelers and Pirates), the Carnegie Science Center, the 
International Andy Warhol Museum, the National Aviary, the David L. 
Lawrence Convention Center, three performing arts theaters, and the 
Senator John Heinz Pittsburgh Regional History Center all located 
within this approximately one-square mile corridor.
    Within this corridor, there are also significant levels of downtown 
commuter parking and private and public development projects. During 
the day, a large reservoir of parking on the north shore provides much 
needed fringe parking for the golden triangle. In turn, the golden 
triangle provides a significant amount of needed parking for north 
shore events. Providing a better connection between the two areas will 
fortify and enhance this relationship.
    Development projects in the corridor include the Aluminum Company 
of America's (ALCOA's) new corporate headquarters, a 240-unit apartment 
complex, a new baseball park, a new football stadium, a new and 
expanded convention center and hotel, an office building, a new 
theater, parking facilities, and an accompanying retail and 
entertainment complex.
    Absent in this corridor are pedestrian friendly and efficient 
transportation connections tying together these various attractions and 
development projects and linking the corridor with the region's 
transportation infrastructure. Overall, improved linkages between the 
north shore, central business district and the station square area, 
will help ensure the continued vitality and accessibility of the 
region's core and enhance and support the private and public 
development currently underway.
    Since 1985, downtown Pittsburgh has been served from the south 
hills as part of an overall 25-mile light rail transit system. A fixed 
guideway transit connection from the north shore to Port Authority's 
existing light rail system would enhance transit service to the north 
shore area and better integrate golden triangle, north shore and 
station square activities including regional attractions. the north 
shore connector will:
  --Support the economic development activities of the north shore, 
        such as the new ALCOA headquarters, a 240-unit residential 
        development, a riverfront park and the new baseball and 
        football stadiums.
  --Improve access to current job and activity centers, such as the 
        Carnegie Science Center, Andy Warhol Museum, convention center, 
        the national aviary, cultural district and other entertainment 
        and cultural destinations on the north shore.
  --Provide a direct transportation connection between north shore job 
        and activity centers and the south hills job and activity 
        centers serviced by Port Authority's light rail transit system, 
        the ``T''.
  --Tie the north shore, downtown and station square together in a way 
        that would benefit all three business districts.
  --Improve transportation for the one million annual visitors to the 
        cultural district in downtown Pittsburgh and the more than 
        three million people who annually visit the north side, 
        including fans of the pirates and steelers.
  --Provide convenient transfers to other public transit service and 
        facilities, including the Martin Luther King, Jr. east busway, 
        the west busway/Wabash hov facility, Port Authority's bus 
        service network, the I-279 hov lanes and Amtrak and Greyhound 
        service.
  --Continue to improve and expand public transit services for the 
        citizens of Allegheny County.
  --Furthers Port Authority's effort to expand its LRT system into the 
        north side, strip district and other areas in the Pittsburgh 
        region.
    The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is currently being 
reviewed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) with approval 
expected within the next 30 days. The DEIS includes cost of the most 
likely alternative at $390 million.

                   LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT STAGE II SYSTEM

    Port Authority's light rail transit system, also known as the 
``T'', is a 25-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 through 
Allegheny County's south hills via Beechview and Mount Lebanon, 
construction of a new Mount Lebanon transit tunnel, construction of a 
new rail car maintenance facility and operations control center and 
purchase of 55 articulated and air-conditioned light rail cars. Also 
included in stage I 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 12.5 miles of the 
overbrook, library, and drake trolley lines to modern light rail 
standards. Preliminary engineering was completed for the project in 
spring 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. All three lines are also to be built to modern light rail 
standards. The project includes the acquisition of 28 new light rail 
vehicles, and approximately 2,400 new park and ride spaces. The current 
project is estimated to cost a total of $512.5 million. Among other 
benefits, the reconstruction of the stage II line would promote 
economic development opportunities, offer shorter travel time, add much 
needed capacity for customers, provide safety enhancements, implement 
park and ride expansion and improve operational efficiencies. We are 
requesting $40 million for this project.

                              BUS PURCHASE

    Port Authority is also requesting $20 million of section 5309 bus/
bus facility funds in the fiscal year 2001 transportation 
appropriations to be used toward the procurement of approximately 80 
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 
76 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. as a result of your 
work, this subcommittee has enabled public transportation systems in 
our great cities, suburban communities, and rural areas to be 
rejuvenated. Your work has also helped create an interstate highway 
system and an airport network that is the envy of the world. It is 
imperative that we sustain this momentum and that all levels of 
government continue to develop our transit and surface transportation 
networks in order to keep American mobile and growing.
    Finally, I want to thank you Mr. Chairman for your personal 
leadership and all of the subcommittee members for their 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 and all of its members in the coming years. I would be 
pleased to submit any additional information at this time as would be 
useful to the subcommittee. Thank you.
                                 ______
                                 

          Prepared Statement of the Regional Transit Authority

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement to the 
subcommittee on behalf of the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) of New 
Orleans and Jefferson Parish.
    Before proceeding, the Regional Transit Authority extends its 
sincerest appreciation to the members of this subcommittee for the 
support demonstrated towards our requests for the last fiscal year. As 
you may recall, upon enactment, the fiscal year 2000 transportation 
appropriations bill included $3,300,000 for RTA's bus lease maintenance 
program from Louisiana's $5,000,000 statewide bus appropriation, and $1 
million for the canal streetcar project. We are very grateful to the 
subcommittee for its role in providing that critical funding.
    In summary, for fiscal year 2001, the Regional Transit Authority is 
requesting Federal funding for the following projects:
  --$76,000,000 for the canal streetcar project
  --$40,000,000 for RTA's lease/maintenance program
  --$10,000,000 for the desire corridor project

                        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 
2001, the Regional Transit Authority is requesting up to $76,000,000 of 
FTA section 5309 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 undergoing final design. 
The prototype streetcar has been completed and is operating regularly 
as part of its testing. Construction is expected to begin in 2001.
    The total cost of the canal streetcar project, including the 
proposed city park spur, is approximately $156,600,000. To date, 
Congress has appropriated $55.5 million towards the project.
    The Regional Transit Authority recently took two major steps 
towards ensuring the fiscal viability of the project as it strives to 
obtain a full funding grant agreement. Unfortunately, both actions 
occurred after the update submittal to the FTA to affect the project's 
current ``not recommended'' status per the annual report on new starts 
for fiscal year 2001 issued earlier this month.
    While the project continues to enjoy positive ratings under the 
project justification criteria, it suffers under the financial rating 
criteria. To that end, as well as to ensure the financial stability of 
both the project and the RTA system, the RTA enacted a fare increase 
and obtained an additional source of sales tax revenues.
    The fare increase was implemented in the fall of 1999 when the base 
fare rose from $1.00 to $1.25. The expected decrease in ridership was 
not as severe as projected while the revenue increases has done much to 
reverse the negative operating budget outlook the RTA faced previously.
    The additional sales tax will be the result of a settlement between 
the RTA, the local hotel/motel industry, and tourism officials to share 
in the proceeds of a previously unlevied sales tax on hotel and motel 
rooms in New Orleans. The RTA will receive 60 percent of the 
collections while the other two parties will split the remaining 
amount. The new levy, which is expected to begin on May 1st, is 
projected to generate an additional $6-$7 million per year for the RTA. 
Those proceeds will be dedicated for both the canal streetcar and 
desire corridor new start projects.
    The canal street corridor connects with 70 percent of the Regional 
Transit Authority's 59 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 and 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 corridor 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 technicians and craftsmen at the RTA's Carrollton 
facility whom recently built seven streetcars for the revamped 
riverfront streetcar line and overhauled the entire 36 car St. Charles 
fleet. This facility and its workers are uniquely suited to construct 
the canal streetcars competently and economically. 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 
cost at $1 million to $1.2 million.
    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 streetcars 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 $40,000,000 
representing five years of payments under its innovative lease/
maintenance program approved by the Federal Transit Administration.
    The RTA has entered into a lease and maintenance agreement with a 
commercial leasing company for the lease and maintenance of 175 new 
buses. The agreement will allow the RTA to benefit from the Federal 
regulations that permits the treatment of maintenance costs under a 
lease as an eligible capital expense. Penske truck leasing, through the 
RTA's RFP selection process, is the lessor of the buses as well as 
being responsible for the maintenance of the buses. The financing will 
be by ABN-AMRO.
    With 446 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 new buses has significantly reduced 
the operating expenses of the RTA and has enhanced its ability to 
provide dependable service.
    This request will once again be a part of the fiscal year 2001 
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 CORRIDOR PROJECT

    The RTA is requesting $10,000,000 of FTA section 5309 new start 
funds for the corridor once occupied by the fabled streetcar named 
desire. The funding will allow the project to proceed to final design. 
The major investment study (MIS) was completed in May of 1999. The RTA 
is currently seeking approval from the FTA to proceed to preliminary 
engineering and the environmental impact phase. To date, Congress has 
appropriated $6 million of FTA new start funding to the project.
    The completion of the major investment study (MIS) with extensive 
public input resulted in the selection of the former St. Claude 
streetcar route as the light rail alternative. Utilizing N. Rampart 
Street and St. Claude Avenue, the four-mile (8 miles round-trip) would 
travel through the historic New Orleans neighborhoods of Bywater, 
Fauborg Marigny and the Vieux Carre (the French Quarter).
    the project also includes a number of transportation systems 
management (TSM) improvements including bus route changes, smaller 
buses, intelligent transportation system (ITS) innovations, and bus 
turn lanes.
    The proposed 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 streetcar will provide direct service to the 
French Quarter, Faubourg Marigny and Bywater neighborhoods that 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.
    Thank you for your time and consideration with these requests on 
behalf of the regional transit authority.
                                 ______
                                 

     Prepared Statement of the Louisiana Public Transit Association

    Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement to the house 
subcommittee on transportation appropriations on behalf of the 120 
transit providers represented by the Louisiana Public Transit 
Association. Due to the difficulty in obtaining section 5309 funding 
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 $5,000,000 towards the 
$35.7 million fiscal year 2000 request. That funding will go a long way 
in helping the Louisiana Transit providers.
    The total Louisiana request for fiscal year 2001 under FTA section 
5309 bus and bus related funding is $65,551,000. The request is for 14 
projects of varying size and cost from nine transit agencies. Briefly, 
those requests are for:
    The City of Alexandria, Alexandria Transit (ATRANS), is requesting 
$1,030,000 for replacement vehicles. ATRANS needs to replace four 
thirty foot buses and three vans for its ADA paratransit service. The 
replacement vehicles will include surveillance cameras, two-way radios, 
and fareboxes. The vehicles being replaced will soon exceed their 
useful life.
    The City of Baton Rouge, Capitol Transportation Corporation (CTC), 
is requesting a total of $1,200,000 for two projects important to the 
capital region.
    Funding of $1,000,000 is being requested to begin the replacement 
of seven buses and three vans that have exceeded their useful life. CTC 
will have an additional ten buses that will need to be replaced after 
2000. In addition, because of recent and well-received upgrades to the 
transit service in the Baton Rouge area, CTC will also have to increase 
its paratransit fleet to meet demand and ADA requirements.
    CTC is also requesting $200,000 of funding to replace radio 
equipment throughout the CTC system including base stations, bus 
radios, van radios and supervisors' radios. The replacements are 
necessary due to the recent purchase of a new regional 800 mhz system. 
The replacement equipment will permit the coordination of 
communications between police, transit dispatch, emergency medical 
service, and the regional transportation management center.
    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 $500,000 
to begin the preliminary planning of an eastbank transit terminal. The 
proposed site is located on airline drive near the intersection of 
Causeway Boulevard, an area near several major transfer points. The 
terminal would greatly improve the efficiency of the eastbank system by 
providing easy access to transfer among three routes. The facility 
would provide for better security, conveniences, and connections for 
riders utilizing the system.
    The City of Lafayette, through the City of Lafayette Transit System 
(COLTS) is seeking the remaining $6,200,000 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. The city will house its traffic and transportation department's 
development, transit, parking and planning divisions at the center. The 
$10,500,000 project already has been designated with a positive 
environmental impact statement and is in the design development phase. 
Construction is scheduled to begin in late 2000.
    COLTS is also seeking $1,600,000 to replace eight transit buses, 25 
percent of the COLTS fleet, that have exceeded their useful life of 
twelve years and are not accessible under ADA. By the end of fiscal 
year 2001, over seventy-five percent of the transit fleet will have 
reached the end of their useful life.
    The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, 
specifically the Office of Public Transportation, is in need of another 
$2,300,000 of Federal funding to allow the replacement of 78 vans for 
both rural and specialized transit providers across Louisiana. 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 needs of welfare-to-work.
    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 DOTD'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, 
jobs access, 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 and 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.
    In addition, MTS is seeking $1,700,000 to replace seven forty-foot 
transit buses that have exceeded their useful life. Currently, the 
average age of the MTS fleet is 10 years.
    The City of New Orleans, through the Regional Transit Authority 
(RTA), is requesting $40,000,000, which represents five years of 
payments under its innovative lease/maintenance program approved by the 
Federal Transit Administration. This program allows the RTA to enter 
into a lease and maintenance agreement with a commercial leasing 
company for the lease and maintenance of 175 new buses. The agreement 
permits the RTA to benefit from the FTA regulations 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, 
was selected as the lessor of the buses as well as provide for the 
maintenance of the buses. The financing will be by ABN-AMRO.
    With 447 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.
    Finally, as you are probably aware, the RTA has pending two new 
start rail requests, one for the Canal Street corridor project 
(undergoing final design) for $76,000,000 and another $10,000,000 for 
the desire corridor project. The RTA will provide detail of those 
projects in a separate statement.
    The next request is on behalf of the City of Shreveport and its 
Sportran Transit System for funding of $7,680,000 to replace thirty-
four transit buses. The vehicles have exceeded their useful life of 
twelve years and are not accessible under ADA requirements.
    The last request is on behalf of St. Tammany Parish that is 
requesting $300,000 for a park and ride facility to be located in 
Mandeville, located within western portion of the parish. The park & 
ride facility is proposed for a half-acre site in the vicinity of 
Gerard Street. It will be near the Lake Pontchartrain causeway and is 
expected to draw local residents which should help limit the expansive 
growth of traffic on the causeway.
    The proposed project will provide parking for up to 50 automobiles 
including the required disabled spaces. There will be a bus pad capable 
of handling a fully loaded 40-foot bus with proper ingress and egress 
to the site. Amenities to the site will include lighting and 
landscaping consistent with the surrounding natural environment. The 
project will renovate an existing building to provide a transit 
terminal containing telephones, water fountains and benches.
    St. Tammany Parish is directly north and northeast of the City of 
New Orleans across Lake Pontchartrain. It is the fastest growing area 
of the region. the park-and-ride will reduce traffic impacts associated 
with commuter traffic in St. Tammany Parish and help ameliorate air 
quality concerns for the New Orleans region now designated as an air 
quality maintenance area. This project will be the second park & ride 
facility for the residents of St. Tammany Parish.
    Thank you for your time and consideration with these requests on 
behalf of Louisiana's Transit Systems.
    For your reference, attached you will find a summary of the fiscal 
year 2001 Louisiana request.

NEW START RAIL, 49 U.S.C. Section 5309 (Formerly Section 3

                                                          Appropriations
New Orleans Canal Street Corridor Project (Construction)     $76,000,000
New Orleans Desire Corridor Project (Final Design)......      10,000,000

BUS AND BUS RELATED FACILITIES, 49 U.S.C. SECTION 5309 (FORMERLY SECTION
                                    3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Federal \1\     Local        Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria:
    Four Thirty-foot Buses.......     $880,000      220,000    1,100,000
    Three Vans...................      150,000       37,500      187,500
Baton Rouge:
    Buses and vans...............    1,000,000      250,000    1,250,000
    Communications Equipment.....      200,000       50,000      250,000
Jefferson Parish: Eastbank             500,000      125,000      625,000
 Terminal (preliminary design)...
Lafayette:
    Multimodal Transportation        6,200,000    1,550,000    7,750,000
     Center......................
    Eight Forty-foot Buses.......    1,600,000      400,000    2,000,000
Louisiana Department of
 Transportation & Development,
 Public Transportation:
    Replace 78 vans (Rural & E&H)    2,300,000      575,000    2,875,000
    Rural Transit Expansion          1,200,000      300,000    1,500,000
     (vans)......................
Monroe:
    Renovate maintenance facility    2,000,000      500,000    2,500,000
    Replace seven Forty-foot         1,500,000      375,000    1,875,000
     buses.......................
New Orleans: Lease Maintenance      40,000,000   10,000,000   50,000,000
 Program (5 years)...............
Shreveport: Replace 34 buses.....    7,680,000    1,920,000    9,600,000
St. Tammany Parish: Mandeville         300,000       75,000      375,000
 Park and Ride Facility..........
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total......................   65,551,000   16,377,500   81,887,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amounts to be prorated should full funding not be realized.

                                 ______
                                 

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Prepared Statement of Iowa Statement University, Institute for Physical 
                        Research and Technology

                              INTRODUCTION

    The U.S. air transportation system is the best and the safest in 
the world. It plays a key role in the U.S. economy carrying over 614 
million passengers in 1998 alone. That number is expected to climb to 
890 million passengers by the year 2008, nearly doubling in two decades 
the 1998 number when it carried over 450 million. These increases will 
be met by the continued operation of existing aircraft as well as the 
introduction of new aircraft into the commercial fleet. The U.S. fleet 
is expected to grow from 5,200 aircraft in 1998 to 7,200 by the year 
2008, a 38 percent increase in only 10 years. The diligence that the 
Federal Aviation Administration and the aviation industry employed in 
the 20th century to ensure public safety must be ever-increasing to 
ensure continued performance as we enter the next century. The 
aerospace industry also plays a critical role in the U.S. economy, 
employing almost 5 percent of the manufacturing work force in the U.S.. 
Congress is urged to continue their support to address the critical 
safety and economic issues associated with this vital industry through 
funding for the Aviation Safety budget of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. The Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence 
(AACE), established by the FAA in 1997, offers a unique opportunity for 
the government to work with industry on precompetitive aviation safety 
research to their mutual benefit and the benefit of the flying public. 
The AACE team is comprised of the best talents the U.S. has to offer in 
technologies critical to the safe design and operation of aircraft. 
This document provides details of the national importance and the 
contributions possible through the Airworthiness Assurance Center of 
Excellence.

                               BACKGROUND

    Several incidents in the last fifteen years have focussed the 
attention of the aviation community on the needs related to safety, and 
in some instances provided direction to federally funded research 
programs managed by the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center's 
Aviation Safety Division. A chronology of those events is provided 
here:
  --In 1988, the Aloha incident drew the attention of the industry to 
        issues related to the structural integrity of aircraft systems. 
        The Aviation Safety Act of 1988 directed the FAA to better 
        predict the effects of design, maintenance, testing, wear, and 
        fatigue in the life of an aircraft; to develop methods for 
        improving aircraft maintenance technology and practices, 
        including nondestructive inspection; and to expand general 
        long-range research activities applicable to aviation systems.
  --In 1990, the FAA Center for Aviation Systems Reliability (CASR) was 
        established at Iowa State University to support the FAA's 
        research needs in the research and development of inspection 
        technologies. In 1991, the Airworthiness Assurance 
        Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center at Sandia National 
        Labs (AANC) was established as a sister program that supports 
        the validation and transfer of inspection technologies. The 
        resources of CASR and AANC provide the FAA with the full 
        spectrum of research capabilities for inspection technology, 
        spanning from basic research through applied research, which 
        has been fully validated in realistic settings.
  --In 1989, a United Airlines DC-10 crashed in Sioux City, Iowa, as it 
        tried to land following a major in-flight malfunction. The 
        cause of the incident was traced back to the presence of a 
        melt-related defect known as ``hard alpha''. In response to 
        issues identified in the wake of this incident, the Engine 
        Titanium Consortium at Iowa State University was established in 
        1993 to address the inspection of critical jet engine 
        components.
  --In 1996, the White House Commission on Aviation Security and Safety 
        undertook an intensive investigation into improving aviation 
        safety. Several incidents beyond those noted above, including 
        the TWA 800 event in Long Island, the ValuJet incident in 
        Miami, and the Delta incident in Pensacola, precipitated the 
        establishment of the White House Commission. After extensive 
        review, the Commission recommended that a concentrated effort 
        be put in place to reduce accidents five-fold over the next 
        decade. Reductions in the overall accident rate are needed in 
        light of the major increases in air travel and in order to 
        maintain the public's confidence in the air transportation 
        system.
    The FAA has focussed its resources on the accident prevention steps 
that hold the most potential. In April 1998, the FAA Administrator and 
the Vice President announced the Safer Skies Initiative, which will use 
the latest technology to help analyze U.S. and global data to find the 
root causes of accidents and determine the best actions to break the 
chain of events that lead to accidents. Safer Skies will use 
partnerships between the FAA and the aviation industry to determine the 
highest priority issues and develop programs to address those issues. 
Already in existence, the Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence 
is a model for such partnerships, and it is expected to be a major 
contributor to achieving the goals of this program.

                      RESPONSE TO A NATIONAL NEED

    The FAA, the airline operators and the aviation systems 
manufacturers share the responsibility for aviation safety. Each plays 
a unique and complementary role in the lifecycle of commercial 
aviation, starting with design, manufacture and certification of 
aviation products followed by the operation and maintenance of the 
commercial fleet. In 1997, the FAA established the Airworthiness 
Assurance Center of Excellence (AACE) to address research, education, 
and technology transfer and utilization in the area of airworthiness 
assurance. Specifically, the FAA uses this center to ensure that the 
most current technology is available to address the safety needs of 
aviation. AACE, comprised of nearly 100 university and industry 
partners, offers the full range of technologies needed to address 
safety issues. Partnerships are already in place, and functioning well. 
These enable business competitors to put aside competition and to work 
together to address safety issues to the common benefit of the industry 
and the flying public. AACE offers a unique opportunity for the 
government to work with industry and leading research universities to 
accomplish the following objectives:
  --To promote and facilitate research in industrially relevant 
        subjects that will improve aviation safety
  --To facilitate utilization of appropriate research results and 
        transfer of technology into aerospace applications
  --To develop education and training tools for improving aviation 
        safety including participation of students in industrially 
        relevant research

                 AACE CAPABILITIES SUPPORT SAFETY NEEDS

    Through the concentrated efforts of the industry and the 
government, the overall commercial aviation safety record has seen 
improvement from 0.121 fatalities per 100,000 flights in 1989 to 0.036 
fatalities per 100,0000 flights in 1997. Continued diligence is needed 
to further improve the safety record and accomplish the goal of a five-
fold improvement established by the White House Commission. New 
technologies are being introduced in the manufacture of commercial 
aircraft with new materials, new processes, and new inspections finding 
their way into structural applications. As the aircraft and their 
systems age, new challenges are evident in the maintenance, inspection 
and repair of the commercial fleet. Comprehensive capabilities are 
needed to address the wide range of technology needs to assure 
continued safety improvements. AACE has successfully established a team 
of aviation experts that includes the following expertise:
  --Aircraft standards and specifications
  --Inspection technology--airframe, propulsion, nonstructural systems, 
        and components
  --Reliability and POD methodologies
  --Maintenance and repair technology
  --Composites development, repair, and certification
  --Materials properties, characterization and computational modeling
  --Flight loads analysis
  --Fuels analysis
  --Crashworthiness of aircraft structures
  --Personal protection systems
  --Propulsion materials and design
  --Structural integrity and fracture mechanics

              ESTABLISHMENT OF WORLD-RENOWNED SAFETY TEAM

    AACE is comprised of eight core universities, Sandia National 
Laboratories and over 100 other university and industry affiliates. The 
nine core members, which include Iowa State, Ohio State, Northwestern, 
Wichita State, UCLA, Arizona State, University of Dayton, University of 
Maryland, and Sandia National Laboratories, provide expertise in all 
the major research areas necessary to address FAA aircraft safety 
needs. Results from the AACE program are already impacting the 
aerospace industry and the safety of its operations. Major 
accomplishments of AACE include:
    Inspection development.--Tasks are under way at ISU, Northwestern 
University, Ohio State University, and Wayne State University through 
the CASR program. University researchers cooperate with engineers at 
Sandia National Laboratories to transfer the results into industrial 
use as part of the AANC. Efforts are under way to transfer thermal 
wave, ultrasonic, and eddy current techniques into use at airline 
maintenance and overhaul facilities.
  --New approach to acoustic testing developed by ISU researchers is 
        used for finding delaminations in composite structures. The 
        approach is being developed and tested with Northwest Airlines 
        and Boeing with technical support from Sandia National Labs. 
        Beta site tests are under way with American Airlines, Delta 
        Airlines, and United Airlines; ongoing studies are in place 
        with the Iowa Army National Guard; and commercialization 
        discussions have begun.
  --Software tool for optimized x-ray inspection was developed at ISU 
        and is currently being used by Boeing, Pratt & Whitney, 
        Honeywell, General Electric, Allison/Rolls Royce, and Howmet 
        for the evaluation and design of critical aerospace 
        inspections. The tool has been used to determine the effect of 
        inspection angle on the ability to detect cracks in structural 
        elements of airframes, to determine the detection sensitivity 
        for detrimental particles in jet engine components, and many 
        other safety-critical inspections.
  --Crack detection for aging aircraft has been the focus of research 
        at Northwestern University. An approach to detect cracking in 
        hidden layers has been implemented by Northwest Airlines, Delta 
        Airlines and USAirways for inspection of the DC-9. This one 
        inspection has saved the industry over $1M and led to the 
        successful detection of cracking and corrosion.
    Propulsion inspection research.--The Engine Titanium Consortium 
Phase II program was established in 1999. The ETC includes research 
efforts of ISU in partnership with the three major U.S. engine 
manufacturers, General Electric, Honeywell, and Pratt & Whitney. 
Efforts are under way to improve the detectability of critical flaws in 
the titanium and nickel alloys that are commonly used in jet engines. 
Tools for use in manufacture and operation of jet engines are under 
development along with quantitative methodologies to assess the 
reliability of the inspection processes.
  --Improved inspection of titanium billet was the focus of the ETC 
        Phase I production efforts. The multizone system, optimized by 
        the ETC team, has been implemented at three inspection labs, 
        used to inspect millions of pounds of billet, and has prevented 
        hard alpha defects from entering jet engine parts
  --Inservice inspection of critical jet components can now be 
        accomplished more rapidly and with improved sensitivity using 
        tools developed by ETC. The Portable Scanner is available as a 
        commercial tool and is being used in commercial and military 
        applications. Over 15 units have been sold for use in ensuring 
        safe operation of critical jet engine disks.
  --Quantitative assessment of ultrasonic inspection is now possible 
        using methodologies developed by ISU and the partners of ETC. 
        Statistical approaches to assess the effectiveness of an 
        inspection enable the industry to make engineering decisions 
        about the method and frequency of inspection.
    Jet engine materials improvements.--The Special Metals Processing 
Consortium, headed by Sandia National Laboratories, working with the 
major U.S. suppliers of jet engine alloys and the engine manufacturers, 
develops improves melting processes for titanium and nickel alloys. 
Their efforts are directed at reducing the occurrence of melt related 
defects such as hard alpha, the defect that led to the Sioux City 
crash.
    Fuels safety.--Work is under way at Stanford Research Institute, 
University of Dayton, and Arizona State University to understand the 
source, nature, and potential hazards of copper and silver sulfide 
deposits in aviation fuels. Results will have implications for 
understanding the cause of the TWA 800 incident.
    Materials research.--Today in the aviation industry, the use of 
composite structures is more widespread. To fully realize the weight-
saving potential of composites, one must first understand the damage 
tolerance of such structures. This understanding is essential first in 
the design process in order to develop structures that are more 
efficient and second, in serviceability to reduce the extent and 
frequency of repair. Work is under way at Wichita State University, 
University of Maryland, Northrop Grumman, and UCLA to understand the 
damage mechanisms and provide data to the FAA in evaluating the safety 
of composite materials.

           AEROSPACE IS A KEY ELEMENT OF U.S. COMPETITIVENESS

    The aerospace industry employed 893,000 people ($32.9M payroll) in 
1998 down from a high of 1,314,000 ($34.2M payroll) in 1989 which 
represents 4.8 percent and 6.8 percent of the overall manufacturing 
employment respectively. Aircarriers employed another 621,000 people in 
1998. In addition to its role as a major employer, the aerospace 
industry also accounted for 9.4 percent of U.S. exports in 1998 with 
nearly $35 billion exported through aircraft and engines sales. Given 
the economic importance, continued research and development activities 
for the overall safety of the industry are needed. AACE is uniquely 
positioned to support the research efforts that enhance economic 
competitiveness. The leading aviation research universities in the 
country are partnered with national laboratories such as Sandia 
National Laboratories and the Ames Laboratory to provide research 
solutions to industry defined problems. This is the real advantage--the 
industrial users and partners help define the needs and the preeminent 
research organizations in the world are partnering to work toward their 
shared results. Industry partners have defined the following goals for 
AACE research:
  --Reduce failures by order of magnitude
  --Improve efficiency of operations and support to reduce cost
  --Reduce certification time and costs These goals were arrived at 
        through the efforts of aircraft and engine OEMs, major U.S. 
        airlines, and aviation systems manufacturers, working with Iowa 
        State University, Northwestern University, Wichita State 
        University, Ohio State University, and Sandia National Labs.

                  OPPORTUNITIES BUILT UPON EXPERIENCE

    Economic and competitive forces are changing the way aircraft are 
developed, certified, and operated. These same forces impact the 
operational life span of the aircraft. Factors affecting the future of 
aviation include shorter design and certification cycle times, a 
shrinking (and retiring) workforce, and increased outsourcing and use 
of third party support. Preeminent FAA safety goals must be reconciled 
with industry business needs to fully address the challenges ahead for 
the aviation industry. The Airworthiness Assurance Center of 
Excellence, established in 1997, combined the talents of the Center for 
Aviation Systems Reliability at Iowa State University and the 
Airworthiness Assurance NDI Validation Center at Sandia National Labs 
with the capabilities of other major universities and industry 
partners. CASR and AANC have considerable experience in the 
development, validation, and implementation of inspection technologies. 
Building on that experience base, AACE is uniquely positioned to 
address the full range of safety and economic research needs of the 
government and the industry. Opportunities to apply the best available 
technology to the highest priority needs are in place.
    Congress is strongly urged to continue their support for these 
critical safety and economic issues through funding for the Aviation 
Safety budget of the FAA. The Airworthiness Assurance Center of 
Excellence offers a unique opportunity for the government to work with 
industry on precompetitive aviation safety research to their mutual 
benefit and the benefit of the flying public.
  --AACE is in place, and it is working.
  --It is doing exactly what it was designed to do, and the need it 
        serves is growing.
  --It is providing demonstrable benefit to the aviation industry.
  --It is a model of government, industry, and academic collaboration 
        to address the overriding safety concerns of the public.
  --It is a vehicle enabling the best minds to work on major concerns, 
        and to do so while distanced from the competitive forces of the 
        normal workplace.
  --It should be strongly supported as it continues the successful 
        performance of the work it was asked to do.
                                 ______
                                 

          Prepared Statement of the FlightSafety International

    This is in support of the justification by the City of Vero Beach, 
Florida for $5.2 million in funding from the FAA Facilities and 
Equipment fiscal year 2001 appropriations account to relocate and 
replace the Air Traffic Control Tower at the Vero Beach Municipal 
Airport.

                          URGENT SAFETY ISSUE

    Air traffic controllers at the existing tower, built in 1973, have 
their visibility limited by obstructions for about 30 percent of the 
nearly 240,000 annual operations at the airport. For certain areas of 
the airport they have no visibility at all of aircraft ground 
movements.
    Since 1973, the City has lengthened the main runway, improved the 
secondary runway, added a third runway, and developed the central and 
west areas of the airport. Vero Beach Airport traffic is projected to 
grow to 270,000 operations annually in the next few years.
    At Vero Beach, FlightSafety International operates 90 aircraft that 
fly about 90,000 hours annually. Roughly 25 percent of the pilots 
trained at Vero Beach, or about 1,000 pilots annually, are from 
foreign-speaking countries worldwide who are being trained for 
international airlines and international general aviation. This 
situation demands the utmost in airport traffic control.
    The existing tower is located just to the north of the main east-
west runway. Landing aircraft approaching this runway from either 
direction after sunrise and before sunset are often difficult to see, 
particularly in hazy conditions. Furthermore inbound traffic from the 
south entering the landing pattern for either runway are equally 
difficult to see for the same reason. (See attached airport diagram.) 
The proposed location of the new tower, to the south of the east-west 
runway, will alleviate this potentially dangerous situation.
    The present tower has no radar, and control by tower personnel of 
visual or instrument traffic can be daunting. With no approach control, 
the tower cannot release aircraft for takeoff or clear the instrument 
traffic for landing until visual contact is established.
    The possibility of a mid-air collision is a very real danger 
despite the controllers' continuing valiant efforts.
    FlightSafety International, a U.S.-owned company, operates over 40 
Learning Centers around the world and is the largest provider of flight 
and simulator training in the world. The FlightSafety Academy at Vero 
Beach is the only location operated by the Company that provides ab 
initio pilot training.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    We urge the Subcommittee to support the $5.2 million in fiscal year 
2001 funding from the FAA Facilities and Equipment Account for the 
construction of the Air Traffic Control Tower replacement at the Vero 
Beach Municipal Airport.
                                 ______
                                 

 Prepared Statement of the American Association of Airport Executives 
           and Airports Council International--North America

    Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, we are pleased to offer 
this testimony regarding fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the 
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and other appropriations-related 
issues on behalf of the American Association of Airport Executives 
(AAAE) and Airports Council International--North America (ACI-NA). AAAE 
is the world's largest professional organization representing the men 
and women who manage airports; ACI-NA members are the local, state and 
regional governing bodies that own and operate commercial service 
airports in the United States and Canada.
    Before looking forward to fiscal year 2001, we want to first offer 
our sincere appreciation to the subcommittee for its long-standing 
support of airports and its continued commitment to airport funding. 
The $1.896 billion AIP obligation limitation for fiscal year 2000, 
which is now being released with enactment of recently passed 
reauthorization legislation, will undoubtedly make a big difference in 
helping tackle much needed safety, security, capacity and noise 
mitigation projects at airports nationwide.
    These investments are critical to keeping pace with the significant 
growth in aviation activity, which is projected to explode from 
approximately 650 million passengers annually to more than one billion 
within a decade. The subcommittee deserves a great deal of credit for 
working to address these increasing demands, a task not easily 
accomplished given the inadequacy of the Administration's recent budget 
requests for AIP and in light of the subcommittee's obligation to other 
programs under its jurisdiction.
    Despite the subcommittee's dedication to increasing AIP funding 
levels, much more is required from the federal government. According to 
the General Accounting Office, there is an annual $3 billion gap 
between existing airport needs and available capital for investment. 
Continued under-investment of this magnitude is beginning to take a 
toll on the aviation system as evidenced by the significant delays 
experienced last summer and at numerous airports throughout the year.
    In reality, those delays are only one symptom of a much deeper 
problem that threatens to cripple the nation's air transportation 
system, a system that Americans rely on to create economic growth 
locally and to compete internationally. In 1997, the National Civil 
Aviation Review Commission warned Congress that without prompt action, 
the United States' aviation system would hit gridlock shortly after the 
turn of the century, jeopardizing safety, harming the efficiency and 
growth of the domestic economy, and hurting the nation's position in 
the global marketplace.
    Congress has taken action to secure additional resources for 
aviation as part of FAA reauthorization legislation. That bill, which 
was passed overwhelmingly by both Houses of Congress in March, 
significantly increases investment in FAA capital accounts, 
particularly AIP. We believe this increase in AIP funding is absolutely 
justified and in the best long-term interest of airports, the 
travelling public and the nation.
    We commend the members of both the subcommittee and the full 
committee for the critical role you played in shaping the final 
compromise on the FAA reauthorization bill and for bringing the 
conference committee to its successful conclusion. In the end, the bill 
offered a fair and reasonable approach that provides desperately needed 
capital while ensuring that those funds are wisely spent. Among other 
things, the legislation provides important management changes at the 
FAA and maintains the critical role of the subcommittee and the full 
committee in maintaining oversight of the Agency.
    Given the overwhelming needs of airports nationwide and with 
important safeguards in place, we believe it imperative that the 
subcommittee fund AIP at not less than the fully authorized $3.2 
billion level in fiscal year 2001. The increase in AIP to $3.2 billion 
combined with a modest increase in the federal cap on locally imposed 
Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) will help narrow the current airport 
funding gap and enhance the safety, efficiency and capacity of the 
nation's aviation system.
    In addition, we urge you to carefully consider provisions in the 
reauthorization legislation that allow the subcommittee to shift funds 
from the facilities and equipment account to AIP, when appropriate. 
Although Administrator Garvey deserves high marks for gaining a better 
grip on the Agency's modernization program, it is clear that much 
remains to be done to ensure that scarce federal resources are wisely 
spent in this area. Given the ``bang for the buck'' that accompanies 
AIP expenditures, we believe that there may be instances when funds 
will be better spent for airport improvements.
    We are aware of the concerns expressed by some about the strain the 
newly enacted FAA reauthorization bill may place on the FAA operations 
account and other federal transportation programs. While we are 
sympathetic to those concerns, we oppose shifting funding from AIP to 
other areas of the FAA's budget.
    Unfortunately, efforts along those lines have already begun with 
the current year's funding of the administration of the FAA Airports 
Office from AIP and the President's proposal to do so again in fiscal 
year 2001 along with $50 million from AIP for funding Essential Air 
Service (EAS). While we support full funding of both the Airports 
Office and EAS, we are adamantly opposed to raiding AIP for purposes 
for which the program was not intended to support.
    The reauthorization bill acknowledges the importance of the FAA 
operations account in funding these types of programs and fulfilling 
the FAA's critical safety mission. The bill calls for funding the 
operations account at the President's requested level, to be paid for 
in part from the general fund, as has been the case historically. Since 
all Americans benefit from the aviation system, we believe a continued 
general fund contribution is appropriate and necessary.
    We have trouble accepting the premise that FAA operations will 
somehow become abandoned with the enactment of the reauthorization 
bill. The operations account has grown significantly from $3.8 billion 
in 1990 to nearly $6 billion in fiscal year 2000, with most of the 
increases coming at the expense of the capital accounts, which have not 
enjoyed similar growth rates. The reauthorization bill simply stops the 
constant chipping away at the capital accounts in recognition of their 
importance to meeting future demands.
    Further, we agree with the Department of Transportation Inspector 
General that the passage of the reauthorization bill should move the 
Agency forward in containing operations costs, developing a cost 
accounting system and developing a strategic business plan. Those 
efforts combined with the management reforms contained in the bill 
should produce increased efficiencies and cost savings in FAA 
operations.
    One specific area for air traffic control cost savings the 
Inspector General has touched on is the FAA Contract Tower Program. In 
addition to providing approximately $30 million in ATC savings, the 
program improves ATC safety, enhances regional airline service 
opportunities and increases economic productivity in smaller 
communities across the country. We appreciate the subcommittee's past 
support of this program, which continues to receive high marks from the 
IG.
    We urge the subcommittee to continue its support of full funding 
($55.3 million) for the Contract Tower Program as requested in the 
President's budget request. We also ask for an additional $5 million to 
be used exclusively for the continuation of the Contract Tower Cost-
Sharing Program supported by the subcommittee last year.
    As we approach the delay-prone summer season it is important to 
recall the role of airports in supplying the much-needed capital 
investment in infrastructure to help address the serious and worsening 
problem of delay. At the same time, there is significant investment 
necessary by FAA in the new technologies needed to modernize the 
National Airspace System.
    Although FAA has acknowledged difficulties fielding advanced 
technologies, it is enjoying the support of the industry in successful 
programs such as Free Flight Phase 1. Nevertheless, a reliable and 
adequate funding stream is essential if this success is to be repeated 
across the entire NAS modernization effort. We urge your support of the 
follow-on Free Flight Phase 2 projects. We also want to emphasize how 
important the satellite navigation programs are to our members' ability 
to increase capacity and safety at their airports.
    Despite the recent setbacks in the Wide Area Augmentation System 
(WAAS), it is an essential tool to providing basic instrument approach 
procedures at many of our smaller airports with no approaches at all. 
WAAS will also provide important new safety margins by supplying 
vertical guidance on the many existing non-precision approaches where 
controlled flight into terrain has been a continuing threat. 
Development of WAAS should continue at a funding level commensurate 
with FAA's current implementation schedule.
    The Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) promises greatly improved 
navigation precision, which will be of tremendous value to our larger 
airports. Development of this program is being carried out by 
innovative Government-Industry Partnerships (GIP's) made possible by 
the FAA acquisition reform flexibility provided by Congress. In these 
GIP's, avionics and airframe manufacturers, airlines and airports are 
jointly developing the basic, Category I precision landing capability. 
However, in view of the delayed schedule for delivery of a Category I 
capability by WAAS, it is essential that this effort be accelerated. 
FAA needs sufficient funding to expedite their role in the development 
of LAAS: provision of timely standards and certification, development 
of the Category II/III LAAS system, and procurement of Category II/III 
LAAS at more than a hundred airports.
    A final new technology of importance to airports is Automatic 
Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast Mode (ADS-B). When coupled with 
augmented signals from WAAS and LAAS, ADS-B holds significant promise 
for reducing delay. In last summer's Ohio valley trials, ADS-B 
demonstrated a real safety benefit by improving situational awareness. 
It also showed that aircrews were able to safely maintain existing 
visual separations, resulting in higher airport capacity, rather than 
adding a several miles margin, as is current practice.
    When coupled with high precision signals from LAAS, ADS-B promises 
to revolutionize airport operations in instrument weather conditions. 
If controllers and pilots can ``see'' each other and the landing runway 
with accuracy of a few feet, as has been demonstrated with LAAS, then 
the reduction in capacity at our member's airports during bad weather 
can be finally be addressed. We believe that independent simultaneous 
approaches to closely spaced parallel runways permitted by LAAS and 
ADS-B will solve the bad weather delay problem at some of our nation's 
most delay-prone airports. When coupled with the ability to ``see'' 
traffic on the airport surface (which several of our member airports 
have already installed in ARFF and operations vehicles), LAAS will 
provide a valuable tool for preventing the worst kind of runway 
incursions--a blunder into an oncoming airplane by a large air carrier 
aircraft.
    Another area that merits the support of the subcommittee is the 
recently created Air Service Development Program, which requires DOT to 
establish a pilot program to help improve air service to communities 
not receiving sufficient air service. If fully funded ($20 million in 
fiscal year 2001), this program will go a long way toward providing 
communities across the country with valuable assistance that will 
likely result in improved airline service at more reasonable prices.
    This program will be particularly beneficial to many smaller 
communities that currently suffer from infrequent air service at high 
prices. These problems are not only an inconvenience for local 
travelers, they also hamper the ability of these communities to attract 
and maintain businesses and develop economically. As any local chamber 
of commerce will tell you, one of the first things any potential 
business asks when looking at a new site is the availability of 
reliable and reasonably priced air service.
    The Air Service Development Program is designed to give communities 
or consortia of communities modest funding for worthwhile projects 
aimed at improving the current situation. Given the severity of the 
problem in many areas throughout the country and the promise this 
program offers in enhancing service and lowering prices, it is our 
sincere hope that you will move forward with full funding.
    In the safety area, the newly authorized Wildlife Mitigation 
program and ATC Modernization pilot program will provide important 
safety benefits, and they deserve funding from your subcommittee.
    Another area of concern for many airports is the recent decision by 
the FAA to reverse its decades old practice of paying below market 
rates for FAA facilities located on airport property, choosing instead 
to push airports to furnish space without cost. While airports are not 
averse to providing the FAA land for ATC facilities without cost, we 
feel strongly that the FAA should continue to pay reasonable rental 
rates for FAA space occupied in airport sponsor-owned buildings.
    For smaller airports in particular, the potential loss of rental 
revenue--even at below market rates--will have a significant impact on 
their financial situation. This new interpretation is completely at 
odds with the requirement that airports have a fee and rental structure 
that make the airport as self-sustaining as possible. On one hand they 
are told by the FAA to be self-sufficient, and on the other they are 
told that they can no longer expect the Agency to help foot its own 
share of the bill, even for FAA facilities located on airport-owned 
property.
    In addition to being a significant financial burden, this situation 
has become a cost-avoidance issue for the Agency at several locations 
across the country. Rather than building facilities appropriately 
located off airport property--such as TRACONS--the Agency is instead 
choosing to build on the airport, knowing that they can expect to get 
the land and use of the facility at no cost. Saddling airports with 
these burdens is unfair and unwise.
    In light of the significant financial burden the proposed FAA 
policy change would impose on airports, it is our hope that the 
subcommittee will be willing to work with both the Agency and airports 
to find a solution that best serves both group's long-term economic 
interests. Continuing the long-standing policy in that regard, rather 
than applying a new standard that would allow the FAA to require 
airports to furnish space for buildings without cost appears to be the 
best option, in our view. Specifically, we ask you to include a general 
provision in this year's bill forbidding the FAA from expending any 
funds on the implementation or enforcement of new policy standards in 
this area.
    Finally, we would like to raise our concerns about language 
included in last year's transportation appropriations legislation that 
limits FAA's multi-year leasing authority to five years. The shift to 
the five-year limit from the previous 20-year limit seriously hampers 
the ability of airports to gain long-term financing for FAA buildings 
given the short-term commitment. We hope you will revisit this issue 
and grant multi-year leasing authority up to the previous 20-year 
level.
    There is great opportunity this year to provide America's airports 
with the resources they need to meet the significant challenges they 
face in enhancing safety, security, capacity, competition and noise 
mitigation. This subcommittee has been instrumental in leading us to 
this point, and we look forward to working with you, the full committee 
and the staff to move forward. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 
this testimony.
                                 ______
                                 

           Prepared Statement of InVision Technologies, Inc.

                               BACKGROUND

    Terrorism is a threat to National Security that requires constant 
vigilance. Acts of extreme cowardice, such as the downing of Pan Am 
flight 103, aimed at innocent members of a targeted entity are 
punctuated by extended periods of seeming inactivity. While public 
awareness of the specific acts of terrorism fades over time, our 
national responsibility never fades. With regards to Aviation Security, 
as one looks closer at the periods of apparent terrorist 
``inactivity'', one finds a much different picture. Specific examples 
exist of foiled plans far more evil than ever anticipated, technical 
blunders that created apprehension opportunities, successful test cases 
that confirmed new vulnerabilities and nothing short of continued 
preparation by the terrorist enemy. Terrorists continue to advance 
their capability to murder U.S. citizens in the name of their cause. 
Therefor, at no time can we let our vigilance fade. We must always push 
to maintain or improve our readiness to anticipate, prevent and respond 
to thwart the menace of terrorism.

                                FUNDING

    The tragedy of TWA 800, though thankfully not the apparent result 
of a terrorist act, served to create a call to arms in aviation 
security. Shortly after TWA 800, the GAO reported in Aviation Safety 
and Security on March 5, 1997 that the ``. . . FAA is just beginning to 
purchase explosives detection systems to deploy at U.S. airports, 
although the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990 set an ambitious 
goal for FAA to have such equipment in place by November 1993.'' ``The 
(Gore) Commission recommended that the federal government devote at 
least $100 million annually to meet security capital requirements-
leaving the decision on how to fund the remaining security costs to the 
National Civil Aviation Review Commission.''
    The ``expeditious deployment'' of FAA certified Explosive Detection 
Systems (EDS) was mandated and funded according to the recommendations 
of the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. Indeed, the 
mandate called for a security initiative involving multiple years at 
funding levels never before experienced. It marked the creation of a 
Security Equipment Integrated Product Team (SEIPT or IPT), staffed and 
managed by the FAA to include airline and airport participation thereby 
assuring industry access to the process. As a groundbreaking initiative 
in aviation security and considering the enormity of the task, 
consensus, efficiency and results were all hard fought successes.
    However, some myths exist. Some four years after the Gore 
commission, one might think, `the job is done'! Not so, in fact it has 
only just begun. Some four years after the Gore commission, one might 
think that InVision Technologies Inc., the primary manufacturer of 
certified EDS has enjoyed four consecutive years of expenditures at the 
rate of $100 million per year for EDS equipment. This too is not so. In 
fact, in the year following the initial Gore Commission funding, no 
funds were available in the 1998 FAA F&E account for EDS. In the 1999 
budget, it took an emergency supplemental to fund the recommended $100 
million. Not until the current 2000 budget has EDS or aviation security 
in general, been part of the regular funding of the F&E account.
    In addition, the portion of the annual funds actually spent to 
procure certified EDS has continually decreased. This is true for 
several reasons. The funding recommendation of $100 million per year 
for EDS has been diluted by expenditures on other activities including 
K-9 teams, enhancements for existing passenger X-ray machines and hand-
held ``sniffers''. The cost of integrating EDS products began to 
increase as equipment integration contractors learned from the system 
manufacturers about the planning requirements for integration, 
utilization and optimization. While this cost is significant and 
routinely underestimated it is more cost effective when the EDS system 
manufacturer is tasked to perform the integration work. Due to the 
decrease in funding, the equipment deployment goals of the Gore 
Commission, let alone the 1990 Aviation Security Act, have not been 
met. Too few bags at too few airports are being scanned today. The gap 
between the goal and the reality is staggering and grows each day that 
traffic to and from these airports increases.
    It is time to change the direction of EDS funding. The FAA has a 
plan to implement a security baseline by the year 2004. At that time a 
small percentage of all bags will be scanned by certified EDS because 
the use of CAPS, an automated profiling system greatly reduces the 
quantity of bags that require certified EDS scanning. Even with that, 
conservative estimates place the number of EDS units required at 
approximately 400. That means approximately $100 million per year for 
budget years 2001 through 2004 will need to be spent on the EDS 
equipment alone and that achieves only about 5 percent of all bags 
being scanned! The task from that point forward is the implementation 
of a plan to move to 100 percent scanning of all bags. To accomplish 
both the security baseline and the prudent plan to move beyond the 
baseline, we must:
  --Resolve to assure adequate funding to protect the public from the 
        national security threat posed by terrorists.
  --Spend funds intended for EDS, on EDS, in the most cost-effective 
        way possible.
  --Fund separately those programs that were not part of the assessed 
        requirements to secure checked baggage.
  --Understand that while their quest for competition is commendable, 
        the FAA and Congress has failed to provide adequate funding to 
        stimulate and enhance the productivity of a single EDS 
        manufacturer, let alone provide the funding that can assure a 
        healthy, competitive marketplace.
    The chart below graphically illustrates the lack of sustained 
funding and acquisition of certified EDS.


                      TECHNOLOGY AND THE OPERATOR

    Along with the funding issues mentioned above, the experience 
gained over the past few years help us determine the best path for 
system development currently underway and anticipated for the future. 
First, it is well understood that the security opportunity provided by 
certified EDS is significant. It is also understood that the role of 
the equipment operator, as verified through years of experience in 
checkpoint screening, is also crucial. Second, it is further understood 
that the perfect system would require no operator intervention, have a 
100 percent detection rate and no alarms that require operator 
resolution. It is not likely that technology will produce this ``silver 
bullet'' capability any time soon. So, while the early criticism of EDS 
products was that they were not fast enough, the salient fact that 
emerges is, the validity of EDS as a technology solution is equally 
dependent on its performance in the reduction of alarms, as it is on 
detection and throughput. Therefor the FAA and Congress must remain 
vigilant to assure that certification standards are never compromised 
to allow for systems that will increase bag alarms, increase dependence 
on operator threat resolution and decrease end to end system 
performance.
    To further substantiate the significance of FAA certification 
standards, it is well known that the FAA plans to reduce the threat 
quantity detection requirement in its standards. New intelligence is 
available everyday that directs the FAA in the establishment of 
standards and technology requirements that get the job done! If 
machines with non-certified False Alarm Rates (FAR) are considered 
deployable now, one can only imagine the negative impact on the 
aviation security system, if a technology that ``misses the mark'' of 
current certification requirements, is deployed and further erodes the 
nation's commitment to certified EDS.
    In the area of operator training and performance, while our 
knowledge base has increased, optimization remains elusive. Many 
factors exist, but recent congressional inquiry has identified and 
debated the issue of responsibility as an important factor. Should the 
responsibility to provide operators remain with the airlines, shift to 
the airports or become a government responsibility based on the 
aviation threat as a national security issue. As always, all points 
have supporters and detractors, but one thing for sure is that no 
current plan exists to accurately quantify the true potential of EDS 
technology with regards to delivered value.
    As a solution, InVision urges the FAA and Congress to recognize the 
extensive experience InVision has gained domestically and 
internationally in the manufacture, integration and operator training 
requirements of certified EDS in checked baggage screening. 
Authorization and funding should be available to the FAA to contract 
with InVision to provide as a test case for a total ``turnkey'' 
solution. With airline/airport partners InVision plans to use its 
collective experience to optimize end to end system security. The 
turnkey solution requires InVision to provide operators, plan and 
implement equipment integration, provide the most cost-effective mix of 
systems from its family of products in a 100 percent checked baggage 
scanning initiative. This would allow the all parties to fully assess 
the true cost and ramifications of a true solution. This would provide 
the necessary data to understand the challenges we face after the 
attainment of the security baseline by 2004 and the progression towards 
the 100 percent screening by the end of the decade.

                            THE OPPORTUNITY

    In spite of the difficulties faced in the mission to secure checked 
baggage, the FAA, Congress and the traveling public are currently 
provided more opportunity to advance the deployment of certified EDS 
than ever before. As of this writing, the FAA has contracted with 
InVision to provide a complete family of EDS products to satisfy the 
variety of application requirements in our US aviation system. InVision 
provides a family of EDS products covering a wide range of price/
performance ratios assuring a competitive supply of certified 
equipment. The CTX 9000DSi is the fastest certified EDS in the world 
featuring the largest belt size and scanner opening in the industry 
making it perfect for integrated, high speed solutions, even if 100 
percent scanning is necessary. The 5500DS remains the industry 
workhorse with more than 150 systems delivered worldwide. The newest 
member of InVision's family of products, the CTX 2500 is the smallest, 
most cost-effective certified EDS available and is ideally suited to 
smaller airline operations with low throughput requirements. A truck 
mounted, mobile version of the 2500 is also available and will be in 
Washington for demonstration in the month of May. As always with 
InVision products, performance capabilities with regards detection and 
low false alarms are never compromised. To the benefit of all, as many 
as 180 systems are available under contract to expedite the attainment 
of FAA goals and to combat the menace of terrorism in checked baggage. 
This is an opportunity that should be adequately funded by Congress and 
expeditiously implemented by the FAA.
                                 ______
                                 

    Prepared Statement of the Air Traffic Control Association, Inc.

    The Air Traffic Control Association, Inc. (``ATCA'') is a 
professional association of forty-four years standing dedicated to 
advancement in 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 who operate and 
maintain the air traffic control system, to those individuals and 
companies who develop and manufacture the technology, equipment, and 
services which support the system, to the citizens, government agencies 
and airlines who use the system.
    ATCA appears before you to urge increased funding for operations 
and capital improvement programs of the Federal Aviation 
Administration--activities that are fundamental to maintaining and 
improving the safety and efficiency of the national air transportation 
system.
    At the dawn of a new millennium, the air transportation community 
is facing intensifying challenges, as well as unprecedented 
opportunities for improvements, in air traffic control and aviation 
safety. Among the most significant challenges--both domestically and 
globally--is relentless increase in the demand for aviation services 
which will require more and better facilities to satisfy.
    At the same time, however, aviation infrastructure is in dire need 
of updating and improvement. Although this need has long been 
recognized, years of deficit economics, budget capping, belt 
tightening, down sizing, rationalizing, doing more with less, and just 
plain doing less have taken their toll. Aging ATC equipment is 
increasingly unreliable, expensive and difficult to maintain. 
Replacement and modernization projects, starved for resources, are 
extended or postponed, and the benefits of those improvements are 
delayed or foregone. Staffing and support resources are so lean that 
day to day operational needs are all-consuming, leaving little if any 
time or energy for exploring innovative, efficiency enhancing 
procedures and operating concepts.
    Moreover, the effects of funding deprivation are cumulative. Expert 
personnel departing through retirement or attrition are very difficult 
to replace with people of equivalent expertise, especially when 
resources for employee training and development are scarce, and hiring 
freezes are the norm. Infrastructure improvement projects are 
repeatedly interrupted, revised, and re-baselined in conformity with 
artificial budget restraints; completion horizons recede; potential 
benefits dwindle relative to cost; and good projects become obsolete or 
are overtaken by events and scrapped. As refurbishment and improvement 
is postponed, aviation infrastructure continues to crumble, users and 
passengers more and more often are delayed and frustrated, and the job 
of making needed improvements gets bigger and more difficult. No one 
wants this--not the FAA, not aviation users, not the general public.
    The good news, however, is that today's technology--high speed 
computers, intelligent software, realistic displays and simulation, 
satellites, advanced sensors and communications equipment--is bringing 
dramatic improvements to air traffic control. Science and human 
creativity pose few impediments. The real challenge is assuring that 
funding, both for the technology, and for the people and support 
services needed to implement it, is applied to aviation needs in a 
timely way, and in amounts sufficient to get the job done. A related 
challenge will be to devise ways and means for commercial, private and 
military aircraft operators to make corresponding avionics improvements 
in keeping with FAA's modernization timetable.
    The Administration is requesting $11.222 billion for FAA activities 
in fiscal year 2001, an increase of $1.281 billion (11 percent) over 
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Air Traffic Control Association 
urges the Congress to fund the Administration's request in full. This 
is the very least amount necessary to sustain the current level of 
activity. But more than that, the Association recommends that the 
Administration, Congress and the aviation community work together to 
increase the level of funding for FAA in fiscal year 2001 above the 
amount proposed, in an amount sufficient for FAA to really address the 
backlog of deferred needs, and to explore promising concepts and 
technologies for meeting aviation needs of the new century. ATCA states 
no position on how FAA needs should be accommodated relative to other 
budget demands, but the Association does strongly urge that budget 
relief be provided by some means.
    The Administration is seeking $6.592 billion in fiscal year 2001 
for FAA Operations, $698.8 million (11 percent) more than the fiscal 
year 2000 enacted level. This amount includes funding for 202 
additional field maintenance staff, 64 new certification/flight 
standards staff, 35 oversight and assessment staff, and 94 security 
related staff. It also includes an increase of $135.4 million to make 
operational new equipment being delivered to support the NAS.
    This proposed increase, although significant, is not enough to 
sustain the current level of operations, much less ensure excellence 
for the future. Demands on FAA's Operations funding are multiple and 
growing. The Operations account pays for day-to-day provision of ATC 
services, maintenance of ATC and other facilities, certification and 
regulation, security, all administrative services, training, travel, 
and payroll and benefits related to virtually all FAA personnel. Needs 
in all of these areas are increasing in keeping with relentless growth 
in demand for aviation services, and it is important for FAA to be 
competitive for skilled personnel in a very robust job market. 
Additionally, accommodating the greater financial burden of a large 
union contract labor force is putting increased pressure on operations 
resources.
    Moreover, years of austerity budgeting including buy outs, 
attrition and hiring freezes has depleted FAA's work force of its most 
experienced and expert staff. As new equipment and systems are 
delivered in the modernization effort, even the most experienced of 
staff require education and training. The need for significantly 
increased funding for personnel hiring and development activities 
including training has never been greater.
    Additional activities such as realistic cost accounting, ATC system 
performance evaluation, and stepped up collection, analysis, sharing of 
aviation safety and operations data all require substantial new 
resources. Globalization of aviation requires increased safety 
surveillance, more information collection, and collaboration with 
aviation partners around the world, requiring more personnel, more 
travel, and better tools for FAA personnel.
    No one wants FAA to have to reduce the level or excellent quality 
of the services it now provides. After years of belt tightening, the 
aviation community has come to the conclusion that there is no margin 
left in the ATC system for more economizing. To the contrary, the 
aviation community universally agrees that FAA must undertake 
significant additional activities to satisfy predicted increases in the 
amount and complexity of air traffic foreseen for the future. Although 
ATCA cannot say precisely what amount of Operations funding in fiscal 
year 2001 would allow FAA to launch a full scale, vigorous effort to 
build capabilities adequate for 21st Century aviation, the proposed 11 
percent increase over current funding clearly will not do it. The 
Association recommends that this increase be at least 20 percent in 
fiscal year 2001, and that FAA be required to provide the Congress with 
its estimated funding requirements unrestrained by budget caps.
    The Administration is requesting $2.495 billion for FAA Facilities 
and Equipment in fiscal year 2001, an increase of 22 percent over the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level. Even this increase, although 
substantial, falls far short of the amount required.
    Facilities and Equipment funds are used not only for ATC system 
modernization, but also for sustaining and refurbishing current 
equipment and systems, many of which will remain in place for the 
foreseeable future. In 1998, FAA estimated that modernization costs 
alone based on the National Aviation System Architecture Version 3.0 in 
effect at that time would be approximately $3 billion per year.\1\ 
Adding to this the annual costs of sustaining and refurbishing 
equipment already in use, it becomes clear that the true necessary 
level of F&E funding for FAA in fiscal year 2001 and for the 
foreseeable future is more in the order of $4.0 billion per year. 
Because FAA's first priority is maintaining and replenishing equipment 
and systems already in use, funding below this amount necessarily will 
impact modernization activities in proportion to the shortfall. At the 
proposed $2.5 billion level there would be very few modernization 
projects immune to down scaling, schedule stretch, or interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Version 3.0 of the Architecture reflected a consensus view of 
the aviation community on ATC modernization needs and priorities for 
new operating capabilities in the National Airspace System. Subsequent 
versions of the Architecture were revised downward to conform with 
Administration funding projections for FAA in fiscal years 2000 and 
beyond, and therefore do not necessarily reflect total modernization 
needs or accelerated project schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Administration is proposing significant amounts of funding for 
major projects which are central to modernization. Among these items 
are the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System ($178.7 
million), which will replace antiquated ATC terminal equipment with 
uniform displays, workstations and software, which is needed to support 
future ATC requirements. The Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) ($111 
million) will make the Global Positioning System (GPS) useable for en 
route, terminal, non-precision, and near Category 1 precision 
approaches. $105 million is proposed for Terminal ATC facilities 
replacement, $198 million for Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11), $77.6 
million for replacement of ATC Beacon Interrogator, and $75.5 million 
for Terminal Automation. All of these are large undertakings with 
substantial resource requirements. They are absolutely necessary for 
meeting future needs and will deliver significant benefits both in 
terms of safety and efficiency. Funding requests for these items must 
be fully supported.
    In addition to these major items, numerous smaller scale projects 
are vital to modernization. Not only must the Administration's funding 
requests for these items be fully funded, but additional resources in 
these areas could accelerate delivery of safety and efficiency benefits 
to the system. Among these classes of items are projects directed 
toward improving detection and management of air traffic on the airport 
surface (e.g. AMASS, ASDE-X), technologies to improve detection and 
dissemination of aviation weather information (WARP, NEXRAD, TDWR, 
LLWAS, ASOS, ITWS), communications improvements such as NEXCOM and the 
FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure project (FTI), and Flight Service 
Station improvements such as OASIS. Perhaps no one project promises 
more significant benefits for the price than Controller Pilot Data Link 
Communications (CPDLC), which provides controllers and pilots the 
option of communicating through data exchange as well as voice. In test 
and evaluation, this technology has proved the most effective, quickest 
way to relieve radio frequency congestion, improve safety and increase 
system capacity, while at the same time reducing controller workload, 
and merits strong financial support.
    Equally worthy of full funding are FAA's efforts to accelerate 
implementation of technologies that will yield significant immediate 
operating benefits. This activity, designated Free Flight, is very 
important for maintaining user support for modernization, and to garner 
near term safety and efficiency benefits for both users and FAA. 
Products of this effort already successfully fielded include sharing of 
schedule and ATC data to reduce delay and improve system efficiency 
(CDM), better sequencing and metering tools for controllers in terminal 
areas (CTAS), better management of traffic on the airport surface 
(SMA), and a tool for evaluating airline routing requests for potential 
air traffic conflicts (URET). In Phase 2 of this activity, FAA plans to 
intensify implementation of CPDLC, and initiate Reduced Vertical 
Separation Minima (RVSM), both of which have positive implications for 
capacity enhancement. The Administration is seeking $221 million for 
these activities. ATCA urges that this request be fully funded.
    The Association also believes that there is a large, unrecognized 
financial burden to be borne as the transition period between the 
advent of new capabilities and the retirement of the old (e.g. GPS 
navigation replacing VOR/DME) stretch out beyond past assumptions. 
These costs will continue to be substantial and not subject to 
deferral.
    In short, FAA cannot possibly maintain the present ATC system, 
refurbish current equipment, and continue full scale modernization/
replacement of NAS equipment with the current level of funding. When 
only partial funding trickles down each year to crucial modernization 
projects, implementations get delayed, costs increase, priorities are 
readjusted constantly--in short, the entire effort suffers. ATCA urges 
the Congress to assure that funding enacted for FAA in fiscal year 2001 
and future years take into consideration all of the agency's F&E 
requirements, and be sufficient to sustain a vigorous modernization 
effort over and above sustainment of current capabilities.
    The Administration is requesting only $184 million for Research, 
Engineering, and Development in fiscal year 2001. The Air Traffic 
Control Association estimates that the real RE&D funding needs of FAA 
are more in the order of $500-$600 million in fiscal year 2001 and 
future years.
    The Association is concerned that funding levels for FAA RE&D over 
the past two years signal an alarming reversal of the Nation's 
historical commitment to robust aeronautical research and development, 
particularly R&D that keeps the United States on the forefront of 
advancements in the science of air traffic control. With more than half 
of this account earmarked by law for safety, security and related 
research, funding at the level the Administration proposes will provide 
very little at all for the RE&D associated with implementation of the 
NAS Architecture. In draft version 3.0 of the Architecture, FAA 
estimated this need alone to be $348 million in fiscal year 1999, 
increasing to $560 million in fiscal year 2000. Even these amounts 
understate the overall cost of aviation RE&D that should be occurring, 
because FAA activities traditionally have emphasized applied research. 
As with all organizations having a highly technical mission, 
significant funding should be appropriated for basic research--the type 
of inquiry that can yield breakthrough concepts and technologies that 
will bring significant long-term benefits. Without generous, continuous 
support for this type of activity, scientific advance of the quality 
the United States has heretofore achieved will become a thing of the 
past.
    The Association acknowledges a new level of cooperation between 
FAA, NASA, DOD, and supporting organizations in achieving long term 
research goals, embodied in the National Research and Development Plan 
for Aviation Safety, Security, Efficiency, and Environmental 
Compatibility, issued November 1999. These efforts certainly are 
promising, but the Association does not envision them as substituting 
for a vigorous, focused R&D program within FAA. These multi-
organization efforts will complement FAA programs, not substitute for 
them. Both NASA and DOD recognize that FAA's role as system architect 
dictates that FAA retain the leadership role in R&D activities feeding 
into the NAS.
    The Administration proposes $1.950 billion in fiscal year 2001, 
equal to the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, for Airport Improvement 
Grants. The Air Traffic Control Association urges the Congress to fund 
this request in full.
    The traveling public increasingly experiences the inconvenience and 
frustration and of delays associated with inadequate system capacity. 
The need is becoming more and more urgent for more runways, taxiways, 
and other airport facilities, especially in growing communities. 
Localities, especially small communities, are hard pressed to pay for 
airport improvements that keep pace with the expanding aviation 
marketplace, and yet their residents need to be fully integrated with 
an economy that is increasingly global. Inadequacies in airport 
infrastructure, no less than failings in other elements of the air 
transportation system can become a limiting factor on trade, tourism 
and local economic activity. Systematic and healthy Federal investment 
in airport development is an essential component of a balanced plan to 
meet aviation needs in the future. Certainly, during this time of 
economic vigor, the Nation should be sustaining and increasing its 
investment in airport infrastructure.
    There is a continuing need for the aviation community and policy 
makers to pursue consensus on a structure that will assure funding for 
aviation that is reliable and predictable, as well as sufficient in 
amount.
    The Air Traffic Control Association has long advocated legislation 
that would separate the Airport and Airway Trust Fund from the unified 
Federal budget. Such legislation would improve the ability of the 
Federal government to fund aviation infrastructure improvement projects 
by eliminating any incentive to maintain positive balances in the trust 
fund to offset funding deficits in other programs. Moreover, it would 
facilitate more generous and reliable funding for capital improvements, 
helping managers plan investment on multi-year basis.
    The Association also supports a substantial contribution--at least 
25-30 percent--by the Federal general fund toward the costs of FAA 
Operations. This is right and fair because FAA is responsible not only 
for operation of the air traffic control system, but also for safety 
oversight, regulation, certification, and security. These latter 
activities are inherently government functions necessary to protect the 
public welfare. Moreover, the general public, even infrequent 
travelers, benefit from a National Air Transportation System which 
moves goods, products and mail efficiently and economically, stands 
ready to assist the Department of Defense in times of crisis, and 
supports the commerce and tourism that are fundamental to the Nation's 
robust economy. These benefits are more than worth the public dollars 
expended.
    Research and discussion is ongoing among policy makers and the 
aviation community about whether additional structural reforms could 
make the provision of air traffic serves more economical and efficient. 
Views on these issues at this point are various and divergent, and no 
one perspective should be permitted to overcome others. ATCA is however 
confident that deliberations will converge on practical, achievable, 
consensus recommendations, provided the discussion continues to take 
into account the needs of all stakeholders, and remains candid, 
cordial, and positive.
    At the dawn of the 21st Century there is great reason for optimism 
in aviation. Although the challenges are significant--expanding demand, 
pressing need for infrastructure expansion and modernization, advanced 
technology is available to meet those challenges. What is needed is 
consensus within the aviation community--the Administration, Congress, 
users, the traveling public--about the importance of modernization for 
meeting air transportation requirements of the future, and the 
political will and commitment to funding it. Let us fail of neither.
                                 ______
                                 

       Prepared Statement of the International Loran Association

    On behalf of the International Loran Association (ILA), I am 
submitting this Statement for the Record and respectfully request it be 
added to the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Federal Aviation Administration fiscal year 2001 Appropriations Bill.
    In recent years the Committee has supported numerous steps and 
provided more than $25 million in additional resources to ensure the 
Loran-C system will be maintained and upgraded to meet ongoing 
navigation and timing needs and to meet national transportation and 
infrastructure safety objectives. In conjunction with work on the 
fiscal year 2001 DOT Appropriations bill, we urge the Committee to 
continue its critical support for Loran by providing $30 million in 
fiscal year 2001 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Facilities and 
Equipment resources for Loran system improvements and revitalization to 
meet existing and future user requirements.
    There has been considerable good domestic and international news 
about Loran recently, which I am sure the Committee will find of 
interest when considering our request. First, domestic Loran support 
from its millions of users and beneficiaries has continued to be strong 
and vocal. These individuals support Loran because it is a proven, 
cost-effective, multimodal system and because it is uniquely 
complementary to satellite technology. Users and groups as diverse as 
the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), BOAT/US, and 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation (AASHTO) have 
stood firmly behind Loran for years, and even Motorola has written 
Secretary Slater to endorse Loran for telecommunications timing 
applications essential to the stable operation of our national 
infrastructure.
    This widespread domestic support has also been validated by recent 
Loran cost/benefit and performance studies conducted by Booz-Allen & 
Hamilton (BA&H) and other independent groups for the DOT and FAA. These 
studies document Loran provides a very positive cost/benefit to the 
nation, and furthermore, new Loran technology offers important 
opportunities to complement and enhance satellite system performance. 
In fact, it is now generally acknowledged that GPS and Loran are 
actually synergistic, i.e. a combined system integrating both 
technologies can perform better than either alone, even with the 
planned augmentation programs.
    The FAA has recognized the opportunity to combine GPS and Loran, 
and announced a new Loran program at the recent International Civil 
Aviation Organization (ICAO) meetings in Montreal. For the first time, 
the FAA will flight test new Loran technology and develop/evaluate a 
combined GPS/Loran receiver that offers tremendous promise for aviation 
applications. This news was announced almost immediately after 
installation of the Loran Aviation Blink System (ABS), which was 
completed upon direction contained in earlier Committee actions.
    It is also important to note the United States Coast Guard (USCG) 
is well on its way to upgrading the Loran system. These improvements 
have included the purchase and installation of new Cesium clocks and 
the development of new monitoring receivers to improve performance of 
the system. These and other planned enhancements will not only assure 
improved Loran operations, but also reduce annual operations and 
maintenance (O&M) costs by about 44 percent.
    Overall, the truly multimodal benefits Loran currently provides our 
nation are now broadly recognized and appreciated. For example, tens of 
millions of Americans use wireless telecommunications networks for 
functions as diverse as 911 calls, stock trades, and E-business, and 
these networks utilize GPS as the primary timing reference. In such 
applications, Loran provides a necessary backup timing reference of 
equal quality to GPS, and ensures continued function of these national 
infrastructure systems in case of GPS disruption.
    The 1999 Federal Radionavigation Plan (FRP) explicitly states Loran 
will be continued. In further acknowledgment that Loran has an 
important role within the future global navigation and timing 
infrastructure, the DOT also requested that the Administration's fiscal 
year 2001 budget include $30 million to continue revitalizing the U.S. 
Loran system. In this context, the Committee should be aware that the 
1998 BA&H studies indicate the costs to upgrade or decommission Loran 
were virtually identical; now that significant upgrades have taken 
place due to the Committee's actions, decommissioning this national 
asset would actually cost more than the remaining upgrades.
    Unfortunately, the Administration's budget includes a request for 
only $20 million for Loran modernization, but the ILA hopes the 
Committee remains convinced of the long term cost, performance and 
safety benefits the $30 million will provide. Once the upgrades are 
complete, the entire annual Loran O&M cost is expected to total $15 
million, and years of operational experience substantiate that 
estimate. This is a remarkably small cost for such a valuable national 
asset--some even refer to Loran as a national insurance policy--and 
represents less than 0.04 percent of projected DOT budgets.
    Internationally, the Loran situation looks even brighter, and I am 
pleased to report that future US exports of Loran-based products should 
be able to address substantial global markets. For example, Europe is 
proceeding with the distribution of differential GPS information using 
their Loran system (i.e. the Eurofix system). A European initiative has 
been formed entitled Global Augmentation for Satellite Systems (GAUSS), 
and consists of a number of European Union (EU) government officials, 
European manufacturers, and user groups. This GAUSS initiative will 
support the global integration of Loran with satellite systems, and 
assist in opening major new markets in Europe, Russia, and Asia. I also 
expect GAUSS will help to grow international GPS markets for US 
industry, as integrated GPS/Loran systems provide local autonomous 
control for one part of the system, and alleviate international 
concerns with U.S. control of GPS signals.
    Another major international event was a March 22-23 Loran meeting 
in Bonn, Germany that was organized by the German Institute of 
Navigation and sponsored by the German Ministry of Transport, Building, 
and Housing. Government and industry representatives from 15 European 
countries and the US attended the conference, and interest in Loran and 
private/public partnerships to develop systems was extremely high. In 
addition, it is virtually assured the United Kingdom will now join the 
Northern European Loran System (NELS), and discussions with Italy and 
other countries will commence shortly.
    In further support of prior Committee actions and increased funding 
for upgrades, I am also pleased to convey Loran is now expected to play 
a major role in US telecommunications exports to China. China has 
recently opened its markets to US telecommunications technologies, but 
did not want those systems dependent on GPS. As indicated above, GPS is 
extensively used as the primary timing reference to synchronize vast 
telecommunications networks in the US, where Loran is often used as a 
backup to GPS. Since Loran can perform that same role indefinitely, it 
plays a fundamental role in supporting our national infrastructure and 
ensuring continuity of service. However, China also has a modern Loran 
system, so Loran can replace GPS in this essential role and 
simultaneously support U.S. exports and trade balance. Exports of U.S. 
telecommunication equipment based on Loran as the primary timing 
reference are expected to total a half billion dollars in 2000 alone, 
with much greater future potential.
    In summary, the last two years have been extremely good for Loran, 
and with the Committee's help, the next decade looks much better. 
Simply continuing the Loran upgrade program will not only save millions 
of future taxpayer expenditures, but moreover, create substantial 
domestic and international business opportunities for US companies. 
Perhaps most importantly, upgrading the Loran infrastructure will 
ensure our essential national navigation/timing infrastructure, which 
literally affects nearly all Americans today, can continue to function 
in case of a GPS failure, regardless of the cause. The Committee's 
support will establish Loran as a national insurance policy for all 
Americans, and at $15 million annually, this policy could not be more 
cost effective.
    In conjunction with your work on the fiscal year 2001 DOT 
Appropriations bill, we respectfully urge the Committee to continue its 
critical support for Loran by providing $30 million in fiscal year 2001 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Facilities and Equipment 
resources for Loran system improvements and revitalization.
                                 ______
                                 

     Prepared Statement of the Helicopter Association International

    The Helicopter Association International (HAI) submits this 
statement to Congress to add its unqualified support for Loran-C 
navigation infrastructure. HAI is the professional trade association 
for the civil helicopter industry. Its 1,500-plus member organizations 
and 1,400-plus individual members, in more than 70 nations, safely 
operate more than 5,000 helicopters approximately 2 million hours each 
year. HAI is dedicated to the promotion of the helicopter as a safe, 
effective method of commerce and to the advancement of the civil 
helicopter industry.
    Every day in the United States, helicopters save lives. Because of 
their unique flight capabilities, rotorcraft are used extensively for 
public safety missions, natural resource management, energy 
exploration, security transportation, emergency medical evacuation, law 
enforcement, and for numerous other functions which add tremendously to 
America's quality of life.
    The Loran-C signal has been used extensively by both commercial and 
government helicopter operators. The rotorcraft industry has invested 
millions of dollars in navigation equipment that depends on the Loran-C 
signal. This fact is a bold testament that Loran-C is effective and 
reliable. Loran-C is a companion to the future navigation system of 
U.S.-GPS. It is important to recognize that the Loran-C signal is 
qualitatively different from the GPS signal in these significant ways:
  --GPS is a straight ``line-of-sight'' signal whereas Loran-C signals 
        are stronger and follow the curvature of the earth and its 
        topography. This is why Loran-C is perfectly suited not only 
        for ships at sea level, but for low-altitude aviation 
        operations.
  --GPS can be lost due to aircraft position or Department of Defense 
        needs. By contrast, Loran-C is operated by the Department of 
        Transportation.
  --GPS is a space-based system; maintenance requires multi-million-
        dollar missions to repair. Loran-C is a ground-based system; 
        technicians drive themselves to the equipment.
  --Ionospheric phenomena affect each system differently. Thus while 
        one system may be unusable the other is usually available.
  --Not only is Loran-C supplementary to GPS, it is capable of serving 
        as a fully independent backup system.
    These qualities make Loran-C the perfect compliment to GPS. HAI 
fully supports GPS-based navigation as the principle navigation source 
with Loran-C as a supplemental and backup system. GPS, WAAS, and LAAS 
also will contribute substantially to helicopter safety and efficiency, 
thus enabling them to conduct more lifesaving missions, particularly in 
marginal weather conditions. HAI envisions a future in which aircraft 
use inter-operable navigation systems that function by incorporating 
both GPS and Loran-C signals. When events of nature or politics result 
in loss of the space-based signal, even for an isolated region of 
airspace, Loran-C can sustain aviation operations. But with the proven 
performance of Loran-C, it is fully capable of supporting aviation 
operations, including the public safety missions of helicopters.
    HAI urges Congress to fully support Loran-C navigation 
infrastructure. Sufficient funds should be made available for both 
maintenance and performance enhancement of this time-proven system 
which is uniquely adaptable and beneficial to cutting-edge technology. 
For more information, please contact Bill Wanamaker, HAI Senior 
Congressional Liaison at (703) 683-4646.
                                 ______
                                 

   Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric 
                                Research

    On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate 
research and related education, training and support activities, I 
submit this written testimony for the record of the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation.
    This year UCAR, a university membership consortium composed of 63 
North American institutions that grant the Ph.D. in atmospheric, 
oceanic, and related sciences, celebrates its fortieth anniversary of 
scientific discovery and university partnerships. The UCAR mission is 
to support, enhance, and extend the capabilities of the university 
community, nationally and internationally; to understand the behavior 
of the atmosphere and related systems and the global environment; and 
to foster the transfer of knowledge and technology for the betterment 
of life on earth. UCAR is a non-profit, Colorado-based corporation that 
manages and operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research 
(NCAR) and the UCAR Office of Programs (UOP). It is supported by the 
National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal agencies including 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Defense 
(DOD).
    According to the National Transportation Safety Board, 
approximately 35 percent of aviation fatalities occur in weather-
related accidents. Last year almost 72 percent of recorded commercial 
flight delays were caused by weather. To achieve the federal 
government's goals of reducing fatal accidents by 80 percent and delays 
by 20 percent, improved weather forecasts and dissemination become 
critical. Regarding the fiscal year 2001 budget for the Federal 
Aviation Administration, I would like to comment on aviation weather 
research, an extremely important initiative to our nation and the 
flying public:
    Within the FAA's Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D) 
account, I urge you to support the request of $28 million for the FAA's 
Weather Program. This is an increase of $8 million over fiscal year 
2000 that will support a number of research programs within 
universities and laboratories. Although much progress has been made, 
weather today continues to be a major factor in causing aviation delays 
and safety hazards. The FAAs aviation weather program focuses on 
conducting applied research in partnership with the weather research 
and user communities, and in transferring advanced weather detection 
and prediction algorithms into operational use. The proposed increase 
would support such new initiatives as hazardous weather forecasting and 
the establishment of a national ceiling and visibility program. This 
increase in funding also reflects strong support across the entire user 
community for the broad focus and effectiveness of this critical safety 
research.
    NCAR, funded in large part by the National Science Foundation 
(NSF), receives FAA Weather Program support to apply NSF-funded weather 
research to aviation safety problems. NCAR's Research Applications 
Program (RAP) conducts research and develops products for the aviation 
industry and airports by utilizing NCAR and university community 
meteorological research results and technology. During the past 15 
years, the work of RAP and collaborating universities and industries 
has resulted in major improvements to the safety of airports and 
aircraft in the United States. FAA sponsored programs have improved 
weather information for pilots, dispatchers, and controllers through 
research and the development of technology related to the hazards of 
thunderstorms, wind shear, turbulence, en route icing and ground 
deicing, en route turbulence, teffain-induced turbulence, and in-flight 
visibility.
    The Aviation Digital Data Service (ADDS) is just one example of the 
FAA funded weather aviation technologies being developed at RAP to 
enhance aviation safety. Available on the Internet (at http://adds.awc-
kc.noaa.gov/), ADDS provides pilots, dispatchers and air traffic 
control with real-time digital and graphical analyses of weather data, 
forecasts, and observations of flight weather variables. An interagency 
effort, it is being developed through a cooperative effort between RAP 
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    On behalf of UCAR, as well as our nation's frequent flyers, I want 
to thank the Committee for the important work you do for U.S. 
scientific research, education, and training. I appreciate your 
attention to the recommendations of our community concerning the fiscal 
year 2001 budget.
                                 ______
                                 

         Prepared Statement of the City of Vero Beach, Florida

    This statement, in conjunction with work on the fiscal year 2001 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 
seeks your support and the support of the Committee for $5.2 million in 
funding from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Budget for 
construction of a replacement Air Traffic Control Tower at the Vero 
Beach, Florida Municipal Airport as an urgent aviation safety 
initiative.
    This is a facility that is operated by the FAA and staffed with FAA 
controllers. The good news is that we are pleased that the FAA supports 
this project and much work has already been accomplished on the 
project. The bad news is every time we seem ready to get construction 
funding our project is delayed.
    We are compelled to seek your help because this is an urgent, long 
overdue aviation safety project and it is the most important safety 
enhancement that can be made at our airport to meet current and 
anticipated future user requirements.

                   VERO BEACH AND THE TREASURE COAST

    Vero Beach is located along the East Coast of South Florida in an 
area known as the Treasure Coast. The area was named Treasure Coast 
because of the Spanish galleons sunk along the coast by hurricanes, but 
we like the name because the area is a true ``treasure'' to the local 
residents.
    We are the home of the Los Angeles Dodgers Spring Training 
facility, the Vero Beach Disney Resort, and other well-known business 
ventures. Vero Beach is a conservative community made up of working 
professionals, young families, long-time residents, retired business 
owners, and others who enjoy the lifestyle that South Florida has to 
offer. Corporate executives have located homes and businesses in Vero 
Beach both because of our quality of life and because of our access to 
major metropolitan areas in Central and South Florida.

                      VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

    The airport is owned and operated by the City of Vero Beach and 
located in the heart of Indian River County, close to major highways 
and modern business infrastructure. There are over 110 businesses 
located at the airport, inside our Airport Industrial Park, and 
surrounding the commercial center, and about 250 aircraft are based at 
our facility. A recent update to our last economic study indicates that 
businesses at the airport contribute almost $300 million annually to 
the local economy. Our two largest aviation businesses, The New Piper 
Aircraft, Inc., and FlightSafety International, Inc., contribute 
significantly to our being a very busy general aviation airport.
    According to the FAA's Terminal Area Forecasts for fiscal year 
1998, traffic at Vero Beach has grown from about 180,000 to nearly 
240,000 operations annually in recent years, indicating that operations 
at the facility may rank it among the top 15 percent of towered 
airports in the United States. In fact, based on the FAA data, our 
airport--which has no radar--has become the second busiest general 
aviation airport in Florida and future traffic growth is estimated to 
reach 270,000 operations annually.
    We are very fortunate and delighted that our airport is 
headquarters for The New Piper Aircraft manufacturing facility and its 
workforce of more than 1200 employees. Piper is a great partner with 
the city, and an important economic asset to our community with its 
payroll of about $42 million annually.
    Also important--and it cannot be overemphasized from a general 
aviation safety perspective--our airport is the home of the busiest 
flight training organization in the world. FlightSafety International 
has 42 locations worldwide, and they train over 65,000 pilots and 
mechanics per year. Their largest and busiest flight school is at Vero 
Beach, with a staff of more than 250 employees. Moreover, Vero Beach is 
unique among all the FlightSafety training facilities because ours is 
the only location where aircraft--not just simulators--are utilized for 
training. The company operates a fleet of more than 90 aircraft, which 
are logging nearly 90,000 hours of student flight training annually. 
Nearly 1000 international airline cadet and other student pilots from 
all over the world are taught and trained by FlightSafety every year at 
Vero Beach, requiring constant vigilance and stringent air traffic 
control.
    Officials from both Piper and FlightSafety have asked that their 
support for this request be conveyed to the subcommittee. The presence 
of these two great aviation companies in Vero Beach has been of 
enormous importance to our community and our airport.
    We are also proud of the fact that Vero Beach has enjoyed a long-
standing partnership with major league baseball. The Los Angeles 
Dodgers baseball organization has, since 1948, maintained close ties to 
the community, and the Dodgers call Vero Beach home for its extensive 
spring training operations and facilities, which are practically within 
walking distance of the airport.

                TOWER CONSTRUCTION FUNDING IS ESSENTIAL

    We hope our testimony will help convince you and other members of 
the subcommittee about the need and strong justification for funding 
this essential aviation project.
    At our airport we have an outstanding safety record. For the past 
nine years we have achieved a perfect record in FAA safety inspections; 
zero discrepancies on each FAA evaluation. A large measure of the 
credit for the outstanding safety record goes to the extremely 
dedicated and very experienced career FAA controllers working in Vero 
Beach. They are doing an exemplary job at our current tower facility 
under some very difficult conditions.
    There is virtually unanimous agreement in our community among 
pilots, controllers, airport officials, and airport tenants, government 
officials and others interested in aviation that a new tower is an 
essential safety priority for the airport.
    Because the modern new tower structure will be considerably taller 
than the present facility, we even took the important step of gauging, 
and ultimately winning, community and public support for the FAA tower 
replacement project through a public referendum that produced 84 
percent voter support.
    Specifically, we are seeking support from the Appropriations 
Committee for: Fiscal year 2001 funding of $5.2 million from the FAA 
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) Account for the construction phase of a 
replacement Air Traffic Control Tower at the Vero Beach Municipal 
Airport as an essential aviation safety priority.

                 EXISTING TOWER OBSOLETE AND INADEQUATE

    The existing tower has been in use since 1973 and simply cannot 
accommodate current or anticipated aviation safety, user and air 
traffic controller requirements.
    The structure is obsolete, rusting, continually leaks water during 
rainy weather, equipment space is cramped, the tower cab is inadequate 
for new technology or equipment, electronic and electrical systems are 
outdated and the communications system is aging.
    Because of continuing airport growth and development over the past 
25 years, controllers are limited by obstructed visibility for about 30 
percent of our total annual operations and they have no visibility at 
all of aircraft ground movements in certain areas of the airport.
    All the training done by FlightSafety International makes our 
airport one of the busiest training facilities in the world. It is 
noteworthy that foreign speaking students comprise about 25 percent of 
the hundreds of airline cadet and student pilots that are trained at 
Vero Beach every year. A circumstance creating communications and other 
challenges that demand constant caution, care and attention.
    It is significant that the FlightSafety staff, working in close 
coordination with our local controller workforce, also has a spotless 
safety track record. Another remarkable example of the high level of 
standards maintained by aviation professionals working at our airport.
    Finally, there is an increasingly heavy volume of business and 
corporate aviation traffic at the airport in the winter as pilots try 
to avoid possible delays and congestion at other South Florida 
airports. Then, again in the spring because of spring training baseball 
activities at the Dodgers complex.

                             PROJECT STATUS

    The FAA, in 1988, first identified an aviation safety need for a 
new Air Traffic Control Tower at the Vero Beach Municipal Airport as a 
result of growing traffic, increased line-of-sight problems caused by 
airport development, human factors issues for controllers, and other 
technology and modernization issues.
    We have worked hand-in-hand with FAA Southern Region officials and 
others since that time to advance this project and, as previously 
mentioned, the FAA fully supports the project.
    The FAA included a request for the tower replacement in a budget 
request more than five years ago and began project funding in fiscal 
year 1996. The planning at that time contemplated that tower 
construction would start in 1998 with a commissioning date expected in 
2001. All tasks including engineering, design, site work and an 
environmental review have been completed. Since then, funding of the 
construction phase of the project has been deferred because of other 
priorities. It was first deferred until 2000 and then, this past 
November, we were informed that construction will not begin until 2002 
and the new tower will not be commissioned until 2005.

                               CONCLUSION

    We have tried to be patient and we understand the difficult budget 
choices that have to be made by the FAA, but pilots, controllers, 
airport and government officials all believe there is an increasingly 
urgent aviation safety requirement for a new Air Traffic Control Tower 
at this extremely busy general aviation airport.
    You and your colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have 
consistently supported steps and added considerable resources to the 
FAA Budget to accommodate identified general aviation priorities like 
ours that promise to enhance aviation safety.
    The City of Vero Beach, airport staff, and all who share 
responsibility for aviation safety at and around our airport are 
equally focused on the goal of enhancing aviation safety in view of 
anticipated future traffic growth estimated to reach about 270,000 
operations annually at the facility.
    We stay in constant communication and discussions with the FAA 
staff in the Southern Region. We collaborate with pilots, controllers 
and many of our tenants and concessionaires to keep a close eye on 
opportunities to find any additional aviation initiative that will 
offer constructive, cost-effective benefits.
    At the same time, we will continue to do all possible to be 
responsive to expressed needs and concerns in our community with 
respect to airport issues.
    Completing our new tower construction project, promises to 
substantially enhance aviation safety, capacity and efficiency at our 
airport; it has the full support of pilots, controllers, the community, 
city and airport officials, the FAA and others interested in aviation 
and; it is a prudent, cost-effective use of FAA resources that warrants 
your support.
    We respectfully urge the Committee to fully support our request for 
$5.2 million in fiscal year 2001 funding from the FAA Facilities and 
Equipment Account for the construction phase of the Air Traffic Control 
Tower replacement project at the Vero Beach Municipal Airport.
                                 ______
                                 

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

 Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central 
                California Ozone Study (CCOS) Coalition

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the 
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study 
(CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the 
record in support of our fiscal year 2001 funding request of $250,000 
from the Department of Transportation (DOT) for CCOS as part of a 
Federal match for the $8.6 million already contributed by California 
State and local agencies and the private sector.
    Ozone and particulate matter standards in most of central 
California are frequently exceeded. In 2003, the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) will require that California submit SIPs 
to for the recently promulgated, national, 8-hour ozone standard. It is 
expected that such SIPs will be required for the San Francisco Bay 
Area, the Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Mountain 
Counties Air Basins. Photochemical air quality modeling will be 
necessary to prepare SIPs that are acceptable to the U.S. EPA.
    Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) is designed to enable central 
California to meet Clean Air Act requirements for ozone State 
Implementation Plans (SIPs) as well as advance fundamental science for 
use nationwide. The CCOS field measurement program will be conducted in 
the summer of 2000 in conjunction with the California Regional PM10/
PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS), a major study of the origin, nature, 
and extent of excessive levels of fine particles in central California. 
CCOS includes an ozone field study, a deposition study, data analysis, 
modeling performance evaluations, and a retrospective look at previous 
SIP modeling. The CCOS study area extends over central and most of 
northern California. The goal of the CCOS is to better understand the 
nature of the ozone problem across the region, providing a strong 
scientific foundation for preparing the next round of State and Federal 
attainment plans. The study includes six main components:
  --Developing the design of the field study (task already underway)
  --Conducting an intensive field monitoring study, scheduled for June 
        1 to September 30, 2000
  --Developing an emission inventory to support modeling
  --Developing and evaluating a photochemical model for the region
  --Designing and conducting a deposition field study
  --Evaluating emission control strategies for the next ozone 
        attainment plans
    CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting of 
representatives from Federal, State and local governments, as well as 
private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin 
Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional 
Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative 
environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork 
provide a solid foundation for CCOS. The sponsors of CCOS, representing 
state, local government and industry, have contributed approximately 
$8.6 million for the field study. In addition, CCOS sponsors will 
provide $4 million of in-kind support. The Policy Committee is 
continuing to seek additional funding ($9.0 million) for a future 
deposition study, data analysis, and modeling. California is an ideal 
natural laboratory for studies that address these issues, given the 
scale and diversity of the various ground surfaces in the region 
(crops, woodlands, forests, urban and suburban areas).
    There is a national need to address national data gaps and 
California should not bear the entire cost of the addressing these 
gaps. National data gaps include issues relating to the integration of 
particulate matter and ozone control strategies. The CCOS field study 
will take place concurrently with the California Regional Particulate 
Matter Study--previously jointly funded through Federal, State, local 
and private sector funds. Thus, CCOS is timed to enable leveraging of 
the efforts for the particulate matter study. Some equipment and 
personnel can serve dual functions so that CCOS is very cost-effective. 
From a technical standpoint, carrying out both studies concurrently is 
a unique opportunity to address the integration of particulate matter 
and ozone control efforts. CCOS will also be cost-effective since it 
builds on other successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin 
Valley Ozone Study. To effectively address these issues requires 
federal assistance and CCOS provides a mechanism by which California 
pays half the cost of work that the federal government should pursue.
    For fiscal year 2001, our Coalition is seeking funding of $250,000 
from DOT through highway research funds. DOT is a key stakeholder 
because federal law requires that transportation plans be in conformity 
with SIPs. The motor vehicle emission budgets established in SIPs must 
be met and be consistent with the emissions in transportation plans. 
Billions of dollars in federal transportation funds are at risk if 
conformity is not demonstrated for new transportation plans. As a 
result, transportation and air agencies must be collaborative partners 
on SIPs and transportation plans. SIPs and transportation plans are 
linked because motor vehicle emissions are a dominant element of SIPs 
in California as well as nationwide. Determining the emission and air 
quality impacts of motor vehicles is a major part of the CCOS effort. 
In addition, the deposition of motor vehicle emissions and the 
resulting ozone is a nationwide issue.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
                                 ______
                                 

         Prepared Statement of the County of San Bernardino, CA

    Honorable Chairman Shelby and members of The Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations, we appreciate the 
opportunity to present our Application for Grant funding for the 
Etiwanda Interchange Improvements under the National Corridor Planning 
and Development Program and Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program--
Implementation of the Transportation Equality Act for the 21st Century. 
We are seeking with this Application a Grant of $10,000,000 to be 
applied to the $5,949,100 in private match from the Kaiser Commerce 
Center which equates to 37 percent. When funded, the re-construction of 
the Etiwanda/Valley Boulevard, I-10 Interchange and significantly 
enhance the overall safety of the existing interchange, as well as 
provide a much needed 1,276 stall truck stop to accommodate the 43,000 
tractor trailer trucks that are presently converging on the I-10 /I-15 
interchange on a daily basis.
    This project is presented for consideration based upon eligibility 
Criteria number 5 as presented in the Federal Register. Criteria 5 
relates to ``construction after review by the Secretary of a 
development and management plan for the corridor or useable section of 
the corridor''. The request contained within this application is for 
construction funding for a ``useable section'' of the I-10 corridor 
(Congressional High Priority Corridor Number 34).
    The project presented will be developed in conjunction with the 
adjoining land to the north of the interchange. Two land uses will be 
constructed which when combined meet all of the selection Criteria set 
forth in the Federal Register. A 200 acre multi-modal rail served 
distribution complex is planned to be constructed along with a 75 acre 
Truck Plaza offering 1,276 trucks and drivers cargo safety and drivers 
rest.
    With the project's proximity to the I-15 /I-10 interchange (1 mile 
east on I-10) cargo can be moved by rail and truck from Mexico and the 
Ports to regional and national destinations. Growth projections for 
Southern California point to significant increases in the amount of 
goods that are expected to be moved within and through the region. 
Projects such as this will aid in relieving congestion and improving 
the time it takes to move these goods. This is another piece of the 
infrastructure required to accommodate current demands as well as the 
projected future needs of Southern California.
    In addition, this project provides a significant local/private 
match of 37 percent of total construction costs to meet the goal of 
maximum leveraging of Federal funds. Since this is a single project the 
funds can be quickly obligated with construction commencing in early 
2001 and completion by the Spring of 2002, while requiring no 
additional Federal funding.
    The project is in the state of California, County of San 
Bernardino, and lies within the 42nd Congressional District of the late 
Congressman George Brown Jr. and the newly elected Congressman Joe 
Baca. This was a project of special importance to the late Congressman 
Brown and Congressman Baca is enthusiastically endorsing the 
reconstruction of the Etiwanda Interchange. Additionally, Senators 
Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer enthusiastically support the 
reconstruction of this critical interchange.

                           PROJECT OBJECTIVES

    The project objectives are to: (1) Improve operational efficiency 
at the existing Etiwanda Avenue Interchange and Valley Boulevard Ramps 
on I-10; (2) Reduce weaving conflicts on Etiwanda Avenue over I-10 and 
on the I-10 collector-distributors roads under Etiwanda Avenue; (3) 
accommodate projected traffic growth due to changes in land use on 
Kaiser West End Properties north of I-10; (4) minimize effects of 
construction activities on I-10 traffic; and (5) minimize disruption of 
existing trucking operations along Etiwanda Avenue and Valley 
Boulevard.
    The project will be constructed concurrent with the development of 
the adjacent properties to the North known as the Kaiser Commerce 
Center. The Kaiser Commerce Center will provide a major multi-modal 
industrial complex served by both major railroads in this region (the 
BNSF and UP railroads), as well as provide a much needed truck plaza 
facility offering rest and safety to approximately 1,276 trucks per 
night.

                             PROPOSED WORK

    The project will reconstruct the Interstate Route 10/Etiwanda 
Avenue Interchange from the existing four-quadrant full-cloverleaf 
interchange to a Partial Cloverleaf ``A'' configuration. The 
improvement also included realignment of existing Valley Boulevard 
further north. The existing Valley Boulevard on- and off-ramps would be 
reconstructed to meet the realigned Valley Boulevard at a new local 
road, ``lag Haul Road'' The proposed westbound on-ramp would be 
elevated over the westbound I-10 Etiwanda Avenue off-ramp. The 
eastbound exit ramp to Valley Boulevard under I-10 would be 
reconstructed to provide standard vertical clearance. The proposed 
improvement would utilize both a realigned Valley Boulevard ramp system 
and improvements at the Etiwanda Avenue Interchange with I-10, as 
described above. This configuration would provide easy entrance and 
exit movements to the area north of I-10 west via the former Valley 
Boulevard ramps, newly realigned to Slag haul Road. Access to and from 
I-10 east would be provided via improved Etiwanda Avenue interchange 
loop ramps.
    The project includes the following detailed components:
    Partially Reconstruct the Etiwanda/I-10 Interchange.--This 
component would include the conversion of the existing four-quadrant 
full-cloverleaf interchange to a two-quadrant partial cloverleaf 
design.
    Widen Etiwanda Avenue North of I-10.--Etiwanda Avenue from the I-10 
interchange north to the intersection of Valley Boulevard would be 
widened to three travel lanes in each direction plus double left-turn 
lanes at intersections. This widening would be provided to improve 
weaving conditions for traffic entering and exiting I-10.
    Realign and Extend Valley Boulevard.--This component would include 
reconstruction of Valley Boulevard from east of the UPRR spur track and 
extend the road west to connect with the realigned I-10 ramps and a 
future north-south roadway. The relocated Valley Boulevard would be 
elevated over the Union Pacific Railroad Spur and the San Sevaine Flood 
Control Channel, thus significantly improving traffic/railroad safety. 
Two structures would be included in this segment:
    Valley Boulevard Overhead would carry six lanes of traffic, plus a 
median, sidewalks and traffic barriers over the Union Pacific Railroad 
corridor.
    Valley Boulevard Concrete Box Culvert would carry six lanes of 
traffic, plus a median, sidewalks and traffic barriers over the San 
Sevaine Flood Control Channel.
    Valley Boulevard would be extended to Etiwanda Avenue, providing a 
new arterial street parallel to I-10. This alignment would coincide 
with a future relocation of Ontario Mills Parkway to ultimately provide 
proper spacing on intersections. (The Valley Boulevard extension from 
Slag Haul Road to Etiwanda is not part of this project. Kaiser Ventures 
Inc. will construct this segment as part of the development of the 
Kaiser Commerce Center. Non-Federal funds will be used to construct 
this segment.) This extension would provide the major east-west 
connection for sub-regional traffic and would provide access to 
properties abutting I-10.
    Reconstruct the Westbound Etiwanda/Valley Ramps to and from I-10.--
A major component of the project would be the reconstruction of the 
existing Valley Boulevard ramps to and from I-10 west to become access 
ramps to and from Slag Haul Road.
    Slag Haul Road On-Ramp Separation would carry one land of traffic, 
plus shoulders and traffic barriers over the Etiwanda Avenue Off-Ramp 
from westbound I-10.
    Construct and Eastbound Auxiliary Lane on I-10.--In order to 
improve weaving conditions between I-15 and Etiwanda Avenue, a new 3.6m 
(12 ft.) wide auxiliary land would be provided between the I-15 on ramp 
to eastbound I-10 and the eastbound Etiwanda Avenue exit ramp.

                    PLANNING AND COORDINATION STATUS

    The project is included in the 98/99-2004/2005 Regional 
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) as adopted by FHWA on July 
31, 1998. The project reference number in the RTIP is 08-35-450, Page # 
173.

               TRAFFIC/SAFETY INFORMATION AND PROJECTIONS

    The project improvements will considerably improve interchange 
operations, reduce local street congestion, and accommodate projected 
growth in the area. The project proposes to convert the existing 
Etiwanda Avenue Interchange from a four quadrant full cloverleaf to 
partial cloverleaf configuration. In addition, the project will realign 
Valley Boulevard on- and off-ramps to the north to intersect with the 
realigned Valley Boulevard. The Slag Haul Road (Valley Boulevard) on-
ramp would be braided over the westbound I-10 Etiwanda Avenue off-ramp, 
thus eliminating weaving movements in that direction. The westbound I-
10 Etiwanda Avenue off-ramp, the existing westbound Etiwanda Avenue 
loop on-ramp and enter the freeway.
    The proposed project would improve safety throughout the 
interchange. Presently, congestion and increased truck traffic result 
in excessive delays, increased traffic accidents and operational 
problems at Etiwanda Avenue interchange with Route 10.
    The existing weaving on the westbound Etiwanda Avenue collector-
distributor road where the Valley Boulevard on-ramp merges would be 
eliminated by the proposed ``braided ramp'' configuration. In addition, 
the reconfigured Etiwanda Avenue Interchange would also eliminate 
weaving for both eastbound and westbound on- and off-ramp traffic as 
the existing loop off-ramps would be eliminated. The northbound 
Etiwanda Avenue to westbound Ontario Mills Parkway traffic would have a 
longer weaving distance, since the ramp terminus would be realigned to 
a signalized intersection. Ultimately, Ontario Mills Parkway would be 
realigned to coincide with the Valley Boulevard extension. This would 
increase the distance between the off ramp terminus intersection and 
the local intersection to 160m (524 ft.).
    The realigned Valley Boulevard would be grade-separated over the 
existing Union Pacific Railroad Spur, which would eliminate the 
existing at-grad railroad crossing preventing potential rail/auto 
accidents.
    The substandard vertical clearances at the Valley Boulevard under 
crossings of Route 10 would be improved to meet the federal standard of 
5.1m (16.7 ft.). This would be accomplished by lowering the ramp 
profile.
    A three-year Traffic Surveillance and Analysis Survey (TASAS) study 
for the period April 1, 1994 through March 31, 1997 was made for the 
project vicinity. The study revealed that there were 98 accidents with 
1 fatality and 35 persons injured. The actual accident rates for most 
of the on- and off-ramps at the interchange were higher that the 
average rate for similar facilities.
    A total of 98 accidents were reported in the interchange ramp 
system during the three-year study period. Forty-four accidents (45 
percent) occurred in the four-loop-ramp system.
    It is obvious that the reconstruction of the Etiwanda interchange 
will dramatically improve safety to motorists and truck traffic. With 
the development of the Kaiser Commerce Center's 7.8 million square feet 
of industrial warehouse distribution space over the next six years, 
this reconstruction is paramount to insure that public safety is at the 
forefront to this critical transportation corridor.

                  TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS

    The total estimated costs for improvements is as follows:

Roadway Items...........................................     $10,108,000
Structure Items.........................................       1,120,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Sub-Total Construction............................      11,228,040
Right of Way & Utilities................................       1,100,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Project Construction........................      12,328,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Design..................................................       1,921,060
Construction Management.................................       1,300,000
Fees & Permits..........................................         400,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Project Costs...............................      15,949,100

    Previous Funding.--The project was allocated $1,5000,000 in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).

                 AMOUNT OF NCPD PROGRAM FUNDS REQUESTED

    $10,000,000 is requested per this application.
    Commitment of other Funds.--The project is to be constructed 
concurrent with the development of adjacent property owned by Kaiser 
Ventures Inc. The project, known as the Kaiser Commerce Center, will 
provide additional infrastructure to supplement the interchange 
reconstruction. Of the Total $15,949,100 estimated cost for the 
interchange reconstruction, Kaiser Ventures and its development 
partners will provide the $5,949,100 portion of the project not funded 
through Federal funds. This constitutes the above referenced 37 percent 
local/private match of total construction costs.
    Previous Funding.--The project was allocated $1,5000,000 in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
    Commitment of other Funds.--The project is to be constructed 
concurrent with the development of adjacent property owned by Kaiser 
Ventures Inc. The project, known as the Kaiser Commerce Center, will 
provide additional infrastructure to supplement the interchange 
reconstruction. Of the Total $15,949,100 estimated cost for the 
interchange reconstruction, Kaiser Ventures and its development 
partners will provide the $5,949,100 portion of the project not funded 
through Federal funds.

                            PROJECT BENEFITS

    The proposed development will transform a marginally productive 
site, formerly a portion of the Kaiser Steel Corporation steel mill 
facility, which is used now only for slag recycling, and sand and 
aggregate operations into a well balanced and carefully planned 
community of general and transportation related industrial, commercial 
and business park uses, which can take advantage of the site's 
excellent highway and rail access. Specifically the project benefits 
are:
  --Increased safety for all motorists and trucks using this important 
        interchange. The new design addresses the key existing 
        deficiencies which have contributed to the increased traffic 
        accidents and will alleviate the weaving and congestion 
        associated with ingress and egress to I-10.
  --The project site offers a unique location immediately adjacent to 
        the interchange to the Interstate 10 and Interstate 15 
        freeways, both of which serve as major trucking gateways for 
        goods entering California from the northern and eastern United 
        States as well as the increased goods which are coming into 
        this major distribution area as a result of the NAFTA 
        legislation. A primary component of the Kaiser Commerce Center 
        and Etiwanda Interchange reconstruction is the Truck Plaza. 
        Located immediately adjacent to the Etiwanda Interchange, the 
        Truck Plaza facility provides the needed services that long 
        haul truckers seek together with a secure place to obtain the 
        needed rest to insure overall traffic safety on Americas 
        highways.
  --The project site also provides ready access to the two main rail 
        lines serving Southern California, The BNSF and the Union 
        Pacific, allowing for an efficient and economic use of existing 
        rail service by the proposed project component of rail-served 
        industrial uses. The close proximity to both major rail lines 
        provides this location with the unique ability to facilitate 
        the intermodal transportation objectives which were envisioned 
        in the National Corridor Planning and Development Program and 
        Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program. will provide the 
        proposed rail-served businesses with an edge to obtain 
        competitive rail shipping rates with timely and efficient 
        access to that service.
  --The proponents of the Specific Plan will expend private dollars of 
        $5,949,100 to correct an existing traffic safety problem at the 
        I-10 Freeway/Etiwanda Avenue/Valley Boulevard on- and off-
        ramps, in order to provide direct, and safe freeway ingress and 
        egress from the Truck Plaza as well as the entire surrounding 
        areas.
    The project will create about 5,200 new, permanent jobs in San 
Bernardino County: up to 635 jobs at the Truck Plaza and adjacent uses; 
up to 2,328 jobs at the commercial/business park; and up to 2,326 jobs 
at the industrial area. In addition, about 1,284 temporary construction 
jobs will be created during the construction stage. The direct payroll 
benefit is projected to be $133 million. For every permanent job 
created within the proposed project site, it is estimated that an 
additional 0.80 jobs, or about 4,200 additional new jobs would be 
created in the County. The total payroll associated with the off-site, 
or indirect, jobs in estimated to be about $83 million per year.
    The project will create a total of nearly 9,500 new jobs (direct 
and indirect, at fill build-out), in an area identified as a ``job 
poor'' economy, that is, the number of locally-based jobs is low given 
the number of local household requiring county residents to commute 
elsewhere for work. Given the County's current job deficit, it is 
anticipated that many of the newly created jobs will be filled by 
County residents who are either unemployed or who must commute to jobs 
outside of the County. The addition of almost 9,500 new jobs will 
increase the County's jobs/housing ratio; thereby improving its current 
``jobs poor'' status. This opportunity for new job formation, together 
with the direct and indirect payroll benefits of over $217 million per 
year will have a dramatic positive effect on the local and regional 
economy.
                                 ______
                                 

    Prepared Statement of the Colorado Department of Transportation

    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the 
opportunity to submit written testimony, as prepared by the Colorado 
Department of Transportation, to discuss important transportation 
issues in Colorado. It is with pleasure that I present to you our 
fiscal year 2001 transportation appropriation needs.
    Our first priority is the Interstate-25 Broadway Viaduct 
Replacement Project. The interchanges and the bridges were constructed 
in 1951 and have never been upgraded. A critical component of I-25 
reconstruction is the replacement of the viaduct over Broadway, a major 
Denver arterial, and the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe 
railroads. Over 50 freight trains a day pass under the viaduct and over 
260,000 vehicles travel a day travel on the bridge. The project is 
nationally significant because all of the Rocky Mountain Region's 
north-south traffic, freight, truck and rail, are linked by this 
bridge. In addition, this viaduct and interchange are a vital 
connection for the Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project. Once 
completed, this project, along with the Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal 
Project, will provide an integrated system of moving people and goods 
through the southern corridor of Interstate-25.
    The bridge can be reconstructed in three phases totaling $75 
million. The first major phase will be the replacement of the I-25 
viaduct over Broadway. Subsequent phases will complete reconstruction 
at the Broadway, Santa Fe and Alameda interchanges totaling $125 
million. An appropriation of $20 million is requested for the 
Interstate-25 Broadway Viaduct Replacement Project for fiscal year 
2001.
    Our second priority is the Powers Boulevard Corridor in Colorado 
Springs. This 36-mile corridor will create a bypass around the eastern 
part of the city. It provides a direct connection to the Colorado 
Springs airport, as well as a vital link to five national defense 
facilities: the Air Force Academy, Fort Carson, Peterson Air Force 
Base, Shriever Air Force Base, and North American Defense (NORAD). Once 
completed the project will reduce traffic congestion on both 
Interstate-25 and the state highway system in that area. Even on the 
small portion of Powers Boulevard, which has been constructed, daily 
traffic volumes have doubled over the past eight years with an average 
of 80,000 vehicles per day.
    The overall cost of the Powers Boulevard Project is estimated at 
$650 million. Through its Strategic Transportation Investment Program, 
the Colorado Department of Transportation has committed $220 million 
through the year 2010. An appropriation of $10 million for completing a 
6-lane section of the highway for three miles and the construction of a 
bridge is requested for the Powers Boulevard Project in fiscal year 
2001. There will be savings generated by building six rather than four 
lanes now instead of later.
    Finally, we are grateful for the $2.5 million in funding in fiscal 
year 2000 for the Traffic Operations Center. These funds are being used 
in start-up integration activities for the Interstate-25 Southeast 
Corridor Multi-Modal Project in Arapahoe County and for integration 
activities in Jefferson County. An appropriation of $5.4 million is 
requested for the construction of a Traffic Operation Center to benefit 
the people of Colorado and the transportation agencies across the 
state. The facility will be located in the Denver-metropolitan area.
    For years the various agencies have attempted to coordinate daily 
emergency responses from a non-centralized site. The current practice 
of attempting to provide coordination has been difficult. The 
construction of a statewide Traffic Operations Center facility will 
have a significant impact on the coordination between agencies in the 
design, construction, operations and maintenance of transportation in 
Colorado. Increased coordination between agencies means lives are 
saved, traffic congestion can be reduced, and accident locations can be 
better identified. In short, the center will act as a primary facility 
to support Intelligent Transportation System services throughout the 
state.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we thank you for this 
opportunity to provide you with this written testimony regarding these 
significant Colorado transportation projects. We seek your support for 
our fiscal year 2001 Appropriation requests of $20 million for the I-25 
Broadway Viaduct Replacement Project in Denver, the $10 million request 
for the Powers Boulevard Project in Colorado Springs, and the $5.4 
million request for the construction of a Transportation System Traffic 
Operations Center as a part of Colorado's Intelligent Transportation 
System.
                                 ______
                                 

             Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe

    The Squaxin Island Tribe of Washington State thanks the Senate 
Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations for the opportunity to 
present written testimony regarding the need and use of funding within 
the Indian Reservation Roads Program. Having served two terms as 
Chairman of the Squaxin Island Tribe and in other elective positions 
over two decades, as an educator for 35 years, as a participant in 
numerous tribal negotiations since 1981, and currently as the 
Transportation Policy Representative for the Tribe and a Member of the 
TEA-21 Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, My testimony speaks to the 
enormous needs for transportation infrastructure improvements within 
Indian Country.

                          SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY

    Funding for Indian tribes through the IRR program is completely 
inadequate to meet the needs of Indian tribes to develop transportation 
infrastructure that promotes economic prosperity on Indian 
reservations. Indian reservation roads continue to deteriorate at a 
rapidly increasing rate, because the IRR Program continues lag well 
behind state transportation programs in funding. This testimony is 
presented in three sections as follows:
    1. General funding concerns regarding the IRR Program.
    2. Specific funding concerns of the Squaxin Island Tribe regarding 
the IRR Program.
    3. Recommendations for addressing general and specific funding 
concerns.

            HISTORY OF THE INDIAN RESERVATIONS ROADS PROGRAM

1. Indian Reservation Roads: What are they?
    The Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) are those public roads 
administered jointly by the Federal Lands Highways Office within the 
Department of Transportation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs within 
the Department of Interior. These roads comprise nearly 52,000 miles of 
roads providing access to or located within Indian reservations or 
other Indian areas. Approximately one half of the IRR System is 
comprised of state and county roads and the remainder are BIA or tribal 
roads maintained by the BIA.

2. Why are tribes interested in transportation?
    Early in its history, the United States gave alternate sections of 
land to entrepreneurs to build the transcontinental railroad system. 
The land had been taken from Indian people and Indian tribes to fuel 
the economic expansion of a nation. In the state of Washington, as in 
much of the West, railroad companies became a thriving wood products 
industry, and names like Weyerhaeuser and Rayonier are remembered more 
for driving the timber-based economy of the Pacific Northwest for more 
than a century than for their railroad heritage.
    Whether harvesting and transporting natural resources or extracting 
fossil fuels, the foundation of the national economy rests on lands 
once inhabited by Indian people. Trails and waterways established for 
eons and used for intertribal commerce became the principal routes for 
the national highway system and marine transport. Now, as tribal 
economies emerge and expand into new industries, existing 
transportation infrastructure will no longer suffice. Private sector 
investment in Indian industry requires that adequate investment be made 
in the transportation systems serving Indian lands.

3. How is the Indian Reservation Road System funded?
    In fulfilling its trust responsibility under treaties with Indian 
tribes, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs developed the Indian 
Reservation Roads System. With the 1982 passage of the Surface 
Transportation Assistance Act, the Federal Highway Administration 
initiated its administration of the IRR System and BIA roads became 
eligible for distributions from the Highway Trust Fund for the first 
time. Congress recognized that Indian people bought gasoline and paid 
gas taxes, but prior to 1982 received no benefit from the taxes paid. 
All subsequent surface transportation legislation adopted by the 
Congress authorized funding for the IRR System. Maintenance of the IRR 
System continues to be funded through the Department of Interior 
appropriations.

4. What funding has been available to tribes to improve the IRR System?
    Prior to the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
(ISTEA), the maximum annual funding level for improvements to the IRR 
System was $80 million. ISTEA increased the funding authorization to 
$191 million and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
increased it to $275 million. While these increases are substantial, 
not all of the funding is used to improve Indian reservation roads. In 
1996, the last year of ISTEA, $167 million was distributed to BIA area 
offices for road design and construction. Bridge construction was 
funded by an additional 1 percent set aside for Indian tribes through 
the FHWA Highway Bridge, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Program. Under 
TEA-21, the Indian Bridge Program is funded within the IRR Program, and 
the HBRRP set aside no longer exists. A more substantial reduction 
results from the first-time application of obligation limitation to the 
IRR Program. For 1999, IRR funding authorization was reduced by $31.7 
million under Sec. 1102(f) of TEA-21 and redistributed to the states at 
year end under Sec. 1102(d). FHWA and the BIA withheld 1.5 percent and 
6 percent respectively for program administration.
    Another two percent of the IRR funding is set aside for 
transportation planning by tribal governments. The net result of the 
takedowns is to distribute $203 million to BIA area offices for road 
design and construction from $275 million authorized. This represents a 
funding increase of 21.5 percent between ISTEA levels and TEA-21 
levels, an increase that is less than one half of that experienced by 
state highway programs.

5. What level of funding is needed to improve and maintain the IRR 
        System?
    The BIA estimates its current construction needs inventory for BIA 
roads within the IRR System at $7.2 billion. This does not include the 
state or county components of the IRR System. Dirt roads comprise two-
thirds of the BIA road system; of these, three-quarters are unimproved 
earth roads. The remaining one-third of the paved roads receives 
inadequate maintenance during their life cycle and are often 
reconstructed and resurfaced well in advance of their design life. 
Frequently, reconstruction and resurfacing occurs within seven or eight 
years of the original construction when this activity should occur no 
more frequently than every 10 to 15 years.
    Road maintenance is currently funded through Department of the 
Interior appropriations, and the need to adequately maintain BIA-owned 
roads is estimated by the Bureau to be $100 million annually. 
Currently, the BIA receives only $25.5 million per year for road 
maintenance. This represents less than $500 per mile for the BIA roads 
within the IRR System. State highway agencies typically receive $4,000 
to $5,000 per mile for their road maintenance programs. Inadequate 
maintenance continues to plague the Indian Reservation Roads Program 
and result in premature deterioration of roads and inefficient and 
wasteful use of construction funding in rebuilding old roads rather 
than building new roads supporting emerging tribal economies.

          UNIQUE CHALLENGES FACED BY THE SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE

1. The Squaxin Island Tribe, as is true for the majority of primarily 
        small tribes, has not received a fair and equitable share of 
        IRR Program funding.
    As many as 350 tribes have received little or no funding for 
specific construction projects on or providing access to their 
reservation under the IRR Program. Only recently under ISTEA, did the 
BIA begin to provide funding for transportation planning to tribes so 
that they could develop transportation plans and improvement programs 
quantifying their relative need for transportation assistance. Even 
when funding was allocated to a tribe under one of the several formulas 
used by the BIA, tribes often did not receive funding for construction 
because they lacked the resources to identify a proposed project to the 
BIA. Since the inception of the IRR Program, the Squaxin Island Tribe 
has received funding to construct less than one-tenth of a mile of 
roadway in 1982. Funding was awarded through a ``638'' contract in 1999 
to construct another two-tenths of a mile of roadway in 2000. Although 
the formula allocation for the Squaxin Island Tribe totaled $360,000 
under ISTEA between 1992 and 1997, the Tribe received only $12,400 for 
a small chip-sealing project during the entire authorization period. 
The Tribe is currently trying to secure IRR Program Funding to design 
and build a half-mile access road to a planned 36-unit housing 
development. Multiple layers of federal agency oversight and other 
bureaucratic delays potentially jeopardizes more than $2 million in 
federal, state, and Tribal funding commitments for the project.

2. The majority of the IRR System for the Squaxin Island Tribe is 
        comprised of state and county roads providing access to the 
        Squaxin Island Reservation.
    The IRR System for the Squaxin Island Tribe includes 3.7 miles of 
BIA roads built by the Tribe with funding from sources other than the 
BIA, and 78.3 miles of county and state roads providing access to the 
Squaxin Island Reservation. While the state roadways serving the 
Reservation are generally well maintained, county road maintenance is 
less certain and these roads are often at the bottom of county priority 
lists for improvements if they are listed at all. Fortunately, the 
Tribe and Mason County have developed a positive working relationship 
over the past several years, and the Tribe secured 1997 Highway Bridge 
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) funding on behalf of 
Mason County to rehabilitate an 80-year old bridge on the primary 
access route to the Reservation. Because of the tribal contribution for 
the bridge, Mason County is now proceeding with design to reconstruct 
one mile of substandard roadway that includes the bridge project. The 
combined projects represent a match of local to federal funds of better 
than five to one. Although this type of project collaboration is 
possible between tribes and other governments within the IRR program, 
this particular project has taken more than five years to bring to 
fruition, and yet construction is not anticipated to start for another 
one and one-half years.

3. Being located in a suburban area of Washington state, the Squaxin 
        Island Tribe faces transit issues that the IRR Program is ill 
        prepared to address.
    An extreme housing shortage on the Squaxin Island Reservation 
forces many Tribal members to live some distance from the Reservation. 
Those without dependable personal transportation are dependent on 
public transportation to access employment, schools, medical care, and 
other Tribal services. Without reliable transportation, these Indian 
people are unable to use the services provided by the Tribe or to 
access employment opportunities. Because of the number of Tribal 
members finding themselves in this situation, the Squaxin Island Tribe 
has developed a public transit system in partnership with the state of 
Washington and the Mason County Transit Authority (MCTA). The Tribe has 
initiated transit service with its one 15-passenger bus and has built a 
transit station adjacent to U.S. Hwy. 101. The transit station is used 
extensively by the Tribe with three daily stops and MCTA with 16 
scheduled daily stops. No IRR funding or other federal funding has been 
used by the Tribe to develop or operate its transit service. Because of 
the inadequate funding within the IRR Program relative to the 
construction need, the IRR Program generally has not funded transit 
projects. There also are no direct Federal Transit Administration 
Programs for tribal transit systems.

 RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES IN THE IRR PROGRAM

1. In the short term, use part of the $3.0 billion in unplanned gas tax 
        collections not anticipated when TEA-21 was passed to increase 
        appropriations to the IRR Program.
    Both the Administration and several United States Senators (see 
attached White House Senate Plan, American Indian Programs for fiscal 
year 2001 dated January 12, 2000 and distributed on January 24, 2000) 
propose to increase funding for the IRR Program above fiscal year 2000 
levels by $117 million to $392 million. The Squaxin Island Tribe 
requests that beginning in fiscal year 2001, funding to the IRR Program 
be increased by $117 million to $392 million.

2. In the long term, work to achieve funding parity between state 
        highway programs and tribal road programs.
    Indian reservation roads make up 2.63 percent of this nation's 
public highway system; yet, less than one percent of the annual 
allocations for the highway program are directed at providing 
transportation assistance for Indian reservation roads. The Squaxin 
Island Tribe would like to see IRR program funding increased to levels 
comparable with the states. Repealing the provisions of TEA-21 that 
applied obligation limitations to the IRR program for the first time is 
one way to increase direct funding to tribal transportation programs 
without additional appropriations. Unlike state programs, the IRR 
program does not recover obligation limitation takedowns when those 
funds are redistributed.

3. Boost Interior appropriations for road maintenance.
    On the Squaxin Island Reservation, many roads are approaching 25 
years since original construction, but have never received maintenance, 
reconstruction, or resurfacing by the BIA. The Squaxin Island Tribe 
requests that Congress increase Department of the Interior 
appropriations for road maintenance to $100 million annually to address 
the deplorable condition of Indian reservation roads.

4. Appropriate separate funding for transportation planning and 
        capacity building to enable all tribes to participate in the 
        IRR Program.
    Although the BIA is authorize to allocate at least 2 percent of the 
IRR construction program appropriations for transportation planning, 
for several BIA Regional Offices that level of funding is inadequate to 
provide for transportation planning of all the tribes in the region on 
an on-going basis. For the Northwest Region, less than $250,000 is all 
that is available for the region's 44 tribes. Develop a set aside 
program for transportation planning and capacity building similar to 
the concept of minimum apportionment employed by the states for nearly 
every Highway Trust Fund program allocation formula.
    On behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribe, I thank this Subcommittee 
for allowing me the opportunity to submit written testimony on TEA 21--
a topic which will greatly impact the future, not only of my Tribe but 
all Tribes, and our accessibility to others as well as our 
accessibility to each other.
                                 ______
                                 

 Prepared Statement of the New York State Department of Transportation

    The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) 
appreciates the opportunity to present testimony on the fiscal year 
2001 transportation appropriations. New York has a truly intermodal 
transportation system. NYSDOT has responsibility for a $1.6 billion 
annual highway construction program, and a $1.6 billion annual transit 
operating and capital assistance program. NYSDOT is currently 
completing implementation of a balanced multi-year highway and mass 
transportation capital programs valued at $24 billion, with each mode 
receiving nearly $12 billion in Federal and State funds, and is now 
developing a new comprehensive program to address the State's needs for 
the next five years. In addition to highways and transit, as part of a 
larger plan, NYSDOT is working in partnership with Amtrak to invest up 
to $185 million in the State's passenger rail system over the next five 
years to upgrade to 125 mph high speed rail service. New York State is 
also undertaking an $80 million freight and passenger rail investment 
program, and, over the past five years, has provided over $100 million 
in assistance to commercial service airports to fund terminal and 
infrastructure improvements.
    In New York State, we have made a strong commitment to our 
transportation systems. Federal funds comprise about 40 percent of New 
York State's highway funding and 25 percent of transit capital 
spending, making us one of the highest self-help states in the nation. 
Despite these investments, New York's infrastructure, typical of the 
Northeast, is older than most, very heavily utilized and in need of 
modernization to attain the standards of other regions in the nation. 
We need your continued support in securing Federal assistance, which is 
so vital to our ability to meet our transportation needs.
    In developing the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations, 
we ask that you consider our views in the following areas:

Preserve the Structure and Intent of TEA-21
    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) is a 
carefully crafted bi-partisan agreement that was completed just two 
years ago. TEA-21 struck a delicate balance between the needs of 
highways and transit. Further, the bill reflects the results of several 
years of negotiations over the distribution of Federal funds to the 
states. Last year, during the appropriations debates, several proposals 
were put forth that would have upset these hard-fought funding formula 
agreements, threatening the integrity of TEA-21. New York strongly 
supports TEA-21 and believes that the consensus reached in this bill, 
which provides stability to state and local transportation planners, 
should be honored. We urge you to maintain the structure and intent of 
TEA-21 by rejecting provisions that would modify TEA-21.

Support Funding for Transportation Programs at the Levels Authorized in 
        TEA-21
    TEA-21 provides for historic levels of investment in our surface 
transportation systems, recognizing the critical role that 
infrastructure plays in the nation's economic health and growth. Yet 
even with these significant investments, the United States Department 
of Transportation estimates that billions of dollars in annual needs 
will remain unmet.
    TEA-21 guarantees that money paid into the Highway Trust Fund will 
be used for surface transportation improvements, and provides 
additional general fund authorizations. New York is pleased that 
Congress has made this commitment to our nation's infrastructure, and 
asks that you appropriate funds for transportation programs at the 
maximum levels authorized in TEA-21.

Support Full Funding for TEA-21's Transit Projects & Programs
    New York State is pleased that Congress recognized the critical 
importance of transit to the nation by providing significant increases 
in transit funding in TEA-21. In New York State, transit provides a 
lifeline to millions of riders each day, from the very urban areas like 
New York City to the smallest upstate communities. Public 
transportation in New York State accounts for nearly one-third of all 
transit trips in the nation. Each day, more than 25 percent of New 
Yorkers across the State use public transportation to travel to work--
the highest transit share in the nation.
    New York State has an historic and continued commitment to public 
transportation funding. New York State provides over $1.6 billion each 
year in operating assistance to our transit agencies. Additionally, 
more than 70 percent of the State's transit capital investment is from 
non-Federal sources. Even with this commitment, New York State will be 
unable to advance critical New Start and bus initiatives without 
Federal support, as provided in TEA-21.
    New Starts--Long Island East Side Access Project.--New York State 
is pleased that Congress recognized the importance of New York's 
Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA's) Long Island Rail Road 
(LIRR) East Side Access project in TEA-21 by authorizing a minimum of 
$353 million for the project. In addition, TEA-21 designates that this 
project be given priority consideration for funds made available under 
the FTA New Start program. New York supports the MTA's request for $198 
million for this project in fiscal year 2001.
    The Pennsylvania Railroad Station is the busiest train station in 
North America, serving a train per minute during rush hour, and 
carrying approximately 140,000 Amtrak, Long Island Rail Road and New 
Jersey Transit passengers every weekday morning. Currently, there is 
significant crowding at the station. The LIRR East Side Access Project 
will dramatically reduce crowding in Pennsylvania Station by providing 
one seat service from points on Long Island to East Midtown. This 
project will increase ridership by an estimated 109,000 weekday 
passengers, and save 5.3 million hours of travel time annually for 
commuters. Further, the project will allow full utilization of the 
significant Federal investment already made in the 63rd Street Tunnel, 
and provide a stimulus for economic growth and development. On March 6, 
2000, the Federal Transit Administration transmitted to Congress, as 
required by law, its recommendations for the allocation of funds for 
new fixed guideway systems and extensions (``New Starts'') for fiscal 
year 2001. In its report, the FTA recommended the LIRR East Side Access 
project for allocation of New Starts funds. We urge you to honor the 
commitment made in TEA-21 and support New York's MTA's request of $198 
million for this critical project.
    Bus & Bus-Related Requests.--New York State has submitted requests 
for funds to support critical bus and bus-related initiatives 
throughout the State. We ask you to consider funding these projects 
which will provide valuable assistance in improving and expanding 
transit facilities and replacing over-age buses with newer equipment 
that will be ADA accessible and utilize new cleaner burning fuel 
technology. In addition, TEA-21 provided several authorizations subject 
to appropriations to support projects in New York State communities. We 
ask that you support New York's request to fully fund these 
authorizations.

Fully Fund the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century 
        (AIR-21)
    New York congratulates Congress on passage of the landmark AIR-21 
legislation and requests support for sufficient budget authority and 
outlays to fully fund AIR-21, including general fund contributions to 
ensure adequate resources to fully fund FAA operations.

Resist Earmarking of USDOT Discretionary Programs
    TEA-21 created several new and important programs including the 
$700 million Coordinated Border Infrastructure and National Corridor 
Planning & Development programs (Border/Corridor programs), the $120 
million Transportation & Community & Systems Preservation Pilot Program 
(TCSP), the $1.0 billion Clean Fuels program, and the $750 million Jobs 
Access and Reverse Commute program. In fiscal year 2000, these programs 
were extensively earmarked. We ask that you provide full funding for 
these programs, and allow for competitive selection of grant recipients 
as provided in TEA-21.

Provide Adequate Funding for US Customs on the Northern Border
    The United States and Canada have the largest bilateral trading 
relationship in the world. In 1995, there was $272 billion in total 
merchandise trade, exceeding U.S. trade with the entire European Union 
($256 billion) and more than double U.S. trade with Mexico ($110 
billion). One-third of the value of imports from Canada to the US and 
20 percent of the exports from the United States to Canada are carried 
by New York State's transportation infrastructure and across New York's 
border with Canada.
    While billions in transportation infrastructure needs have been 
identified along the border between Canada and New York alone, even if 
all these transportation needs are met, until there is adequate 
staffing by Federal agencies at the border with adequate systems 
support, there will be significant congestion at the border. New York 
was pleased to learn that, due in large part to the efforts of 
Congressman McHugh, staffing will be increased at the northern border. 
New York urges Congress to provide funds to increase U.S. Customs 
staffing at the United States-Canada border in fiscal year 2001.
    Further, New York supports full funding for Customs automation, 
including the Automated Customs Environment. New York opposes 
establishment of a user fee to raise the funds for this project. The 
current Automated Commercial System has failed several times recently, 
and can no longer accommodate peak volumes of entry transactions. 
Replacement of this antiquated system will eliminate a major technical 
impediment to the further development of innovative technologies such 
as the Peace Bridge Electronic Commercial Vehicle Crossing System, for 
which New York received a $1.8 million grant from the 1999 TEA-21 
Border/Corridor programs.

Support Intercity Passenger Rail and Full Funding for High Speed Rail 
        Programs
    Intercity passenger rail is a unique asset critical to the mobility 
and economic well being of New York State and the nation. New York 
thanks the subcommittee for its past support of Amtrak and High Speed 
Rail investment, and urges your continued support of Amtrak in fiscal 
year 2001 at a level equal to Amtrak's fully authorized level. This 
assistance will help Amtrak continue its progress on the glidepath to 
operating self-sufficiency by 2002, and make investments critical to 
the future of a viable national passenger rail network.
    Intercity passenger rail service investments beyond Amtrak capital 
assistance are also important. TEA-21 continues several programs that 
provide funding for High Speed Rail projects, including the Next 
Generation High Speed Rail program, and the program to eliminate 
highway-railroad grade crossing hazards in designated high-speed rail 
corridors, including the Empire Corridor in New York. New York urges 
your support of these programs.
    New York State is committed to improving passenger rail service 
within the State and implementing High Speed Rail service in an 
incremental and achievable manner. While New York State is working with 
Amtrak to invest up to $185 million in the State's rail system over 
five years to provide faster, more convenient passenger train service 
between New York City and Buffalo, this partnership is only part of a 
larger $315 million high speed rail plan. New York State is actively 
pursuing several important rail projects pursuant to our larger high 
speed rail plan that are not funded within the Amtrak Memorandum of 
Understanding.
    New York State is seeking support for a comprehensive grade 
crossing risk reduction program along the high-speed Hudson Line of the 
Empire Corridor between Schenectady and New York's Pennsylvania 
Station. This program includes grade crossing eliminations, separations 
and high technology improvement projects to assist in bringing speeds 
to 125 mph. We are also seeking funding for two rail-related studies (a 
High Speed Rail Program Station and Land Side Access Study and an 
Advanced Train Control Study) to further progress work in the Corridor. 
These important projects will complement our historic funding agreement 
with Amtrak, increase safety in the corridor and improve our ability to 
implement high-speed service. We ask your support in securing funding 
for these important initiatives.
    NYSDOT thanks you for this opportunity to present testimony. We 
appreciate your dedication to and support of the nation's 
transportation systems.
                                 ______
                                 

               FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION AND AMTRAK

 Prepared Statement of the North Carolina Department of Transportation

    The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT) would like 
to thank the subcommittee for its strong continuing support for the 
nation's transportation system in general and transportation 
investments in North Carolina in particular. Three central organizing 
principles govern our approach to the provision of transportation 
services: safety first, efficiency, and partnerships.
    Rail services are an integral part of our statewide, intermodal 
system. With a rising population and growth of highway and air traffic 
in the state, rail is increasingly important as an alternative to auto 
and air transportation for both freight and passengers.
    The state of North Carolina sponsors two Amtrak-operated trains, 
the Piedmont and the Carolinian. The Carolinian began operation in 1990 
and the Piedmont in 1995. The Piedmont makes a daily round trip between 
Raleigh and Charlotte. The state owns the equipment for the Piedmont 
and contracts with Amtrak for maintenance and operations of the train. 
The Carolinian makes one daily trip each way between Charlotte and New 
York City. The Carolinian uses Amtrak equipment and is Amtrak-
maintained. The NC DOT reimburses Amtrak for the instate prorated 
portion of Amtrak administrative, operating, station and other costs in 
excess of passenger and miscellaneous revenues generated by the 
Carolinian.
    The state of North Carolina owns both the North Carolina Railroad 
and the stations served by both trains. The state recently purchased 
the minority shares in the NCRR for $72 million.
    Both trains are experiencing significant growth in readership. The 
Piedmont service, in particular, posted the second highest percentage 
increase among Amtrak trains during the first quarter of fiscal year 
2000 (October-December 1999). The Piedmont's ridership grew 22.2 
percent when compared to the first quarter of 1999. The Carolinian 
experienced a healthy 5.3 percent increase over the same period of 
time.
    Other Amtrak intercity passenger trains providing service to North 
Carolina are the Crescent, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, and Silver Palm. 
The Crescent provides service from New York City, Philadelphia, 
Washington, D.C. through Greensboro, Charlotte and on to Atlanta and 
New Orleans. The Silver Star takes passengers from New York City, 
Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., through Rocky Mount, Raleigh and on to 
Columbia, Savannah, Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa and Miami. The Silver 
Meteor provides service from the Northeast Corridor through Rocky 
Mount, Fayetteville and on south. The Silver Palm provides service from 
New York to Miami with stops in North Carolina to Rocky Mount, Wilson 
and Fayetteville.
    Safety is our most important concern. In North Carolina there are 
5,000 public grade crossings and over 3,000 route miles. There are an 
additional 5,000 private grade crossings in the state. In order to 
increase train speeds and thereby reduce travel times, the overall 
number of grade crossings must be rationalized.
    Grade crossing safety and elimination are part of the development 
of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR) between Washington 
and Atlanta. The SEHSR Coalition's Report A Time to Act, released by 
the Governors of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia 
on February 29, 2000, specifically supports this vital effort. (Copies 
of the report were provided to you and your staff under separate 
cover.)
    In this regard, we value your investment of High Speed Rail Grade 
Crossing Improvement Program funds (section 1103c) in the SEHSR 
Corridor. North Carolina has joined with our partners in a joint 
request for continued funding in our four states. Because we are 
increasingly one corridor from Washington to Atlanta, the federal share 
reaps a much higher return on investment. In addition, we value our 
partnership with the North Carolina Railroad, CSXT, Norfolk Southern 
and Amtrak, which make these vital projects possible. We strongly 
encourage your investment of $1 million in North Carolina and we 
support the requests of our partners.
    The NC DOT Rail Division has recently doubled the number of staff 
in this critical area. Further, we have reorganized the administrative 
responsibilities to ensure better delivery of the product-safety.
    In order to improve the efficiency of the intercity passenger rail 
system we encourage you to continue investment in the development of 
the non-electric locomotive. The program promises to have broad benefit 
to the Nation as a whole and North Carolina and the SEHSR Corridor in 
particular.
    We recognize that the state of North Carolina has a strong 
responsibility to our federal state partnership. Most recently the 
state worked with the North Carolina Railroad on a $48 million capital 
investment program. We are currently working with the NCRR and Norfolk 
Southern on another list of improvements.
    We support Amtrak's request for $521 million to continue on its 
``glide path'' to operational self-sufficiency. Should additional 
general revenues be available to fund a greater portion of Amtrak's 
authorization, we would suggest that the funds be used for life and 
safety improvements on designated corridors. In this regard, we value 
the testimony of the US Department of Transportation's Inspector 
General. Penn Station New York is the most popular destination for 
North Carolinians.
    Notwithstanding these significant fire and safety needs, modest 
capital investments in adjacent corridors like the SEHSR Corridor could 
reap benefits as well. Should scarce, additional funds be available, 
please continue your practice of equitably considering all requests. 
For example, an investment of $5.3 million in North Carolina would 
allow the acceleration of our nationally recognized grade crossing 
elimination program through the closing of a serious grade crossing 
between Greensboro and Raleigh. This line is used by 44 freight trains 
and 6 passenger trains daily.
    More than ever the Subcommittee faces serious challenges and 
constraints. Again, we value your support for a national system. Thank 
you for your consideration of our request.
                                 ______
                                 

     Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors

    The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) wishes to thank 
Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Lautenberg for the opportunity to 
provide this testimony regarding the fiscal year 2001 U.S. Department 
of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Appropriations. The subcommittee plays a 
critical role in providing investments in the nation's vital intermodal 
transportation system. The Governors commend the subcommittee's efforts 
to provide increased levels of funding for highways and transit in the 
fiscal year 2000 U.S. DOT appropriations, and urge continued support in 
fiscal year 2001 to the levels authorized in the Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). We also urge the subcommittee to 
continue the important federal partnership role in strengthening the 
nation's passenger and freight rail systems through continued 
investments in rail safety and capital investment in Amtrak and other 
critical rail projects. Continued federal investment in transportation 
research and development is also an essential element of public and 
private efforts to enhance the safety and capacity of the nation's 
transportation system.
    An integrated, safe, and fully-funded national surface 
transportation system is critical to the economic, social, and 
environmental well-being of the Northeast region and the nation. The 
safety, preservation, and efficiency of the region's transportation 
assets are primary concerns of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors. 
As the subcommittee considers the fiscal year 2001 appropriations for 
the Department, the Governors urge the subcommittee to support 
transportation investments which have national and regional 
significance. These investments, implemented in conjunction with state-
federal partnerships, contribute to a vibrant economy and improved 
quality of life for the Northeast and the nation.

                            INVEST IN SAFETY

    Safety on the nation's highway, transit and rail systems continues 
to be a priority for the Governors. Support for a strong federal-state 
partnership to correct hazardous conditions on the nation's highway 
infrastructure and to undertake proactive measures which improve 
highway safety is critical to reducing injuries and deaths on the 
nation's highways. Continued support is also critical for successful 
programs that contribute to a reduction in the number of highway-rail 
crossing fatalities. Examples of these programs include grade crossing 
improvements and education programs such as Operation Lifesaver. As 
travelers throughout the nation seek alternatives to congested 
highways, the Governors also strongly support full funding for advanced 
development of high speed rail corridors by eliminating highway grade 
crossing hazards, as provided in Section 1103(c) of TEA-21. One example 
of important steps being taken to make passenger rail travel safer is 
the successful demonstration of the nation's first quad-gate technology 
by the Federal Railroad Administration and the Connecticut Department 
of Transportation, and the movement to install this technology at other 
grade crossings.

              FULL FUNDING OF HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT PROGRAMS

    With increasing traffic volumes on the region's highways, the 
Governors support funding of highway programs to the levels authorized 
in TEA-21. This increased investment by the federal, state and local 
governments is beginning to show results in improved conditions, 
performance and safety of the region's and nation's highways and 
bridges. The Northeast, with its extensive, heavily used and aging 
highway infrastructure, has unique transportation needs. As a region 
which serves as a global gateway and important consumer market for the 
entire nation, investment in our highway system helps the region remain 
competitive in the international marketplace by facilitating the 
seamless flow of people and commerce.
    The Governors also urge full funding for the transit programs at 
the levels authorized in TEA-21. Transit plays a vital role in the 
lives of millions of residents in urban, suburban, and rural areas of 
the Northeast. It significantly decreases congestion on roads in 
metropolitan and suburban areas, mitigates isolation in the region's 
more rural cities and towns, and brings environmental benefits to the 
entire region by saving fuel and reducing air pollution. Transit is 
also the critical link in the region's Jobs Access and reverse commute 
programs.
    In the Northeast, as well as across the country, transportation is 
a vital tool for economic development. Investments made possible by 
federal, state and local government and the private sector partnerships 
fostered by TEA-21 are enriching our communities by creating and 
preserving jobs, enhancing global competitiveness, and contributing to 
improved air quality and overall quality of life. Adequate funding 
levels and flexible use of transportation funds are important to the 
emergence of innovative intermodal solutions which can alleviate 
congestion, improve capacity and encourage seamless movement of 
passenger and freight traffic.

        CONTINUE CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL

    Intercity passenger rail makes a unique contribution to the complex 
fabric of the nation's transportation network. This is particularly 
true in the Northeast where the region's passenger and freight rail 
networks are critical assets for the region's economy. If the national 
intercity passenger rail system is to maintain a safe, efficient 
network and realize its potential to improve the overall transportation 
capacity, its extensive capital needs must be addressed. The Governors 
wish to thank the subcommittee for the funding provided for Amtrak in 
fiscal year 2000, and urge that Amtrak be funded at its fully 
authorized level in fiscal year 2001. This increased federal funding, 
in combination with the significant capital investments being made by 
state partners, is vital to the future of intercity passenger rail 
service throughout the nation.
    Northeast Corridor Fuels Passenger Rail Development.--The Northeast 
Corridor is the financial linchpin in the national intercity passenger 
rail network. Ridership and revenues from the Northeast Corridor 
service provide essential financial resources used by Amtrak to 
maintain and expand the entire intercity passenger rail system. 
Therefore, it is vital that the level of federal capital funding for 
Amtrak is adequate to ensure the integrity and efficiency of this 
regional and national transportation asset. Investment by Amtrak, in 
partnerships with state, commuter and freight users, is urgently needed 
in such critical projects as life and safety improvements in 
Pennsylvania Station New York and infrastructure maintenance throughout 
the Northeast Corridor network.
    Growth of Passenger Corridors.--Throughout the nation, states and 
communities are stepping forward to work with the federal government 
and private sector to bring about modern, efficient passenger rail 
service. In addition to the Northeast Corridor, the region's rail 
system supports important passenger and freight service to communities 
and businesses. Recognizing the importance of this broader network, the 
Governors support a strong federal commitment and financial 
participation in federal-state-private sector partnerships which are 
working together nationwide to provide high speed rail service in such 
corridors as the Empire, Keystone, and Southeast; to improve service in 
Vermont; and to restore service from Maine to Boston with stops in New 
Hampshire.

                   INVEST IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    In many congested areas of the country, expanding existing or 
building new infrastructure is not an option. Technology can greatly 
enhance the safety and capacity of the existing highway and transit 
systems. Federal support and investment are pivotal to state and 
regional deployment of advanced transportation technologies. The 
Governors support full funding for research and development, 
specifically the Federal Railroad Administration's Next Generation 
High-Speed Rail programs which continue to make a valuable contribution 
to the development of the next generation non-electric locomotive. 
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) research and deployment, 
particularly through institutions such as the I-95 Corridor Coalition 
and projects such as the northern New England development of a regional 
intelligent transportation system for rural areas, can effectively 
increase the safety and mobility of the regional transportation system 
and lead to economic development
    The CONEG Governors thank Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member 
Lautenberg, and the entire subcommittee for the opportunity to present 
this testimony. We appreciate your dedication and support for the 
Nation's transportation investments.
                                 ______
                                 

 Prepared Statement of the High Speed Ground Transportation Association

    We thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify regarding 
the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill. This 
Subcommittee has been very supportive of the various rail initiatives 
of the past few years and both the rail capital and rail safety 
programs have greatly benefited from that support.
    As you may know, the High Speed Ground Transportation Association 
is made up of many parties interested in advancing high speed rail in 
the United States. We now have over 800 members representing a broad 
cross-section of private and public entities in the 48 contiguous 
states and Alaska. Our members include industry suppliers, engineers, 
transportation consultants, unions, rail operators, utilities, public 
officials and members of the public. Our advocacy on their behalf falls 
into three major areas:
  --Adequate and appropriate continued funding of Amtrak and the 
        programs of the Federal Railroad Administration
  --Creation, funding and construction of high-speed rail corridors 
        throughout the country
  --Deployment of Maglev rail technology in the United States.
    Before commenting on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2001, some 
overview of the current status of the programs mentioned above is 
required. In all of these areas, the situation is changing very 
rapidly, probably more so than most thought as little as five years 
ago. The structure of the TEA-21 legislation has quickly produced an 
extremely energetic effort on the part of the States and metropolitan 
areas to begin viewing rail options in transportation on a par with 
traditional highway and airport programs. More and more, rail options 
are being included in thinking and plans for integrated transportation 
systems, particularly in the large urban centers of the country. There 
is a recognition that highway lanes, airspace and landing slots are 
limited or extremely costly. The existing rail rights of way and 
emerging technologies in rail have yet to be exploited to a large 
degree. Contending with the current spike in oil prices and an oil 
market that is reliable only in its constant fluctuation, has lent 
greater support for decreasing US dependency on oil in our 
transportation alternatives. Increasingly, rail options are being 
considered as an answer to continued public demand for fast, efficient 
and safe transportation.
    There is little doubt that rail ridership is on the rise and that 
if we can bring higher speeds and safe service to the public, ridership 
will go up even more. Amtrak reports total ridership for fiscal year 
1999 at 21 million, up 10 percent since it began rebounding three years 
ago. With the advent of high speed rail corridors envisioned in TEA-21, 
there has been an explosion of interest and commitment on the part of 
the States to move forward towards deployment of higher speed rail 
systems. For example, the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, comprised 
of nine state Departments of Transportation, represents a cooperative 
and ongoing effort to develop an expanded and improved rail system in 
the Midwest. Midwest state legislators have also combined to form a 
Midwest High Speed Rail Compact to demonstrate their dedication to 
developing passenger rail. And Wisconsin Department of Transportation 
Secretary Terence Mulcahy has formed a coalition, States for Passenger 
Rail, garnering members from 17 states around the nation, to urge 
federal funding of regional passenger rail initiatives.
    The Midwest is only one among many regions actively pursuing 
expanded passenger rail. California, with a projected population of 50 
million people by 2020, is planning the most ambitious high speed rail 
system in the nation: a 700-mile system spanning the state from 
Sacramento to San Diego. 64 percent of Californians support the plan 
and the \1/4\-cent sales tax that would help to fund it. The Southeast 
is another region with significant state support for passenger rail. 
The Virginia State legislature authorized $76 million in its budget for 
funding passenger rail projects. North Carolina also approved $66 
million for passenger rail funding.
    These are but a few examples of the strong state interest 
throughout the nation for high speed rail. In addition, there has been 
a robust response to the TEA-21 Maglev deployment program. There are 
seven Maglev proposals from around the country undergoing the FRA 
review process that has been set up. The energy and enthusiasm behind 
the proposals are impressive and the federal funds committed up to now 
have been fully matched by the sponsors. On June 30th, detailed plans, 
both physical and financial, are due from the sponsors to the FRA. We 
believe these plans will be exciting and innovative in their scope and 
concept and may well spark additional proposals from other parts of the 
country.
    In light of this movement from around the country, we need to cast 
a critical eye toward the proposed budget and the future to make sure 
we are headed on a path that is rational, realistic and that will best 
serve the public.

                                 AMTRAK

    Amtrak is undergoing a significant turnaround as a result of its 
new leadership team's strategic business plan focused on achieving 
operational self-sufficiency and building a truly commercial 
enterprise. In 1999, Amtrak achieved record revenues of $1.8 billion 
including a 32-fold increase in revenues from the express business. 
Commercial ventures achieved a record profit of $108 million. All of 
this contributed to Amtrak beating its bottom-line targets for the 
second straight year.
    Amtrak has continued its aggressive business-like approach to 
providing passenger rail service through several key programs: (1) the 
implementation of an industry-leading service guarantee program; (2) 
expansion of the national network to grow market share and improve 
financial performance (the recently announced Network Growth Strategy); 
and (3) the introduction of the Acela high speed service in the 
Northeast Corridor.
    Amtrak has requested $989 million for fiscal year 2001: $521 
million would provide the base level of capital support required to 
keep Amtrak on the path to operating self-sufficiency, and $468 million 
would provide critically needed capital investment funds for the 
development of high speed corridors all across the country. The 
Administration also recommended $989 million for passenger rail 
funding: $521 million for Amtrak's basic capital needs, and $468 
million in a separate account for intercity passenger rail 
improvements. The Association strongly supports the total amount of 
funding requested by both Amtrak and the Administration, $989 million, 
for investment in passenger rail. These funds are absolutely critical 
to making progress to reach higher speeds along emerging high speed 
corridors around the country.
    We would like to note that the Administration has proposed shifting 
$468 million from Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) to fund their 
proposed separate account for intercity rail improvements. In order to 
make such a shift, a change in the authorizing law would be required. 
It is unclear at this time whether an authorizing bill contemplating 
such a change will come to the floor of the House or Senate this year. 
The same amount of funding could be realized simply using the existing 
Amtrak authorization.

                    NEXT GENERATION HIGH SPEED RAIL

    The Administration has proposed $22 million for continued 
development of high speed technologies. The authorized level for these 
programs is $35 million. $25 million of this amount is authorized for 
technology. $10 million is authorized for pre-construction activities.
    In addition, the Administration has proposed the $468 million for 
intercity rail improvements mentioned above.
    Once again, the Association strongly urges the appropriation of the 
$468 million recommended by the Administration to assure the continued 
development of next-generation high speed rail. The $35 million 
authorization called for in TEA-21 for technology and pre-construction 
activities is insufficient to meet the strong demand for next-
generation high speed rail in this decade. Transportation planners 
estimate that the planning, development, construction and equipment 
purchases for high speed rail corridors will require upwards of $17 
billion over a ten year period. This is less than half of what the 
federal government will spend on highways and aviation this year and, 
of course, hefty increases are planned for future years, especially in 
aviation. The $17 billion would produce incremental, but important, 
improvements to achieve moderate successes in speed. For very high 
speed rail projects, such as the one contemplated in California, 
heavier investment is essential. These are wise investments that will 
yield numerous benefits (a cleaner environment, most importantly) and 
cost savings (increased efficiency and productivity due to decreased 
congestion) down the line.

                      GRADE CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS

    The $5.25 million guaranteed funding for this program barely 
scratches the surface of funding needs. We ask the Subcommittee to 
reassert its dedication to grade crossing safety by approving a 
sustained program of funding to eliminate or improve every grade 
crossing along the designated high speed rail corridors.

                                 MAGLEV

    Maglev may hold out the most exciting promise for high speed ground 
transportation. The advanced technology behind Maglev, allowing for 
travel speeds only imagined a few years ago, could change the way 
people move in the 21st century. The public-private partnerships that 
will build and operate the Maglev systems may set a new direction for 
how transportation infrastructure is financed and delivered in the 
future.
    The Administration has proposed fully funding the ``guaranteed'' 
portion of the Federal Aid Highways program that includes $25 million 
for the Maglev deployment program. While this is the fully funded 
amount envisioned in TEA-21 under the guaranteed funding, it is 
insufficient to fully evaluate the seven projects around the country. 
That is why HSGTA asks the Subcommittee for the guaranteed $25 million, 
and an additional $30 million for completion of the seven projects' 
Environmental Impact Statements.
    The Maglev deployment program is quickly reaching a crossroads 
where decisions have to be made about its long term future and 
potential. It has become evident that there is great interest among the 
sponsors to continue to move forward. While final results of current 
planning work are not yet in, it is clear that at a minimum two or 
three, and perhaps all, of the projects competing for federal funding 
assistance will offer a successful demonstration of this exciting new 
technology. It appears evident that the $950 million in non-guaranteed 
funding will not in large part be appropriated during the TEA-21 
funding cycle. This is due to budget constraints on the Subcommittee's 
302(b) allocation. It also seems unlikely that actual construction of 
one or more projects can begin by fiscal year 2003. With both of these 
factors at work, it is clear that long-term decisions about Maglev 
deployment will be made in the next authorization bill.
    In the interim, we urge the Subcommittee to consider the following 
alternative to allow the authorizing committee to make the best 
informed decision possible and to best protect the sponsor's and 
Federal government's investment up to this point. That investment will 
be well in excess of $100 million by the end of fiscal year 2001.
    The Maglev sponsors will submit their detailed plans to the Federal 
Railroad Administration on June 30, 2000. While we expect these plans 
to be thorough, both the sponsors and the Federal government can make 
better investment decisions if a full Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) can be developed for each of the projects. Informally, we have 
estimated the federal share of this stage of the program to be between 
$42-$47 million to cover all 7 projects. The guaranteed portion of 
Maglev funds for fiscal year 2001 is $25 million. We understand that 
takedowns and obligation limitations required by law may reduce this 
amount to $17 million actually spent in fiscal year 2001 on the 
program. This would leave a gap of approximately $30 million to cover 
the costs of full EIS's for the projects. Matching funds naturally 
cover some portion of this figure.
    Additional necessary funds can be appropriated from the $950 
million authorization in TEA-21. The additional funds are a small 
amount in absolute terms, and tiny when compared to the size of the 
investment we have made already and the size of the investment in the 
future. It is an extremely prudent hedge against poor decision making 
in the future and will assure a complete picture for those who will be 
making long-term decisions on the program during reauthorization.
    Our estimate of these costs is our own. The Federal Railroad 
Administration and seven project applicants could probably develop a 
sharper figure on EIS costs. The important principle involved is that 
the Congressional intent to deploy Maglev technology in this country, 
as expressed in TEA-21, be fully realized and that maximum information 
be available before a multi-year commitment is made on how this program 
can best move forward. We hope that you will agree with us that this is 
the prudent course of action.
                                 ______
                                 

    Prepared Statement of the Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Consortium

    The Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Consortium thanks the Subcommittee 
for this opportunity to testify regarding the fiscal year 2001 
Appropriations bill. This Subcommittee has been very supportive of the 
various rail initiatives of the past few years for both rail capital, 
safety and development initiatives. The Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev 
initiative has considerably benefited from that support. We need 
continued support for fiscal year 2001.
    The Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Consortium's steering committee 
consists of the following members: 1. Atlanta Regional Commission; 2. 
Georgia Department of Transportation; 3. Georgia Regional 
Transportation Authority; 4. Georgia Department of Transportation; 5. 
Georgia Rail Passenger Authority; 6. The Chattanooga Institute; 7. The 
City of Chattanooga; 8. Coosa Valley and North Georgia Regional 
Development Centers; and 9. Cobb County Department of Transportation.
    The ongoing Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Deployment study is one of 
seven being conducted simultaneously in the United States to determine 
which location(s) would best showcase Maglev technology in this 
country. The transportation corridor to best demonstrate that it can 
successfully implement and operate a Maglev system will receive up to 
$1 billion from TEA-21 for final development and construction of the 
initial Project.
    The Magnetic Levitation Transportation Program is an important and 
exciting program designed to develop a new and much improved mode of 
ground transportation. As our nation's, but especially the Greater 
Atlanta Metro Area's airways and highways, become more and more 
congested, and our environment and quality of life continue to 
deteriorate, it is essential that we take advantage of every 
opportunity to find new and better ways to improve our mobility and 
enhance our environment.
    Available Maglev technology is the fastest, most sophisticated 
ground-transportation system in the world and has been tested at 
operating speeds of over 240 mph. The technology selected for the 
Atlanta-Chattanooga Corridor is Transrapid, a system that has been in 
research and development in Germany since the late 1960's. Transrapid 
rides over a fixed guideway supported, guided and propelled by magnetic 
force alone with virtually no moving parts.
    The Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev project is well underway and on 
schedule to meet TEA-21 and Federal Railroad Requirements. It brings 
together two key southeastern cities and states in a collaborative 
effort to improve future transportation options. It provides economic 
development opportunities and will create approximately 6,000 new jobs. 
We believe the Atlanta-Chattanooga region should be the first in the 
nation to manufacture and deploy this exciting new technology. While 
the project will not solve all existing transportation and air quality 
problems in the region, it certainly will provide an option that helps 
air quality and traffic congestion in both Georgia and Tennessee. In 
addition, the new transportation system could reduce the investment in 
infrastructure necessary at the Hartsfield Atlanta International 
Airport (HAIA), provide a reduction in commuter flights between Atlanta 
and Chattanooga, and therefore, extend the life of the $5.4 billion 
Masterplan improvement program that HAIA is initiating.
    Since the study's inception in August of 1999, much progress has 
been made in defining the details of the proposed Atlanta to 
Chattanooga Maglev service. First, ridership and fare analysis have 
shown that the project is indeed feasible, particularly with the level 
of passenger travel to and from Hartsfield Atlanta International 
Airport.
    Second, it is clear that the portion of the corridor from 
Hartsfield Airport to the Town Center in north Cobb county would meet 
the criteria set by the Federal Railroad Administration to comply with 
all aspects of the Maglev legislation in TEA-21. This section was 
initially given greater emphasis because it would in essence become the 

FRA Demonstration Project.
    Ultimately two distinct Maglev services will be operated. Initially 
a local project service will be operated between Hartsfield Airport and 
Town Center in Cobb County. The 30-mile plus trip will stop at Vine 
City (central Atlanta) and Galleria stations. Once the line is extended 
to the Chattanooga Airport, additional service will operate between 
Hartsfield and Chattanooga, stopping at all intermediate stations or 
with express service directly between the airports.
    While the cost is still being determined, experience demonstrates 
that the range will likely be comparable to that of the MARTA system in 
Atlanta on a cost per mile basis. However, operating cost is expected 
to be paid by a combination of revenue from riders and the public-
private partnership. Federal and or local operating subsidies will not 
be requested for operations or maintenance support.
    The Administration has proposed fully funding the ``guaranteed'' 
portion of the Federal Aid Highways program that includes $25 million 
for the Maglev deployment program for fiscal year 2001. After all the 
takedowns and funding obligations are eliminated that will leave about 
$17 million for the seven competing projects. This is insufficient to 
evaluate the seven projects so that an appropriate down select decision 
can be accomplished. In order to eliminate the risks for both the FRA 
and the project applicants a full Environmental Impact Statement needs 
to be completed for each project.
    The Maglev deployment program is quickly reaching a crossroads 
where decisions have to be made about its long term potential and 
future. There is great interest among the seven sponsors to continue to 
move forward. While final conceptual results will not be submitted 
until June 30, 2000 it is clear that at a minimum Atlanta-Chattanooga 
and perhaps two or three others, maybe all, projects competing for 
federal funding will offer a successful demonstration of this exciting 
new technology.
    It appears evident that the $950 million non-guaranteed Maglev 
funding authorization will not in large part be appropriated during the 
TEA-21 funding cycle. This is due to budget constraints on the 
Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. Also, because of the late start in 
awarding the programs it seems unlikely that actual construction of one 
or more projects can begin by fiscal year 2003. With both of these 
factors at work, it is clear that long-term decisions about Maglev 
deployment will be made in the next authorization bill.
    For example a full Environmental Impact Statement would permit us 
to fully evaluate the Vine Street station in downtown Atlanta to tie 
MARTA, commuter rail, bus and taxi into a major intermodal connection, 
where the whole will definitely be larger than any of its component 
parts. This station would connect Phillips Arena, the World Congress 
Center, the Georgia Dome and corporate headquarters of Coca Cola and 
CNN. The station at HAIA would become the ``centerpiece'' for a truly 
multi-modal transportation hub linking the future Southern Crescent 
Transportation Service Center (housing commuter and high-speed rail, 
local and regional bus systems, a future MARTA station and Maglev) to 
the new East Terminal at HAIA.
    Further completing the EIS process would permit us to fully 
negotiate an agreement that is in process between Georgia Power and 
Tennessee Valley Authority to work together to supply power for the 
Maglev system, thus creating a new truly emission free transportation 
alternative. Also, there are major private Maglev partners that are 
``on the bubble'' that would truly revolutionize the concept of airport 
travel (to, from and in the sky) in the Atlanta-Chattanooga Region. The 
commitment of funding for the EIS will signal the resolve to move 
forward with this new transportation technology. Importantly, all costs 
under the EIS process will be completely defined as has been tested 
under the Federal Transit Administration's Full Funding Grant Agreement 
Process. This is a process that has been proven with over a decade of 
experience.
    We urge the Subcommittee to provide an additional $7 million for 
fiscal year 2001 for the Atlanta-Chattanooga EIS to make the best-
informed decision possible and to best protect the sponsor's and 
Federal government's investment. These additional necessary funds can 
be realized from the $950 million Maglev authorization in TEA-21. The 
additional funds are a small amount in absolute terms, and tiny when 
compared to the size of the investment already made and the great 
potential for this new, but tested, system in the future. This is an 
extremely prudent hedge against making a poor decision in the future 
and will assure a complete picture for those who will making long-term 
decisions to improve mobility and the quality of life in the Atlanta-
Chattanooga corridor.
    We would be pleased to respond to any of the Committee's questions 
and urge your early recommendation of the fiscal year 2001 funding for 
the Atlanta-Chattanooga Environmental Impact Statement. Please contact 
Robert McCord at the Atlanta Regional Commission (404-463-3253) for any 
follow-up that may be required.
                                 ______
                                 

      Prepared Statement of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor

    The Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor is a partnership of 
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to provide safe 
and efficient intercity passenger rail service. Southeast High Speed 
Rail will link cities where highway and airline congestion is the 
greatest, providing the region with a much needed travel alternative.
    Safety is our primary concern. We request a total of $5.5 million 
in section 1103(c) funding in the fiscal year 2001 U.S. Department of 
Transportation appropriation to be invested: Virginia $2 million, North 
Carolina $1 million, South Carolina $1 million, and Georgia $1.5 
million.
    We will spend the funds wisely and promptly on vital safety 
projects that will contribute to the mobility of people and goods in 
our region. We will continue to work closely with our freight rail 
partners to ensure the maximum return on these investments.
    Each of us will also make you and the members of the subcommittee 
aware of other projects and programs that are vital to our individual 
states. We also invite your consideration of those activities.
    The Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor is a unique, regional 
transportation asset that enhances the social and economic life of 
entire corridor. We value your partnership in this effort and we 
appreciate you ongoing support for this project.
                                 ______
                                 

 Prepared Statement of the National Association of Railroad Passengers

    Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the 
record. 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 strongly support the fully authorized level of funding for 
Amtrak for Fiscal 2001.
    We support full funding of high-speed rail and rail corridor 
development programs.
    Amtrak usage and revenues continue to grow after a decline in the 
mid-1990's.
    Many opportunities lie ahead for improved passenger rail service, 
but they will require a partnership that includes both the public and 
private sector.

                   FISCAL 2001 AMTRAK APPROPRIATIONS

    We strongly support the fully authorized level of funding for 
Amtrak as set forth in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 
1997. This Act authorized $5.163 billion in appropriations for capital 
and operations, for the five fiscal years of 1998 through 2002. For the 
first three years (1998-2000), though $3.219 billion was authorized, 
the Administration proposed $1.936 billion and Congress appropriated 
$1.774 billion, leaving a total gap (thus far) of $1.445 billion (see 
Table 1, next page).

                            TABLE 1.--APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED FOR AMTRAK, 1998-2002
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Authorized
                       Fiscal year                          Amount    Administration     Amount      amount not
                                                          authorized     proposal     Appropriated  appropriated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998....................................................       1,138           744            594           544
1999....................................................       1,058           621            609           449
2000....................................................       1,023           571            571           452
2001....................................................         989           989           n.a.          n.a.
2002....................................................         955          n.a.           n.a.          n.a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amtrak and the Administration have said that the amount that was 
appropriated in 1998-2000 is sufficient toward furthering Amtrak's 
efforts to achieve operating self-sufficiency by 2003. However, as DOT 
Inspector General Kenneth Mead has said, if they make it, they won't 
make it by much. It is also clear that, at this rate, practically 
nothing would remain for expansions that would let passenger rail 
further increase its geographical reach and become a more relevant 
presence in the transportation market in more places. Many states want 
to help with these investments, but they are frustrated by the current 
lack of a comprehensive federal partnership in this area. (I will 
return to this in Section 4.)
    We appreciate and support past actions by Congress to give Amtrak 
the flexibility to spend part of its capital appropriation on items 
relating to preventive maintenance. As is true for transit, preventive 
maintenance expenditures can forestall the need for some capital 
expenditures that are more expensive. They can enhance reliability and 
help ease operating costs. This flexibility became crucial to Amtrak in 
Fiscal 1999, which was the first year the Administration proposed no 
Amtrak operating grant. We support extending this flexibility for both 
equipment and maintenance-of-way at least through Fiscal 2002.

                        HIGH-SPEED RAIL FUNDING

    We support funding at the authorized level of $35 million for high-
speed rail programs. This will allow the work of the Federal Railroad 
Administration to continue in areas that will foster future corridor 
development across the U.S. These areas include continued development 
of a high-speed locomotive that doesn't require overhead electric 
power, advanced signal systems, corridor planning, and advanced grade-
crossing safety technology.

               AMTRAK USE IS GROWING, AND WILL GROW MORE

    In fiscal year 1999, Amtrak ``core'' passenger revenues rose 6.0 
percent, ridership rose 2.0 percent, and passenger-miles rose 0.5 
percent (see Table 2, next page). This makes 1999 the third year in a 
row that all three of these measures improved. By ``core'' we mean 
intercity passengers; these numbers do not reflect Amtrak's contract 
commuter operations.

                              TABLE 2.--AMTRAK CORE RIDERSHIP AND REVENUES, 1996-99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Passenger
                                                               revenues ($    System ridership  System passenger-
                                                                millions)        (millions)     miles (millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal:
    1996..................................................            $850.6              19.7           5,049.6
    1997..................................................            $916.3              20.2           5,166.2
    1998..................................................            $946.2              21.1           5,304.2
    1999..................................................          $1,003.4              21.5           5,330.1
Percent change:
    1996-99...............................................             +18.0              +9.3              +5.6
    1998-99...............................................              +6.0              +2.0              +0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, we would like to have seen stronger gains. The Northeast 
and West business units in fact did post stronger gains. The Intercity 
unit suffered partly due to serious on-time performance problems. Many 
of these problems were caused by the after-effects of the Union Pacific 
meltdown, and--later in the year--by disastrous, new problems as 
Norfolk Southern and CSX struggled with the complex Conrail 
transaction.
    We expect that all three indicators in Table 2 will increase as a 
result of Amtrak's attaining a full level of Acela service in the 
Northeast Corridor. While Congress made significant infrastructure 
investments in the Northeast Corridor in the 1990's, the increased 
service levels made possible by these investments are only just 
beginning. The first increment of added service began January 31, with 
conversion of two Boston-New York-Washington round-trips to all-
electric Acela Regional service, reducing the Boston South Station-New 
York City running time to just under four hours. The ridership response 
has been strongly positive. More service will be added throughout 2000 
as remaining electrification work is completed, and as new locomotives 
and new complete train sets are delivered for Acela Regional and Acela 
Express services, respectively.

       FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES EXIST, BUT REQUIRE A FEDERAL PARTNER

    This investment in the Northeast, making possible faster, all-
electric service possible for the first time beyond New Haven to 
Boston, is arguably the single-greatest passenger-rail-related 
infrastructure investment by any agency in the U.S. since the Great 
Depression. This project will have a direct regional impact on 
transportation in the Northeast, by enhancing the attractiveness of 
passenger trains and making them a much better alternative to 
constrained highway and airport capacity. Also, the entire project 
(infrastructure and new train sets) will demonstrate to other areas of 
the country that modern, high-speed rail is not just for the Europeans 
and Japanese.
    We believe the evidence continues to show that Americans are eager 
to ride good train service wherever it is provided. Whatever the short 
term holds for oil prices, most experts--including those at the 
International Energy Agency--believe that the era of cheap oil has at 
most 10-15 years to go. The U.S. relies on energy-intensive domestic 
aviation more than any other nation. Therefore, the stronger our 
passenger rail system can become, the more it can soften the negative 
impacts of future energy price increases on our economy and our quality 
of life.
    Public support for expanded service--which would be greatly aided 
by appropriating the entire amount authorized for Amtrak--was 
reinforced on February 1 at a Capitol Hill breakfast with the formation 
of a bi-partisan coalition of state Departments of Transportation to 
press for federal funding for intercity passenger rail. The confidence 
this Subcommittee has shown in Amtrak is vindicated by statements like 
the following from Illinois DOT Secretary Kirk Brown, made on February 
1: ``Amtrak has done an outstanding job. Three years ago, we would have 
said Amtrak was a problem. But they've changed the way they do 
business. They have done a great job of building credibility with the 
local communities.''
    At the same meeting, North Carolina Deputy Secretary David King 
said, ``We have been so bold as to rename the NEC [Northeast Corridor]. 
We call it the ACC. That's the Atlantic Coast Corridor. Two-thirds of 
the people who board our trains [in North Carolina] want to go to the 
Northeast Corridor. It's not a one-state business that we're about. 
It's got to be national. Like Illinois, we're pleased at the progress 
Amtrak has made . . . What really is missing is [meaningful] federal 
money.'' New York DOT Assistant Commissioner Jack Guinan and Wisconsin 
DOT Deputy Director Terry Mulcahy also praised Amtrak.
    Another remarkable sign that passenger rail is popular among states 
came last December when 26 governors wrote to this Subcommittee and 
Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew asking that Amtrak be 
funded at the fully authorized level in 2001.
    The U.S. lags the world in making it easy for travelers to connect 
between intercity passenger rail and airlines. Many people will be 
surprised by the positive impact on Amtrak's revenues when the station 
at Newark Airport opens in 2001. We are pleased that T. F. Green 
Airport in Providence will get an Amtrak station (also in 2001), and 
that planners in the Midwest are looking at air/rail connections in 
Gary and Milwaukee and possibly elsewhere. We remain convinced that the 
greatest untapped opportunity to exploit air/rail lies in extending 
Amtrak trains--and O'Hare's Airport Transit (people mover)--to Metra's 
O'Hare Transfer commuter rail station.
    We strongly support adding key routes to the long-distance network. 
Among the most important needs we see: Midwest-Nashville-Atlanta-
Florida and Seattle-Portland-Denver-Texas. Long-distance trains will 
benefit from high-speed corridor initiatives, with better reliability 
and travel times in territory shared by both types of service. This is 
particularly true in the Midwest, where Chicago-East Coast trains have 
been severely impacted by the 1999 split-up of Conrail.
                                 ______
                                 

      Prepared Statement of the American Passenger Rail Coalition

    Chairman Shelby and Members of the Subcommittee on Transportation 
Appropriations, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to 
the Subcommittee on the importance of the nation's intercity passenger 
railroad--Amtrak--and the funding Amtrak needs to continue its success 
in building ridership and revenues and to partner with states on 
investments in high-speed rail on corridors around the country.
    The American Passenger Rail Coalition (APRC) is an association of 
the nation's railroad equipment suppliers and rail-related businesses 
that are working for a financially strong, efficient and safe U.S. 
intercity passenger rail system. APRC member companies manufacture 
railroad cars and locomotives, railcar brakes, doors and lighting, rail 
signaling systems, rail cable and ties and provide important services 
such as track repair, computer and networking services, communications, 
food delivery and other services. APRC member companies have 
manufacturing plants and businesses in states across the country that 
employ thousands of U.S. workers and contribute to the economic health 
of states and communities.

 MOMENTUM IS BUILDING NATIONWIDE FOR IMPROVED INTERCITY RAIL PASSENGER 
                                SERVICE

    Momentum is building in states and regions around the country--in 
the Midwest, the Northeast, the Southeast, the South, the West and the 
Pacific Northwest--for improved intercity passenger rail service. 
States and communities are not only speaking out about the need for 
improved rail service but are investing substantial amounts of their 
own money to bring this about. An indication of this momentum was the 
announcement in October 1999 by the states of Wisconsin, Illinois and 
Michigan that they will, in partnership with Amtrak, develop a plan to 
purchase new rail equipment capable of travelling 110 mph to operate on 
three Midwest passenger rail corridors. What is becoming apparent is 
that states from all regions of the country share a conviction that 
intercity passenger rail must be an essential element of state and 
national plans to assure future mobility, economic development and a 
high quality of life.

                 STRONG FEDERAL LEADERSHIP IS ESSENTIAL

    Federal leadership through strong funding of Amtrak and a 
partnership with the states is essential to ensuring the success of the 
investments states and communities are making to improve rail service. 
Partnership between the federal government and states has been basis 
for construction and expansion of our nation's highways, airports and 
other modes of transportation. This federal-state partnership enables 
key capital and infrastructure investments to be made that result in 
better service, greater capacity and ridership growth. With a federal-
state partnership, intercity passenger rail and high-speed rail service 
will develop and attract a growing ridership.
    APRC thanks the Subcommittee for the support it has shown for 
Amtrak. APRC expresses special appreciation to Senator Frank Lautenberg 
for his steadfast commitment and untiring efforts to secure the funding 
Amtrak needs to continue to improve and grow. In fiscal year 2001, APRC 
asks the Subcommittee to appropriate $989 million for Amtrak, the full-
authorized level Congress approved for Amtrak for fiscal year 2001 in 
the Amtrak reauthorization legislation. This funding will keep Amtrak 
on track to operational self-sufficiency by fiscal year 2003 and enable 
Amtrak to partner with states in making capital investments in the 
high-speed rail corridors.
    More than half of the nation's Governors are on record supporting 
$989 million for Amtrak in fiscal year 2001. State legislators, mayors 
and community leaders, rail business and rail passenger associations, 
labor and other organizations all have expressed support for funding 
Amtrak at the full-authorized level in fiscal year 2001. This is a 
critical time for federal leadership in intercity passenger rail. The 
return to the nation for its investments in Amtrak and high-speed rail 
will be high.

     AMTRAK'S STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN IS YIELDING POSITIVE RESULTS

    Under the leadership of the Amtrak Board of Directors and President 
and CEO, George Warrington, and guided by the Strategic Business Plan 
they have adopted, Amtrak is increasing its revenues and ridership and 
entering into partnerships that are yielding increased efficiency and 
growth. Indications of the positive results in the last fiscal year 
(fiscal year 1999) include:
  --Amtrak total revenues were $1.84 billion, the highest in Amtrak's 
        history.
  --Amtrak exceeded the bottom-line target in its business plan by $8 
        million.
  --Ridership was 21.5 million, up 2 percent from fiscal year 1998 and 
        nearly 10 percent over fiscal year 1997.
  --Passenger-related revenues set a record again, topping $1 billion.
  --Amtrak increased the number of trains operating in many states and 
        reintroduced passenger rail service to Oklahoma for the first 
        time in 20 years.
  --Amtrak's mail and express freight service produced $98 million in 
        revenue, up 18 percent over the prior fiscal year.
    In December 1999, Moody's Investment Services, after reviewing 
Amtrak's finances and Strategic Business Plan, raised Amtrak's credit 
rating to A3, a rating that means ``a stable outlook'' and noted that 
it ``reflects Moody's assessment of the financial strength of Amtrak in 
relation to its unique operations and prominence in the U.S.''
    Each year, since 1994, Amtrak has presented to Congress a timeline 
of its ``glidepath'' to becoming free of federal operating assistance. 
The glidepath does not include nor has it ever included progressive 
overhauls or depreciation, a non-cash expense, as federal operating 
costs. Amtrak is on track to becoming free of federal operating 
assistance as understood historically by both Amtrak and Congress. 
Amtrak is fully intent on meeting the financial goals and reforms 
established by Congress in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 
1997.

    AMTRAK'S PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS YIELD NEW REVENUES AND 
                               RIDERSHIP

    The public and private partnerships, which Amtrak is undertaking, 
are generating new revenues and opportunities to increase service. 
Amtrak's mail and express business, which is central to improving the 
economics of the long-distance trains, has been experiencing double 
digit growth. On the Chicago-San Antonio Texas Eagle, which was nearly 
cancelled three years ago, service has increased and ridership was up 
17 percent in the first quarter of this fiscal year (Oct-Dec. 1999).
    Amtrak ridership increased last year, reaching record levels on 
some routes:
  --New York-Washington D.C. Metroliner Service set its third 
        consecutive ridership record in fiscal year 1999, with 2.24 
        million passengers.
  --The Philadelphia-Harrisburg Keystone Service, provided in 
        partnership with Pennsylvania, rose 18 percent to nearly 1 
        million passengers.
  --Amtrak's partnership with Washington State and Oregon and the 
        popular European-style Talgo trains operating along the Pacific 
        Northwest Corridor boosted rail ridership to 450,000 in fiscal 
        year 1999. Amtrak ridership in the corridor has quadrupled over 
        the past six years.
    On January 31, Amtrak celebrated the inauguration of all-electric 
rail service between Boston and New York City. The new Acela Regional 
service will reduce New York to Boston rail travel time by as much as 
90 minutes. Completion of the final 156-mile section of the Northeast 
Corridor electrification system from New Haven to Boston made this all-
electric service possible. With this final link, the entire Northeast 
Corridor from Boston to Washington D.C. now has overhead 
electrification. New, comfortable upgraded railcars and faster 
downtown-to-downtown service will draw new business and other customers 
to the rails. Later this year, Amtrak and the nation will celebrate the 
launch of the Acela Express high-speed rail service in the Northeast 
Corridor. The sleek new trainsets, manufactured by the consortium of 
Bombardier and ALSTOM Transportation, will travel at top speeds of 150 
miles per hour, cutting the Boston-New York travel time to under 3 
hours, and will provide U.S. rail passengers with a new level of speed, 
comfort and service quality. The Acela high-speed rail service, the 
linchpin of Amtrak's strategy to achieve operational self-sufficiency, 
is projected to attract an additional 2.6 million riders annually to 
Amtrak and generate net revenues of at least $180 million. Design and 
construction of the new trains generated contracts with businesses in 
23 states, created thousands of jobs and will yield substantial 
economic benefits for the Northeast region and the nation.

       STATE COMMITMENTS TO HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT

    States and regions are making substantial investments to improve 
intercity passenger rail service. Some examples include:
  --State transportation officials announced on February 1, the 
        formation of a new ``States for Passenger Rail'' coalition 
        through which states will work together for strong funding for 
        intercity passenger rail service and funding to advance the 
        designated high-speed rail corridors. Nineteen states have 
        already joined to coalition. Others are expected to join in the 
        weeks ahead.
  --Nine Midwestern states, in cooperation with Amtrak and the Federal 
        Railroad Administration (FRA), are developing the Midwest 
        Regional Rail Initiative, a plan to improve intercity passenger 
        rail service on 3,000 miles of track throughout the region.
  --A $185 million agreement was signed between New York State and 
        Amtrak to upgrade seven Turboliner trains that operate on NY's 
        Empire Corridor and for other infrastructure investments on the 
        corridor.
  --In November 1999, Amtrak and Pennsylvania DOT announced a $140 
        million agreement to fund improvements on the Philadelphia-
        Harrisburg Keystone Corridor, including electrification of the 
        route, purchase of equipment, upgraded track and other 
        improvements.
  --In California, Amtrak made its largest state investment ever--$125 
        million for new trains for the popular San Diego-San Luis 
        Obispo rail corridor.
  --In the Pacific Northwest, investments by Washington and Oregon to 
        improve intercity passenger rail service are yielding big gains 
        (cited earlier).
  --Along the Gulf Coast, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama are working 
        on plans to improve rail service along the Gulf Coast high-
        speed rail corridor.

FUNDING FOR FRA'S NEXT GENERATION HIGH SPEED RAIL PROGRAM AND FOR RAIL 
                                 SAFETY

    APRC also asks the Subcommittee to provide strong funding for the 
Federal Railroad Administration's Next Generation High-Speed Rail 
Program, to continue the important contributions this program is making 
in the development of a high-speed non-electric locomotive, advances in 
positive train control, development and testing of advanced grade 
crossing protection technologies and in other areas. Highway-railroad 
grade crossing elimination programs are crucial to the development of 
high-speed rail and APRC asks the Subcommittee to continue funding for 
these important programs.
important legislative opportunities to improve intercity passenger rail
    Finally, APRC would like to express its support for two important 
pieces of legislation that will provide states with increased 
opportunities to invest in passenger rail improvements. S. 1900, the 
High Speed Rail Investment Act, introduced by Senator Lautenberg and 
co-sponsors would authorize Amtrak to sell $10 billion in bonds over 10 
years and invest the money in designated high-speed rail corridors. A 
federal investment of $400 million would leverage billions in capital 
for high-speed rail investment. The Senate bill has 40 co-sponsors. A 
House companion bill has been introduced. S. 1144, the Surface 
Transportation Act, led by Senator Voinovich, would allow states to use 
flexible federal surface transportation funds (STP, CMAQ and NHS) for 
intercity passenger rail, where the state believes rail is the best 
transportation solution. This legislation is supported by many public 
and private organizations. Enactment of these bills, along with strong 
federal appropriations for Amtrak and to advance high-speed rail R&D 
and rail safety, will enable Amtrak and the states to make crucial 
passenger rail investments that will yield high returns for the nation.
    APRC thanks the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present this 
testimony.


       LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Aasmundstad, Eric, North Dakota Farm Bureau State President, 
  American Farm Bureau Federation:
    Prepared statement...........................................   597
    Statement of.................................................   595
Acton, Ken, Aviation Consultant..................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................    50
    Statement of.................................................    47
Aero Twin, Inc., prepared statement..............................    65
Air Traffic Control Association, Inc., prepared statement........  1480
Alaska Aviation Coordination Council, prepared statement.........    73
American Association of Airport Executives and Airports Council 
  International--North America, prepared statement...............  1474
American Passenger Rail Coalition, prepared statement............  1512
American Public Transportation Association, prepared statement...  1448
Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Consortium, prepared statement........  1508

Bailey, Hon. Sue, M.D., Administrator, National Highway Traffic 
  Safety Administration, Department of Transportation:
    Prepared statement...........................................   561
    Statement of.................................................   559
Baker, Robert W., Vice Chairman, American Airlines, Inc.:
    Prepared statement...........................................   166
    Statement of.................................................   163
Basso, Jack, Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, Federal 
  Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation..........    77
Basso, Peter J., Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and 
  Chief Financial Official, Department of Transportation.......339, 381
    Prepared statement...........................................   360
    Statement of.................................................   359
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah, statements of.367, 409
Bi-State Development Agency, prepared statement..................  1442
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from Missouri:
    Questions submitted by.......................................   250
    Statement of.................................................   189
Bowers, Paul, Alaska Department of Transportation, Director, 
  Statewide Aviation.............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Statement of.................................................    10
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
    Prepared statement...........................................   601
    Statement of.................................................   600
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia:
    Questions submitted by.......................................   256
    Statements of..............................................185, 515

California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study 
  (CCOS) Coalition, prepared statement...........................  1490
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
    Questions submitted by................................252, 328, 335
    Statements of..............................................187, 465
Card, Vice Admiral James C., Vice Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, 
  Department of Transportation...................................   259
    Prepared statement...........................................   265
    Statement of.................................................   263
Champion, David, Director, Auto Test Center, Consumers Union.....   532
Chatham Area Transit Authority, prepared statement...............  1433
City of Gainesville, Florida, prepared statement.................  1457
City of Miami Beach, Florida, prepared statement.................  1434
City of Newark, New Jersey, prepared statement...................  1435
City of Vero Beach, Florida, prepared statement..................  1488
Claybrook, Joan, President, Public Citizen:
    Prepared statement...........................................   528
    Statement of.................................................   522
Coalition of Northeastern Governors, prepared statement..........  1503
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, prepared statement.............  1456
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Denver 
  Regional Transportation District (RTD), prepared statement.....  1432
Colorado Department of Transportation, prepared statement........  1495
ComCARE Alliance, prepared statement.............................  1395
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, prepared statement...........  1401
County of San Bernardino, CA, prepared statement.................  1491
Coyner, Kelley S., Administrator, Research and Special Programs 
  Administration, Department of Transportation...................   259
    Prepared statement...........................................   279
    Statement of.................................................   278
Crichton, John, President and Chief Executive Officer, NAV 
  Canada:
    Prepared statement...........................................   155
    Questions submitted to.......................................   177
    Statement of.................................................   153
Crigger, Gary, Executive Vice President, Business and Planning, 
  Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.....................................   548
Cross, Roger, Administrator, Wisconsin Division of Motor 
  Vehicles:
    Prepared statement...........................................   448
    Statement of.................................................   446
Crowe, Robert T., Vice President, Walter Industries, Inc., 
  Birmingham, AL.................................................   585
    Prepared statement...........................................   589
    Statement of.................................................   587

Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority, prepared statement..........  1429
Disabled American Veterans, prepared statement...................  1421
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:
    Questions submitted by............139, 149, 174, 177, 236, 334, 337
    Statement of.................................................   521
Duff, Diane, Executive Vice President, Alliance for Rail 
  Competition:
    Prepared statement...........................................   605
    Statement of.................................................   603
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois, prepared 
  statement......................................................   130

Easter Seals, prepared statement.................................  1461
Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas, prepared statement.  1425

Federal Aviation Administration, questions submitted to..........   713
Federal Highway Administration, questions submitted to...........   807
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, questions submitted 
  to.............................................................   999
Federal Railroad Administration, questions submitted to..........  1040
Federal Transit Administration, questions submitted to...........  1117
Ferro, Anne, Administrator, Maryland Motor Vehicle 
  Administration:
    Prepared statement...........................................   442
    Statement of.................................................   439
Financial Services, Inc., prepared statement.....................  1424
Fleet Reserve Association, prepared statement....................  1407
FlightSafety International, prepared statement...................  1474

Garvey, Hon. Jane, Administrator, Federal Aviation 
  Administration, Department of Transportation..................77, 459
    Prepared statements.........................................92, 472
    Questions submitted to.......................................   139
    Statements of...............................................88, 469
Gorton, Hon. Slade, U.S. Senator from Washington:
    Opening statement............................................    77
    Prepared statement...........................................   317
    Questions submitted by.......................................   252
    Statements of..............................................368, 518
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from Iowa:
    Opening statement............................................    95
    Questions submitted by................................148, 179, 256
Greenberg, Sally, Senior Product Safety Counsel, Consumers Union.   532

Hamberger, Edward R., President and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Association of American Railroads:
    Prepared statement...........................................   627
    Statement of.................................................   624
Harding, Richard, President, Peninsula Airways...................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................    36
    Statement of.................................................    34
Helicopter Association International, prepared statement.........  1486
Herman, Susan, Executive Director, National Center for Victims of 
  Crime:
    Prepared statement...........................................   418
    Statement of.................................................   416
High Speed Ground Transportation Association, prepared statement.  1505
Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina, 
  prepared statement.............................................   129

International Loran Association, prepared statement..............  1484
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, prepared statement  1401
InVision Technologies, Inc., prepared statement..................  1478
Iowa State University, Institute for Physical Research and 
  Technology, prepared statement.................................  1470

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, prepared 
  statement......................................................   131

Kohl, Hon. Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, statements of....190, 369
Kragh, Edward, Newark International Airport Air Traffic 
  Controller, Secretary, Newark Local, National Air Traffic 
  Controllers Association:
    Prepared statement...........................................   497
    Statement of.................................................   493

LaBelle, James D., Chief, Alaska Office, National Transportation 
  Safety Board...................................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................    24
    Statement of.................................................    23
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey:
    Opening statement............................................    79
    Statements of...............................181, 260, 341, 467, 516
    Questions submitted by...........................146, 255, 331, 395
Louisiana Public Transit Association, prepared statement.........  1467
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI), prepared 
  statement......................................................  1416

Maguire, Felix, President, Alaska Airmen's Association...........     1
    Prepared statement...........................................    46
    Statement of.................................................    42
Majerus, Larry, Vice President of Government Relations, Polk 
  Company:
    Prepared statement...........................................   436
    Statement of.................................................   434
Mead, Kenneth, Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, 
  Department of Transportation........................77, 339, 381, 459
    Prepared statements....................................99, 353, 479
    Questions submitted to.......................................   149
    Statements of..........................................96, 350, 474
Memphis Area Transit Authority, prepared statement...............  1460
Metra, prepared statement........................................  1436
Metropolitan Transit Authority, prepared statement...............  1443
Mierzwinski, Ed, Consumer Program Director, United States Public 
  Interest Research Group, statement of..........................   414
Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., U.S. Senator from Maryland:
    Prepared statement...........................................   272
    Questions submitted by...............................325, 332, 1314
    Statement of.................................................   518
Millman, Rosalyn G., Acting Administrator, National Highway 
  Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation....   259
    Statement of.................................................   270
Molitoris, Jolene, Administrator, Federal Railroad 
  Administration, Department of Transportation...................   259
    Biographical sketch..........................................   293
    Prepared statement...........................................   283
    Statement of.................................................   281
Morgan, Linda J., Chairman, Surface Transportation Board:
    Prepared statements.......................................654, 1377
    Statement of.................................................   653
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington:
    Prepared statement...........................................   296
    Questions submitted by.......................................   323
    Statements of..............................................193, 466

National Association of Railroad Passengers, prepared statement..  1510
National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, 
  prepared statement.............................................  1404
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, questions 
  submitted to...................................................  1315
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, questions submitted to..   966
New York State Department of Transportation, prepared statement..  1499
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, prepared statement....  1452
Nojeim, Greg, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties 
  Union:
    Prepared statement...........................................   422
    Statement of.................................................   420
North Carolina Department of Transportation, prepared statement..  1502

Office of the Secretary, questions submitted to..................   677
Ono, Masatoshi, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.:
    Prepared statement...........................................   549
    Statement of.................................................   548

Petrauskus, Helen, Vice President, Environmental and Safety 
  Engineering, Ford Motor Company:
    Prepared statement...........................................   552
    Statement of.................................................   550
Pittle, David R., Senior Vice President and Technical Director, 
  Consumers Union:
    Prepared statement...........................................   536
    Statement of.................................................   532
Plumb, Morton V., Jr., Director, Anchorage International Airport.     1
    Prepared statement...........................................    21
    Statement of.................................................    19
Poe, Patrick N., Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, Federal 
  Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation..........     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Statement of.................................................     6
Poole, Robert W., Jr., President and Director, Transportation 
  Studies, Reason Public Policy Institute, Los Angeles, CA:
    Prepared statement...........................................   160
    Questions submitted to.......................................   174
    Statement of.................................................   158
Port Authority of Allegheny County, prepared statement...........  1463
Professional Airways Systems Specialists, prepared statement.....    63

Regional Transit Authority, prepared statement...................  1465
Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, Nevada, 
  prepared statement.............................................  1427
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, statement of.........   462
Research and Special Programs Administration, questions submitted 
  to.............................................................  1207
Reserve Officers Association of the United States, prepared 
  statement......................................................  1410

Schlafly, Phyllis, President, Eagle Forum:
    Prepared statement...........................................   412
    Statement of.................................................   410
Security Aviation, prepared statement............................    72
Shelby, Hon. Richard C., U.S. Senator from Alabama:
    Opening statements of.........81, 259, 339, 381, 405, 459, 513, 585
    Prepared statement...........................................   514
    Questions submitted by.......................................  176,
179, 227, 322, 326, 333, 377, 392, 399, 677, 713, 807, 966, 999, 1040, 
                                           1117, 1207, 1264, 1315, 1382
Slater, Rodney E., Secretary of Transportation, Department of 
  Transportation, Office of the Secretary........................   181
    Prepared statement...........................................   201
    Statement of.................................................   197
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, questions 
  submitted by...................................................   148
Snowe, Hon. Olympia J., U.S. Senator from Maine, prepared 
  statement......................................................   131
Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, prepared statement...........  1509
Specter, Hon. Arlen, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, statements 
  of...........................................................195, 519
Squaxin Island Tribe, prepared statement.........................  1496
State of New Jersey, prepared statement..........................  1454
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska:
    Opening statement............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Statement of.................................................   194
Stylin' Concepts Corporation, prepared statement.................  1419

Thompson, Hon. Tommy, Chairman, Board of Directors, National 
  Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)........................   339
    Prepared statement...........................................   348
    Statement of.................................................   345
Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority, prepared statement...........  1445
Turner, Frank K., President, American Short Line and Regional 
  Railroad Association:
    Prepared statement...........................................   640
    Statement of.................................................   637

United States Coast Guard, questions submitted to................  1264
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, prepared 
  statement......................................................  1487
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement....  1406

Wardleigh, Tom, President, Alaska Aviation Safety Foundation, 
  statements of.................................................. 1, 40
Warrington, George, President, Amtrak............................   339
Wyant, Bob, Vice President, Quality Assurance, Bridgestone/
  Firestone, Inc.................................................   548

Young, Hon. Don, U.S. Congressman from Alaska:
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Statement of.................................................     3


                             SUBJECT INDEX

                              ----------                              

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Office of the Secretary

                                                                   Page
Acela rail service...............................................   214
Administration of the 0.38 reduction within the Federal-aid 
  obligation limitation..........................................   240
Airline competition..............................................   191
Amtrak.........................................................183, 221
Aviation safety................................................190, 250
Blood alcohol content (BAC)......................................   216
Borders and corridors program....................................   250
Budget authority, revenue aligned................................   184
Civil aviation--Argentina........................................   255
Coast Guard:
    C-130 spares.................................................   236
    Challenges facing the........................................   218
    Cutters......................................................   217
    Missions.....................................................   217
    Operational readiness........................................   212
Colorado Civil Air Patrol........................................   253
Corridors and borders............................................   193
Denver--Southest corridor LRT....................................   255
Discretionary:
    Bridge.......................................................   227
    Projects.....................................................   206
        Earmarks.................................................   227
Economic growth..................................................   200
    Building the foundation for..................................   205
Emergency relief..........................................185, 224, 256
    Highways.....................................................   232
Environment......................................................   200
    For our children, building an................................   205
European Union's hushkit regulation..............................   252
Evaluation and testing, nondestructive...........................   237
FAA:
    Contract towers............................................232, 252
    Cost-based accounting system.................................   238
    Excise taxes and user fees...................................   238
    Personnel and procurement flexibility........................   232
    Professionalism..............................................   195
    Receipts and interest........................................   225
Federal-aid Highway Program--Treatment of 0.38 Reduction Under 
  the Fiscal Year 2000 Omnibus Appropriations Act................   239
Fiscal year 2000:
    Across-the-board reduction...................................   238
    Full funding grant agreements................................   211
Fiscal year 2001 budget..........................................   197
Funding firewalls................................................   208
Gas tax revenues.................................................   187
Great lakes icebreaker...........................................   191
Hazardous materials registration fees............................   235
Heathrow, air carrier access to..................................   216
High-speed rail..................................................   183
Highway funding:
    Redirecting,.................................................   186
    Redistribution of............................................   219
Highway:
    Tax shift....................................................   190
    Trust fund...................................................   189
I-15 design-build project........................................   192
Intercity rail capital, expanded.................................   235
LORAN-C radio navigation.........................................   191
Los Angeles:
    Bus request..................................................   234
    MTA..........................................................   211
Mass transit.....................................................   182
Mississippi Delta and Appalachia...............................187, 220
Mobility.........................................................   199
    Solutions, building innovative...............................   203
Nation secure, keeping our.......................................   206
National security................................................   200
Native American initiative.......................................   236
Nuclear waste....................................................   188
    Rail transportation of.......................................   253
    Transportation...............................................   253
Passenger rail...................................................   213
Pennsylvania projects............................................   196
Pipeline safety..................................................   194
Puget Sound......................................................   193
Radar outages....................................................   196
Rail mergers.....................................................   223
Rail service, timely.............................................   222
Rail signaling systems...........................................   224
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority.................................   250
Safety...........................................................   199
Small Colorado airports, improvements for........................   252
Sound transit....................................................   252
TEA-21...........................................................   185
Train service, rerouting.........................................   222
Transit:
    Full funding grant agreements................................   209
    New starts...................................................   232
Transportation safety record, building upon our..................   202
Transportation System:
    That meets the challenges of the 21st century................   201
    Of the 21st century..........................................   198
User fees......................................................184, 207
Utah valley radar coverage.......................................   193
Volcano monitoring...............................................   195

   DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY INITIATIVES--FISCAL YEAR 2001

Addressing human error...........................................   280
Aggressive driving...............................................   332
Aging population, automotive safety for an.......................   329
Air bag:
    Advanced                                                        272
    Initiatives..................................................   274
    Related adult fatalities.....................................   307
    Rule, advanced...............................................   306
    Test decision-making process, role of the NTSB in the........   328
AIR-21 impact....................................................   325
AirSta Sacramento SAR Case: Lack of readiness may already be 
  costing us lives...............................................   321
Amenities........................................................   318
Aviation:
    Firewall, impact of..........................................   301
    Runway incursions............................................   337
Certification....................................................   324
Coast Guard Strategic Goal: Maritime Safety......................   265
Coast Guard Yard Policy Statement................................   325
Coast Guard Yard--CORE facility..................................   325
Consequences.....................................................   320
Crash:
    Avoidance....................................................   273
    Data, collection and analyses of.............................   332
Crashworthiness..................................................   275
Crossing safety, rulemaking for..................................   286
Database, accident and fatality..................................   305
Deformable barrier, modification of the..........................   330
Fiscal year 2001 initiatives.....................................   271
Four program components..........................................   271
Future challenges................................................   288
Grade crossing:
    Accidents, efforts used to reduce............................   334
    Collisions...................................................   304
    Funds:
        New Mexico...............................................   334
        Under section 130, fiscal year 1998-2000.................   334
    Safety:
        And Trespass Prevention..................................   284
        Managers.................................................   282
Grants...........................................................   323
Hazardous materials..............................................   281
    Program, department-wide review of the.......................   322
    Transportation registration fees.............................   303
Heavy Vehicle Safety.............................................   273
High priority initiatives........................................   301
Highway:
    Fatality trends..............................................   272
    Rail crossing inventory......................................   309
    Traffic safety grants........................................   277
Impaired driving programs........................................   273
Interstate pipelines.............................................   323
Introduction: Differences between Business and Military 
  Measurement....................................................   318
Investigation....................................................   269
Life safety improvements.........................................   308
Locomotive horn ruling...........................................   283
MSIS system......................................................   312
National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS).....................271, 276
National Center for Statistics and Analysis......................   276
National Distress and Response System............................   305
National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center.............   275
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)................................   276
New Mexico, section 130 obligations for..........................   334
Operation Lifesaver..............................................   282
Optempo, Parts, and People.......................................   319
Other safety rulemaking and technology development...............   286
Outside force damage.............................................   280
Partnerships, Amtrak/freight.....................................   315
Periodic inspections.............................................   323
Pipeline safety..................................................   279
Populations, minorities and rural................................   271
Port security....................................................   311
Preventing corrosion.............................................   280
Prevention.......................................................   265
Rail car crash tests:
    Funding for full-scale passenger.............................   336
    Need for future..............................................   335
    Other........................................................   336
    Purpose of:
        Full-scale passenger.....................................   335
        Second passenger.........................................   335
Rail line congestion.............................................   315
Readiness: The Reality Behind the Numbers........................   318
Reauthorization bill.............................................   325
Research and development technology..............................   324
Research--human error: fatigue...................................   281
Response.........................................................   267
Rollover:
    Countermeasures..............................................   329
    Issues, addressing...........................................   311
    Prevention, construction standards for.......................   317
    Propensity:
        Research.................................................   310
        Trucks, vans, and SUV....................................   310
    Standards....................................................   316
Safe:
    Livable communities..........................................   277
    Mobility for an aging America................................   277
    Passages for youth...........................................   271
Safety:
    Mission requires innovation strategy.........................   270
    Statistics...................................................   281
Seat belts.......................................................   274
    Usage........................................................   327
    Use, State survey on.........................................   327
Side glazing, advanced...........................................   326
Speed and aggressive driving.....................................   274
State:
    Cooperation..................................................   314
    Data:
        Collection uniformity....................................   331
        Funds, use of............................................   331
        Program..................................................   331
    Electronic files.............................................   331
Status of Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan Support 
  Proposals......................................................   289
Target populations...............................................   275
Trainset testing, high-speed.....................................   313
Transit crossings................................................   308
Trespasser fatalities, actions in preventing.....................   333
TTC, tests at....................................................   336
USCGC Mackinaw:
    Refurbishing.................................................   325
    Refurbishment decision timeline..............................   325
User fees........................................................   323
Vans may be driven, regulations on how far/long..................   329
Vehicle incompatibility..........................................   316

    IMPLEMENTING THE DRIVERS PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT EXPRESS CONSENT 
                              REQUIREMENT

DPPA compromise its privacy promise, loopholes in the............   423
Driver privacy, additional steps Congress should take to protect.   424
The Driver's Privacy Protection Act..............................   422
    1999 amendments to the.......................................   424
    Questions regarding impact of section 350 in implementing 
      amendments to..............................................   449
Drivers' personal information, abuse of..........................   423
Maryland Privacy Act, fiscal impact of...........................   443
Maryland's:
    1997 privacy initiative......................................   442
    1999 privacy initiative......................................   442

      JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON MODERNIZING THE FEDERAL AVIATION 
                ADMINISTRATION: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

Acquisition and personnel reforms................................   103
Air traffic control outages:
    Pay increases................................................   150
    Recent.......................................................   141
    Reform.......................................................    94
Air traffic controllers pay increases............................   144
Airport movement area safety system (AMASS)......................   147
Aviation:
    Deserve a general fund guarantee while highways does not, why 
      does.......................................................   147
    In the United States and Canada, comparison of...............   175
    Technology and future of.....................................   139
Best structure for the United States.............................   175
Biological contaminant characterization..........................   116
Cabin air quality, actions to improve..........................114, 119
Cosmic radiation exposures.......................................   115
FAA-NIOSH:
    Aircraft cabin exposure assessment study, original...........   115
    Project, participation of other groups in the................   117
Federal Aviation Administration:
    Actions on Aircraft Cabin Air Quality Research Program, 
      report to Congress on the..................................   118
    Financing....................................................   106
    Modernization program........................................   139
    Position on air traffic control restructuring................   145
    Program priority.............................................   145
    Report to Congress on Aircraft Cabin Air Quality Research 
      Program....................................................   113
    Restructuring................................................   101
    Spending off budget, Senate should not take..................    86
Federal Aviation Administration to the United States Congress 
  pursuant to Public Law 103-305, section 304 of the Federal 
  Aviation Administration Authorization, report of the...........   118
Focused on, what we are..........................................    93
Funding for modernization........................................   149
In-flight disease transmission and symptomatology research.......   116
Managing differently.............................................    92
Minimize runway incursions, delayed efforts to...................   146
Modernizing the Federal Aviation Administration: challenges and 
  solutions......................................................    99
Moving aviation trust fund ``off budget'' undermines the budget 
  process........................................................    84
National Economic Council in FAA policy, role of the.............   148
NAV Canada:
    Model in the United States, prospect of the..................   178
    Successes of.................................................   178
    User fees structure..........................................   177
    What improvements in system performance have been achieved to 
      date by....................................................   156
    What is......................................................   155
Non-share Capital Corporation, what is a.........................   155
Non-share Capital model, why did Canada choose to privatize and 
  to pick........................................................   155
Our achievements.................................................    92
Personnel and procurement reforms, results of..................142, 151
Project delays...................................................   148
Research program implementation plans............................   119
Restructuring, IG's opinion on...................................   150
Safety...........................................................   177
Shifting air traffic control to a user-funded corporation........   160
Small and rural communities, access to...........................   178
Technology:
    Ability to keep pace with....................................   149
    Current system and world trend...............................   174
User fee:
    Proposal.....................................................   148
        And cost-based accounting system.........................   145

    OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ALASKA AVIATION ISSUES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Age 60 rule..................................................34, 38, 55
Aging aircraft...................................................    37
Air cargo business...............................................    19
Airport facilities, reliable.....................................    51
Airports.........................................................    37
Alaska:
    Airports.....................................................     7
    Aviation issues for the 21st Century.........................    36
    CAPSTONE.....................................................     5
    State of general aviation in.................................    57
Alaska's:
    Aviators.....................................................     4
    Future, planning for.........................................    59
    Unique needs.................................................    26
Alaskan NAS interfacility communications system (ANICS)..........     5
Anchorage International, needed investments at...................    28
Automated surface observing system...............................     5
Aviation safety initiative.......................................     5
CAPSTONE.........................................................28, 52
    Project......................................................     6
Cargo services/business opportunities............................    21
Commuter rule....................................................    37
DAWN system......................................................    54
Distance plays an important role.................................    62
Eklutna float plane facility.....................................    60
FAA:
    Maintaining an active dialogue with..........................    62
    Oversight and support........................................    52
    Policy, national.............................................    31
Fundamental needs of the future..................................    51
Funding..........................................................    37
General aviation services/business opportunities.................    22
Human factors....................................................    31
Industry:
    Challenges...................................................    50
    Risk management issues.......................................    52
Infrastructure needs.............................................    30
Juneau weather research..........................................     5
Ketchikan flight service station.................................    27
Korean visa waiver requirements..................................    19
Lake Hood float plane:
    Capacity issues..............................................    58
    Facility.....................................................    20
Major issues.....................................................    46
Mike-in-hand.....................................................     5
Mountain pass cameras............................................     5
NTSB:
    Study, actions taken in response to..........................    23
    View of safety progress......................................    29
Older aircraft...................................................    32
Operational risk management......................................    55
Passenger services/business opportunities........................    21
Recognition of guests and appreciation to participants...........    62
Regulatory:
    And safety issues............................................    20
    Initiatives..................................................    36
    Safety.......................................................    22
Responsive efforts...............................................    50
Revilla Corridor exemption.......................................    27
Safety:
    First........................................................    36
    Improvement trend............................................    53
Scheduled service, changing patterns of..........................    53
St. George instrument landing....................................     5
Transportation alternatives, lack of.............................    61
Weather:
    Cameras......................................................     7
    Information..................................................    51

       OVERSIGHT HEARING ON AVIATION CONSUMER SERVICE AND DELAYS

Air carrier flight delays and:
    Cancellations, growth in.....................................   480
    Customer service.............................................   479
Air traffic control:
    Equipment....................................................   499
    Slowdown in Chicago..........................................   509
    System.......................................................   475
Airline:
    Commitment and plans are mixed, preliminary results on 
      implementation of the......................................   482
    Delays.......................................................   493
    Mergers, factors impacting...................................   507
Airport delays...................................................   494
Arrivals and departures..........................................   496
Aviation safety..................................................   470
Concorde accident................................................   504
Consistent and complete data.....................................   476
Crowded skies....................................................   494
Customer:
    Commitment...................................................   478
    Needs, meeting...............................................   479
    Service, merger impact on....................................   509
Delay data.......................................................   499
Delays.........................................................496, 470
    And cancellations..........................................475, 477
        Notifying customers of...................................   478
    Cause and impact of..........................................   504
    Costs of.....................................................   505
Departing times..................................................   502
8.3 percent growth...............................................   499
Flight:
    Cancellations and delays, reporting..........................   501
    Times........................................................   477
Growth in capacity...............................................   499
High speed rail service, use of..................................   503
Measuring performance............................................   476
Modernization....................................................   496
Passenger rights bills...........................................   505
Solutions........................................................   472
Spring/summer plan...............................................   471
STARS at Philadelphia Airport....................................   508
System capacity--Newark..........................................   502
Taxi-out times...................................................   477
2000 supplemental funding........................................   470
Truth, telling the consumer the..................................   500
United and U.S. Airways merger...................................   506
Weather..........................................................   495

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS--FISCAL YEAR 
                                  2001

Acquisition programs.............................................   391
Air traffic control modernization................................   363
AIR-21...........................................................   381
Airport surveillance radar.......................................   403
Alameda corridor.................................................   400
AMASS..........................................................379, 393
Amtrak...........................................................   340
    Acela delays.................................................   377
    Financial viability and modernization........................   365
    Funding......................................................   371
Aviation safety................................................351, 362
Central artery...................................................   388
Clean audit......................................................   359
Coast Guard Deepwater Capability Replacement Project...........350, 366
Commercial driver's license program..............................   401
Computer security..............................................351, 364
Consulting contracts.............................................   384
Contracting FAA functions........................................   386
Cost accounting..................................................   387
Deep water.......................................................   387
Deepwater replacement project..................................379, 394
Departmental management, overall.................................   360
Emergency relief.................................................   383
FAA..............................................................   351
    Financial statement..........................................   394
    Financing and reauthorization................................   363
    Procurement..................................................   391
FAA-NATCA........................................................   389
Financial Accounting/Chief Financial Officers Act................   365
Financial:
    Plans........................................................   402
    Statement....................................................   352
Flight:
    Delays.......................................................   389
    Service station switch modernization program.................   395
Government Performance and Results Act implementation............   367
Governor contributions for rail service..........................   347
Great Lakes icebreaker replacement.............................379, 393
High speed corridors.............................................   346
High-dollar infrastructure:
    Oversight of.................................................   392
    Projects, oversight of.......................................   378
IG flight delays and airline pricing and customer service reviews   358
Infrastructure, surface, marine and airport......................   363
Interstate 15....................................................   400
Los Angeles MTA..................................................   399
Management oversight issues......................................   353
MARAD's ship-scrapping program...................................   350
Megaproject......................................................   401
Mexico-Domiciled motor carriers..................................   401
New York area:
    ATC facilities, controller staffing at.......................   399
    Deployment of new technologies in the........................   398
New York terminal airspace redesign--Newark delay reduction......   396
OIG's:
    1998 list:
        Items continuing from the................................   356
        Of top priority management challenges, changes from the..   354
    Reimbursements...............................................   399
Operational self-sufficiency..............................346, 347, 370
Owner controlled insurance program...............................   402
Procurement reform...............................................   390
Rail passenger service...........................................   345
Reach and connectivity...........................................   373
Ridership interest...............................................   371
Safety and Y2k...................................................   359
Ship Disposal Program............................................   366
Surface transportation safety....................................   361
Terminal voice switch replacement................................   395
Transportation security..........................................   364
Voice recorder replacement program...............................   395
WAAS.............................................................   384
Woodrow Wilson Bridge............................................   400

  OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE FIRESTONE ATX AND WILDERNESS AT TIRE RECALL

Accident data, obligation to evaluate............................   570
Actions we have taken............................................   552
ATX tire recall should be expanded...............................   525
Bridgestone/Firestone aware of defects, was......................   563
Bridgestone/Firestone recall...................................533, 536
Corporate responsibility to public safety........................   573
Criminal prosecution.............................................   543
Customer focus...................................................   553
Defects and recall, foreign countries' response to...............   541
Effective deterrants.............................................   542
Firestone:
    ATX/Wilderness recall........................................   562
    Tires on Ford vehicles in Saudi Arabia.......................   565
Ford Explorer suspension redesign................................   582
Foreign notification unclear, law regarding......................   534
Gag orders, effect of............................................   546
Injury data not recognized, pattern of...........................   538
Inspection and certification, need for effective quality.........   545
Internal defect documentation, request for.......................   571
Investigative procedures.........................................   562
New Mexico Firestone tire accidents..............................   532
NHTSA:
    Budget and authority needs...................................   574
    Defects investigation program................................   526
    Needs additional legislative authority.......................   524
    Proposal on rollover information.............................   537
    Providing documents to.......................................   564
    Requests additional motor safety authority...................   572
    Slowness in responding.......................................   583
Observations.....................................................   563
Overseas actions.................................................   553
Preventive measures, possible....................................   538
Public safety needs to be strengthened...........................   545
Recall:
    Broad enough, is.............................................   539
    Economic impacts of..........................................   581
Rollover:
    Test needed, dynamic.........................................   540
    Testing......................................................   534
Safety:
    Problems covered up..........................................   523
    Responsibility, car manufacturer's...........................   568
    Standards....................................................   526
SUV's:
    And other passenger cars relative safety.....................   567
    Safety of....................................................   544
Tire:
    Manufacturing differences....................................   566
    Safety, public information about.............................   541

          OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FREIGHT RAIL COMPETITION ISSUES

Adequate infrastructure investment...............................   625
Anti-competitive conduct.........................................   672
Board guidelines.................................................   604
Bottlenecks......................................................   588
``Captive shippers'', defining...................................   621
Competition......................................................   596
    In terminal areas............................................   588
Competitive:
    Access, barriers to..........................................   619
    Rail service.................................................   587
Conrail acquisition..............................................   669
CSX..............................................................   670
Customer Service.................................................   633
Existing remedies................................................   634
Facilities, funding to maintain and upgrade......................   639
Integration problems.............................................   670
Intermodal competition...........................................   624
Market:
    Dominance....................................................   588
    Power, competition from countervailing.......................   625
Merger problems..................................................   653
    In wake of major.............................................   648
North Dakota landlocked..........................................   595
Open access......................................................   650
Paper and steel barriers.........................................   597
Paper barriers.................................................647, 649
Rail:
    Oversight system.............................................   603
    Reregulation, the dangers of.................................   635
    Service performance and market share.........................   623
Railroad:
    Competition..................................................   627
    Do not have excessive market power...........................   636
    Investment...................................................   629
    Productivity.................................................   631
    Profitability................................................   632
    Rates........................................................   628
Regulatory environment, current..................................   627
Reregulate railroads, proposals to...............................   634
Retaliation tactics..............................................   604
Safety...........................................................   633
Senate bill 621..................................................   670
Service..........................................................   638
Short line:
    And regional bill of rights..................................   638
    Members......................................................   637
Staggers Act.....................................................   596
Trackage rights and haulage rights...............................   638
Transportation choices, limited..................................   620

